Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House is considering this important resolution, which I have introduced with fire caucus co- chairmen Curt Weldon, Sherry Boehlert and Rob Andrews.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude not only for their hard work and support on this measure, but for their years of dedication and leadership on issues of importance to the men and women serving our communities, and our Country, in the fire service.

I would also like to also recognize the contributions of Hal Bruno and Ron Siarnicki at the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, as well as the United States Fire Administrator David Paulison, for having convened the Firefighter Life Safety Summit that resulted in the recommendations upon which this resolution is based.

Finally, Bill Webb at the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, as he does on so many issues, worked to coordinate the efforts of NFFF, USFA, the fire service organizations and our Congressional offices to make this resolution a reality.

Mr. Speaker, for a number of years, the Congressional Fire Services Caucus has worked with the Nation's fire service organizations to identify and address some of the major challenges facing career and volunteer fire departments across the Country.

Among the results of these efforts has been the establishment and funding of such critical federal programs as the Fire Grants and SAFER.

These programs have resulted in billions of dollars being appropriated to help meet the equipment, training and staffing needs of fire departments in large cities, small towns and rural communities across the Country.

And there is no doubt the dollars provided by these programs have helped save the lives of firefighters and the citizens they protect.

But there is also no escaping the reality that despite the amount of money spent, and the impact of these programs on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of fire departments, we still lose more than 100 firefighters every year to line of duty deaths, so many of which are preventable.

The NFFF and USFA recognized this, and convened the firefighter life safety summit last year, with a goal of reducing firefighter fatalities by 25 percent within 5 years and 50 percent within 10 years.

These are ambitious goals that will only be attained if every member of the Nation's fire service, from the presidents of national organizations to individual firefighters, is committed to implementing the 16 initiatives recommended at the summit, and supported by this resolution.

These recommendations range from developing medical and physical fitness standards for all firefighters to empowering all firefighters to stop unsafe practices.

To highlight the need to adopt these common sense changes, the International Association of Fire Chiefs is leading a national stand down this week, whereby all fire departments are urged to suspend all non-emergency activity and focus on firefighter safety.

This resolution supports this effort, and encourages every fire department to participate in this national stand down in order to raise awareness among our firefighters about the need to take responsibility for their health and safety.

Mr. Speaker, the job of fighting fires is one of the most dangerous and physically demanding activities one can undertake.

The real tragedy is that we have allowed unsafe practices and unhealthy habits to make the job even more hazardous than it already is.

Congress has, and will, continue to accept our responsibility to provide funding for the equipment, training and staffing needs of our departments, but we must insist that our firefighters accept responsibility for making themselves safer on the job.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, our highest duty as Members of this Congress is to ensure our national security, to protect our homeland and to defend our people.

We must use every tool in our arsenal--including military force--to capture, kill or disrupt international terrorists who are intent on striking the United States and our interests overseas. We must do whatever it takes to prevent the unthinkable--a nuclear, biological or chemical attack--from occurring on American soil. We must ensure that the American military remains the finest fighting force in the history of the world. And, we must succeed in Iraq--for the sake of our own national security, the stability of Iraq and the Middle East region, and our global standing and credibility.

This defense appropriations bill will help us accomplish most of our national security objectives, and I will vote for it. It provides $409 billion for defense functions for fiscal 2006, including $45.3 billion in so-called emergency spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan--bringing the total appropriation from this Congress for these two missions to $314 billion.

However, even though I support this bill, I believe it is simply Orwellian to call this new funding for Iraq and Afghanistan an ``emergency.'' Emergencies are unforeseen events that are difficult, if not impossible, to plan for. The idea that this administration cannot predict and budget for the costs of our on-going military efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan is ludicrous.

Furthermore, this budgetary sleight of hand epitomizes this administration's failure to level with the American people on many aspects of this military action, as well as the unwillingness of this Republican Congress to fulfill its Constitutional duty to exercise real, effective oversight on the administration's policies.

We are simply not asking the tough questions that voters expect us to ask on national security. In Iraq, it is obvious that our mission is not accomplished, let alone succeeding. More than 1,700 American soldiers have lost their lives there. Americans account for 85 percent of the coalition forces in Iraq, but represent 98 percent of the casualties.

And, as Tom Friedman wrote last week in the New York Times:

Our core problem in Iraq remains Donald Rumsfeld's

disastrous decision--endorsed by President Bush--to invade

Iraq on the cheap. From the day the looting started, it has

been obvious that we did not have enough troops there.

Mr. Friedman added:

Almost every problem we face in Iraq today . . . Flows from

not having gone into Iraq with the Powell doctrine of

overwhelming force. We cannot even secure the two miles of

highway that separates the Baghdad Airport and the Green

Zone.

Yet, this Congress has not conducted effective oversight on the administration's refusal to heed the advice of senior military officials, who said more troops would be needed to secure Iraq; on the costs of this action; on the incompetent post-war reconstruction effort; or, on detainee abuses in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo.

Effective Congressional oversight need not be adversarial. I believe that every American wants our Nation to succeed in Iraq. But the truth is, this administration has failed to articulate a convincing, compelling success strategy.

And, even as I vote for this defense appropriations bill today, I believe it is imperative that this Congress embrace its legislative duty, work with this administration, and ensure that such a strategy is implemented immediately. Our troops--and the American people--deserve no less.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Tom Friedman's column from June 15 in the New York Times be admitted into the record of this debate.

[From the New York Times, June 15, 2005]

Let's Talk About Iraq

(By Thomas L. Friedman)

Ever since Iraq's remarkable election, the country has been

descending deeper and deeper into violence. But no one in

Washington wants to talk about it. Conservatives don't want

to talk about it because, with a few exceptions, they think

their job is just to applaud whatever the Bush team does.

Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few

exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down

don't want the Bush team to succeed. As a result, Iraq is

drifting sideways and the whole burden is being carried by

our military. The rest of the country has gone shopping,

which seems to suit Karl Rove just fine.

Well, we need to talk about Iraq. This is no time to give

up--this is still winnable--but it is time to ask: What is

our strategy? This question is urgent because Iraq is inching

toward a dangerous tipping point--the point where the key

communities begin to invest more energy in preparing their

own militias for a scramble for power--when everything falls

apart, rather than investing their energies in making the

hard compromises within and between their communities to

build a unified, democratizing Iraq.

Our core problem in Iraq remains Donald Rumsfeld's

disastrous decision--endorsed by President Bush--to invade

Iraq on the cheap. From the day the looting started, it has

been obvious that we did not have enough troops there. We

have never fully controlled the terrain. Almost every problem

we face in Iraq today--the rise of ethnic militias, the

weakness of the economy, the shortages of gas and

electricity, the kidnappings, the flight of middle-class

professionals--flows from not having gone into Iraq with the

Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force.

Yes, yes, I know we are training Iraqi soldiers by the

battalions, but I don't think this is the key. Who is

training the insurgent-fascists? Nobody. And yet they are

doing daily damage to U.S. and Iraqi forces. Training is

overrated, in my book. Where you have motivated officers and

soldiers, you have an army punching above its weight. Where

you don't have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an

army punching a clock.

Where do you get motivated officers and soldiers? That can

come only from an Iraqi leader and government that are seen

as representing all the country's main factions. So far the

Iraqi political class has been a disappointment. The Kurds

have been great. But the Sunni leaders have been shortsighted

at best and malicious at worst, fantasizing that they are

going to make a comeback to power through terror. As for the

Shiites, their spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani,

has been a positive force on the religious side, but he has

no political analog. No Shiite Hamid Karzai has emerged.

``We have no galvanizing figure right now,'' observed Kanan

Makiya, the Iraqi historian who heads the Iraq Memory

Foundation. ``Sistani's counterpart on the democratic front

has not emerged. Certainly, the Americans made many mistakes,

but at this stage less and less can be blamed on them. The

burden is on Iraqis. And we still have not risen to the

magnitude of the opportunity before us.''

I still don't know if a self-sustaining, united and

democratizing Iraq is possible. I still believe it is a vital

U.S. interest to find out. But the only way to find out is to

create a secure environment. It is very hard for moderate,

unifying, national leaders to emerge in a cauldron of

violence.

Maybe it is too late, but before we give up on Iraq, why

not actually try to do it right? Double the American boots on

the ground and redouble the diplomatic effort to bring in

those Sunnis who want to be part of the process and fight to

the death those who don't. As Stanford's Larry Diamond,

author of an important new book on the Iraq war, ``Squandered

Victory,'' puts it, we need ``a bold mobilizing strategy''

right now. That means the new Iraqi government, the U.S. and

the U.N. teaming up to widen the political arena in Iraq,

energizing the constitution-writing process and developing a

communications-diplomatic strategy that puts our bloodthirsty

enemies on the defensive rather than us. The Bush team has

been weak in all these areas. For weeks now, we haven't even

had ambassadors in Iraq, Afghanistan or Jordan.

We've already paid a huge price for the Rumsfeld Doctrine--

``Just enough troops to lose.'' Calling for more troops now,

I know, is the last thing anyone wants to hear. But we are

fooling ourselves to think that a decent, normal, forward-

looking Iraqi politics or army is going to emerge from a

totally insecure environment, where you can feel safe only

with your own tribe.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for yielding, and I am pleased to join so many of my friends from New Jersey who were and are from the State so ably represented for 40 years by Peter Rodino. I note that we are also joined by Charlie Rangel who served side by side with Peter Rodino from an adjoining State and my friends Barney Frank and Howard Berman who have served with such distinction on the Judiciary Committee.

I did not know Peter Rodino well. I knew him. I had the privilege of serving with him. I worked for a United States Senator, first a House Member, in 1962. Of course, Mr. Rodino was here at that point in time. But it was not until some 10, 12 years later that he became the famous Peter Rodino. But he was not necessarily perceived to be famous at the outset.

His father at the age of 16 came from Italy, had come to the United States. Peter was born in a tenement in Newark. His mother died at age 4. I am sure that most Americans hearing that background would not have said to themselves that this young man will grow up not only to be a Representative in the Congress of the United States but also to represent America's most valued principles, America's bedrock commitment to democracy and its commitment to the fact that no individual, no matter how powerful he or she might be, is above the Constitution or the laws of the United States of America.

That in many ways makes us unique. Certainly it makes us different from the autocracies that we see even today around the world. It was Peter Rodino's lot to be called upon to meet the challenge of redeeming once again that promise of American democracy; and short in stature though he may have been, he was tall in stature to meet that challenge. Last month, we lost him at age 95, having served 40 years in this body.

Peter Wallace Rodino ably represented the 10th District of New Jersey, 40 years, 4 decades, a long period of time. He was first elected to the 81st Congress in 1948 and reelected 19 times. I believe the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has been reelected at least 19 times.

Seventeen times. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has been reelected 19-plus times. We all had the opportunity of serving here with Mr. Whitten who was reelected, I believe, 25 or 26 times, served a half a century. Clearly, Peter Rodino was one of the longest serving. But serving a long time in and of itself simply means that you were able to live and to be reelected. Serving well is the mark of one who served our country, and that is Peter Rodino's legacy.

His lead role as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment investigation has been spoken of here, and that is clearly what he will be remembered for. However, he also doggedly, as has also been said, fought for the rights of people, authoring multiple civil rights reports which formed the basis of several landmark civil rights bills.

That was in a time when we recall that the Senate was refusing to pass legislation to outlaw lynching. The Senate just a few days ago apologized for that. The House passed a number of bills, but the Senate failed to pass them. Peter Rodino, even at that time, before it became really popular and the thing to do, was standing tall for the rights of individuals. John Conyers spoke eloquently to that just now.

The son of an Italian immigrant. How proud Nancy Pelosi, herself a child of a famous Italian family, must have felt in rising to speak about Peter Rodino, an Italian who brought luster to his Italian heritage and to his American citizenship and country. He demonstrated extraordinary determination that characterized so many of his generation. Tom Brokaw called Peter Rodino's generation the greatest generation. Peter Rodino demonstrated that both at war and at peace, on the fields of battle in World War II and on the floor of this House, particularly in the 1970s.

For 10 years, he worked days and attended law school at night, graduating from what is now Rutgers law school.

His personal courage, of course, was never in question. He volunteered for service during World War II, as I have said, even though he was too old and could have been exempted. Some lied, of course, and said they were 18 when they were 16 to get in the service. But Peter Rodino, who had served ably at that point in time in his community said, ``send me,'' ``send me,'' to his country.

He served in the army from 1941 to 1946, fighting with the First Armored Division in North Africa and in the home of his father's birth, Italy. He was awarded the Bronze Star, a War Cross, and Knight Order of the Crown from Italy.

His defining moment, of course, as we have all said was 1974, when he stood up for the Constitution, for the American people, for a way of life, for a continuity of government. Judiciary Chairman Rodino demonstrated wise judgment. ``Wise'' has been used a number of times in referring to Peter Rodino. How appropriate.

At a moment of instability and uncertainty for our Nation, which could have been dangerously exacerbated by excessive partisanship or overzealous action, Chairman Rodino brought wise, measured, thoughtful, and honest consideration to this awesome task.

This Nation was blessed by God with Peter Rodino, as God has blessed this Nation with many others at times of crisis to stand and serve ably and wisely.

I want to say to his family that we share their loss, we thank them for his service, and we will remember our dear and faithful, wise and kind, good colleague, Peter Wallace Rodino.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, the question before this House today is not whether the United Nations should be reformed, but how the institution must be reformed. Virtually every Member of the House agrees with this proposition. If the U.N. is going to retain its credibility, it must implement meaningful reform in areas such as budgeting, oversight, and accountability, and certainly peacekeeping and human rights.

We, of course, are not alone in this assessment. The administration agrees. The congressionally established Task Force on the United Nations, which just issued its report on reform this week, agrees. Even top officials of the United Nations agree that reform is needed, and Secretary General Kofi Annan has issued a broad reform agenda.

It is well established, Mr. Chairman, that the U.N. suffers under poor management, low staff morale, and a lack of accountability and professional ethics. Even worse, the organization has been wracked by scandal; for example, revelations of corruption in the Food-for-Oil program in Iraq, and evidence that U.N. peacekeepers sexually abused women and children that they were sent to protect.

However, administrative incompetence and even corruption pale in comparison to the United Nations's failure to act to prevent genocide, most recently in Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo, and, yes, even as we speak in Darfur, Sudan.

Let no one be mistaken, Mr. Chairman, I believe the United States' national security interests are served and strengthened by our active participation in international organizations, including the United Nations, but, Mr. Chairman, we must not flinch from asking, can an organization established to promote tolerance, human rights and the peaceful resolution of disputes long survive when its members cannot summon the will to stop the slaughter of innocent men, women and children, or to enforce resolutions adopted overwhelmingly to achieve international stability and security?

The answer, I think, is self-evident. Specifically, I believe the U.N. ideal is undermined when members refuse to act against an international outlaw such as Saddam Hussein, who flagrantly flouts his obligations under countless Security Council resolutions.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we are mired in a war in Iraq, where the United States is bearing the overwhelming burden to act against an international lawbreaker against whom the United Nations unanimously passed 17 resolutions in 12\1/2\ years saying that he was in violation of the obligations imposed upon him by the United Nations, and which they, in a united way, agreed he had not complied with. As I have stated before, the member states of the United Nations must respond to such defiance with more than mere words. They must respond with action.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the motivation of Chairman Hyde's bill; however, I disagree with its method, an enforcement mechanism that would mandate a 50 percent cut in the United States contribution to the U.N. should the legislation's 39 proposed reforms not be implemented. As Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns of this administration told the Washington Post, this approach would undermine American credibility at the United Nations; it would undermine our, meaning the United States' effectiveness.

In contrast, the Democratic substitute offered by Mr. Lantos is far superior. It maintains, Mr. Chairman, the link between achieving U.N. reforms and withholding a portion of the United States assessed dues; however, critically importantly, it gives the Secretary discretion to make such cuts, rather than mandating them.

As an aside, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that as long as we are a member of the U.N., we have an obligation, a duty, it is in our interest, to pay our fair share. Importantly as well, the substitute provides the Secretary with a waiver to the requirement to veto all new peacekeeping missions or to expand existing missions. To do otherwise, in my opinion, would be a significant mistake.

The Republican bill provides no waiver. In effect, it would block the United States from supporting any new peacekeeping mission, including involvement in a crisis like the one in Darfur, until peacekeeping reforms are completed.

Very frankly, the victims of genocide cannot wait for a recalcitrant United Nations to accomplish those reforms until such time as we act to save lives, prevent dislocation, and maintain the safety and human rights of the inhabitants of some country.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this substitute directs the Secretary of State to withhold 10 percent of our contributions to the U.N.'s peacekeeping budget when the U.N. fails to suspend the membership and act against a member which is engaged in or acquiescing in genocide.

Again, Mr. Chairman, none of us questions the necessity of U.N. reform. Reform is not optional, it is imperative. The underlying bill, however, is an unproductive and harmful response to real problems.

The Democratic substitute, the substitute offered by the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), gives us our best opportunity to strengthen and revitalize the U.N., and I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way, on both sides of the aisle, liberals and conservatives, concerned about both the reform of the United Nations, but also the effective operation of an international organization, our best hope to maintain international law and order, to protect human rights and redeem the promises made when we created the organization we know as the United Nations.

And I thank my friend for yielding the time, supporting this substitute, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) regarding the schedule of the week to come.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. If I may inquire, Mr. Leader, the Labor-Health bill was marked up yesterday, and the legislative branch bill was marked up as well. What days does the gentleman expect those bills to be on the floor?

Mr. Speaker, the Flag constitutional amendment is on the calendar as well. Within the framework of the other bills, would that be left until Friday, or when will that be considered?

Mr. Speaker, reports indicate that there has now been some agreement as it relates to the ability of the national intelligence director to move personnel. That obviously was a problem we had. The gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) did not feel that was appropriate. Apparently, there has been some discussion and that matter has been resolved. Would it be the gentleman's expectation there will be an amendment to the bill because that provision is still in the bill; or do you expect to have a provision in the rule itself which would be self-executing to remove the constraint from the intelligence authorization bill?

Mr. Speaker, what I understand the gentleman is saying is whatever is agreed to by those three will be how it is carried out?

Mr. Speaker, two additional issues: campaign finance legislation, or Pence-Wynn, and CAFTA. Can the leader give us any thoughts as to when those might be considered as it relates to the July 4 break?

Mr. Speaker, lastly, the gentleman from Texas (Leader DeLay) had to leave early right after the votes last week, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and I discussed that I am concerned, the gentleman is concerned, everybody is concerned and everybody is talking about it in the papers, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is still not staffed and unable to proceed. The gentleman has expressed concern that that is the case. We have expressed concern that that is the case.

We believe, Mr. Leader, that under the rules the executive director and counsel need to be hired through agreement by both the Republican and Democratic members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. We believe that is what the rules says.

The impediment it seems, frankly, is that the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is still focused on having his chief of staff, who may be an outstanding individual, no aspersions whatsoever on his character or his integrity in working on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, but he has not been selected in a bipartisan fashion.

Could the leader advise me, the Speaker indicated he thought he ought not to get involved, but we appear to have an impasse. It seems to me as one of the leaders, I would certainly be prepared to work with you, with the Speaker, I think the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) would, in trying to resolve this impasse so we could as an institution select bipartisan personnel that both sides could have confidence in that could then proceed to have an operating, effective Ethics Committee. I frankly hope we could do that. I think both of us and probably the entire institution is frustrated by the fact that we cannot get by this impasse.

It is, however, from our perspective, as the gentleman knows, a very important issue because if both sides are going to have confidence in the impartiality of investigations, of Republicans or Democrats, it will be because both sides participated in and had confidence in those who were selected to, from a staff standpoint, proceed with those investigations.

I would be glad to yield to my friend for his comments.

Reclaiming my time, the leader and I have a different perspective on this. He is correct in that observation. First of all, let me say that clearly the leadership ought to stay out of any determinations or considerations or reference to complaints raised or under investigation or determination by the Ethics Committee. I agree with the leader on that.

I do not agree with the leader on the fact that the leadership does not have a particular responsibility to ensure that the Ethics Committee is operating, is functioning, is performing the responsibilities of ensuring the public that we are maintaining the ethics of this institution and the democratic processes in a transparent and open and honest fashion. That is not any different, very frankly, than the leadership appointing the members of the Ethics Committee. It does not stay out of that. It appoints the members of the Ethics Committee on both sides of the aisle. It, in fact, removes members from the Ethics Committee. The problem has arisen here where for the first time since I can remember as a Member of this House, we have an impasse and a failure to, in a bipartisan fashion, agree on a single director.

Mr. Leader, very frankly, I will tell you that the initial problem was raised and our perspective is that the rules were changed to provide for impasse, for gridlock, where five people could not agree to proceed with the investigation, and it would not proceed. I know we differ on that perspective, but that was our perspective. Frankly, for whatever reasons, we have now gone back to the rules that we believe provide for proceeding with investigations without providing for the possibility of partisan gridlock or partisan veto. If you had codirectors, which is what has been suggested, you have one director for the Republicans, one director for the Democrats, you provide indirectly what you have now abandoned in the rule change that you made in January and gone back to the old rule. The whole purpose of having one director, selected in a bipartisan fashion, I suggest to my friend, was to provide and to have a confidence level in proceeding in a way that would provide for an effective operation of the Ethics Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 163, honoring the Sigma Chi Fraternity on its 150th anniversary.

Like hundreds of thousands of men across the country I am honored to be a member of the Sigma Chi Fraternity.

Although I was a Sigma Chi at the University of Maryland, I share a strong bond with my brothers across the country and around the world, including my fellow Sigma Chi men in Congress. We are connected by the shared tenants of our fraternal organization and we try to live our life by the ``Jordan Standard''--the Cornerstone of the Sigma Chi Fraternity.

Sigma Chi played an important role in my personal development and provided me with relationships that will last a lifetime. These experiences are not unlike the experiences that millions of other men and women have had with their respective fraternities and sororities.

Although sometimes ridiculed, the Greek system on the whole--without question--has made countless positive contributions to society.

Many of our Nation's leaders, from those in business to those in public service, are members of fraternities or sororities, including our current President. The benefits to our communities from these individuals--whose first leadership and service experiences were often through their involvement with the Greek System--are immeasurable.

Furthermore, beyond planting the seeds of leadership, fraternities and sororities compel their members to conduct themselves in accordance to the highest standards of honor, morality, and academic excellence.

Since its inception in 1855 at Miami University in Oxford, OH, Sigma Chi has helped young boys develop into strong, well-rounded, Sigma Chi men. I am proud to be a part of this fine organization and I congratulate Sigma Chi on its 150th year anniversary. May its good deeds and reputation of excellence endure for the next 150 years.

I ask my colleagues to join me and the other original cosponsors, Representatives Gerlach, Farr, Hyde, Oxley, Pickering, Schwarz, Shuster, and Skelton, in support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to submit for the Record the compelling statement of Linda Howard Garrett who gave the valedictory address at the Ann Arundel Community College Commencement Ceremony on May 26, 2005.

Linda is a wonderful and inspiring example of someone who has the will and perseverance to make a brighter future for themselves and their family. Her determination and persistence to go back to school later in life shows that it is never too late to pursue the ``American Dream'' and succeed!

I was proud to join Linda at Anne Arundel Community College's Commencement and am pleased to submit her address for the Record.

Valedictory Address by Linda Howard Garrett

``Good evening, President Smith, Congressman Hoyer,

Trustees, honored guests, faculty, staff, friends and

families, classmates.

If anyone had told me 2 years ago that I would be standing

here tonight, I would have stared in disbelief. It was with

great trepidation that I returned to school after 37 years,

and I wasn't sure I would succeed, much less excel. And yet

here I am--here we all are because of our hard work and

dedication to a goal.

Many people have asked me what motivated me to work so hard

and to remain so dedicated, and as I began to think about

that question, I realized there were several answers.

It helped to know that I was enrolled in one of the premier

paralegal studies programs in the country, and attending Ann

Arundel--a shining star in the Nation's network of community

colleges.

Of course there was my family who inspired me by their

unflagging support--especially my 14-year-old daughter who

temporarily relinquished her self-proclaimed position as

center of the universe and willingly assumed more

responsibility at home because I had a test scheduled or a

paper due.

And the professors who gave so generously of their time and

talents: Professors Kelly Koermer, Robyn Brown, Karen Cook,

Mona Clark, Stanley Robbins, Susan Kilgard, Richard

Faircloth, Sarah Glenn, Cathy Hayes, Sherry Hopkins, Wade

Taylor. I could go on and on as I'm sure each of you could as

you remember those dedicated teachers who were a profound

influence on you.

Sometimes it was a staff member--like Miss Ina in the

Florestano student lounge my first year. Even though she

wasn't officially scheduled to open until 8:30, she was there

every morning at least an hour early, dispensing hot coffee

and encouragement.

Often, it was a classmate: the student older than I--in his

seventies--still seeking knowledge and growth and

intellectual stimulation. Or the 18-year-old who took the

earliest classes available so she could hurry home to care

for her ailing mother. And all of the amazing single parents

juggling families and full-time jobs and still managing to

attend every class, turning in every assignment on time.

But perhaps the most compelling influence was a sense of

history and an appreciation for what many Americans take for

granted. I gained that appreciation while serving for 26

years with the U.S. Army. During that time I had the

opportunity to travel all over the world--from the Far East

to East Berlin. And the more I saw of the world, the more I

came to value the freedoms and opportunities that are

uniquely American. And at no time did I feel that

appreciation more than during a visit to Ellis Island.

Over a hundred years, ago, immigrants poured into this

country seeking a better life. And they weren't satisfied to

just be in America. They wanted to be Americans, and that

meant that they had to learn a new language and a new history

so they could pass a citizenship test. They sought out

classes wherever they could find them--in church basements

and elementary school classrooms and community halls.

So when it seemed he too much effort for me to write

another brief, or struggle to learn the arcane vocabulary of

the law or drag myself to one more early class, I would

remember those immigrants who, after working backbreaking 12-

, 14-, 16-hour days, went willingly, joyfully to class

because they understood that every step toward that classroom

brought them one step closer to realizing the American Dream.

And when I remembered them, I could not dishonor their memory

by turning in shoddy work or failing to fully embrace the

opportunity their legacy provided because from those humble

beginnings an entire system of adult education evolved.

Single scattered classes became

night school and then City College and junior college and

finally the community college, as we know it today.

And although at one time the classes at one of these local

colleges was considered less prestigious than at the four

year colleges, that is no longer true today. In response to a

growing need, as community colleges' facilities and curricula

expanded, so did their reputations. Today, while community

colleges continue to serve those who, because of families and

jobs, need to stay close to home, they also serve those who

recognize that many community colleges provide specialized

programs that rival those available at four-year

universities.

I hope that everyone of you as you go forward will also

look back and remember that you are carrying the torch for

all those educators and students whose commitment and vision

made today's community college a reality. And I hope you will

tell all of your friends and families and neighbors that the

first step toward realizing the American dream begins with an

education, and that a first-class, top-notch education is

accessible in their backyards, right here at Ann Arundel

Community College. I hope that you will never take for

granted the history of freedom and opportunity that mad it

possible for you to take that step. And I hope, as you go

forward, that you will never miss the opportunity to say,

with great pride, as I say tonight, I am a graduate of Ann

Arundel Community College.''

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, am I correct that if the gentleman from Missouri's motion prevails, that we will be unable to discuss the substance of the motion made by the minority leader?

I thank the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring of the majority whip the schedule for the week to come.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

First, if the distinguished whip knows, my presumption is, based upon the schedule that has been submitted, that the probability is we will not have votes on Friday next. Is that a reasonable assumption, do you think, for our Members to make?

Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman tell us, with respect to the appropriations bills, which day of the week, Tuesday and thereafter, you might expect each of the individual bills to come up in particular?

Of course, the defense appropriations bill is of great interest to our Members.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

I note, Mr. Whip, that the intelligence authorization bill, which was schedule to be on the floor today, which had been pulled, is not on the schedule for next week.

That obviously is a very important bill. And it is, I would say to my friend, as I understand it, a bill which has the agreement between the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. So it would seem to be a bipartisan agreement on the substance of the bill. Can the whip tell us when we might see that bill back?

I am sure you agree it is a very important bill, providing for the work of the national intelligence director and providing to make sure that we can keep this country safe from terrorists, and I know that both sides are hopeful that it will come forward pretty quickly.

Can the gentleman tell us when that might be on the floor?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the whip for the information.

It may be helpful to know that I believe on our side of the aisle, we believe that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman's) agreement was appropriate in the sense that the flexibility be given to the National Intelligence Director to provide for the best possible personnel assignment with reference to maintaining our security and intelligence apparatus in the most effective mode would be correct, if that is of any help to the whip as he considers the support that that proposition may have on the floor.

I realize there are those on his side of the aisle who have some concerns about it. I understand that the Secretary of Defense may have some concern about it. But I think, frankly, I would hope that a very substantial majority of the House would agree both with the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the Democratic ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

The gentleman does not have to comment on that, but I thought that it might be useful information for him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

I will ask one more question on the intelligence issue. Does the gentleman know whether the administration is supportive of the position taken by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee or not? Has the administration taken a position on that?

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.

Lastly, we just had a vote on the privileged resolution that was offered by the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). That resolution, as you know, sought to try to move the ethics process forward so the Ethics Committee could do its work. Hopefully, all of us believe that it is very important that the Ethics Committee be able to undertake its work.

I would hope that the majority would take steps to perhaps discuss in a bipartisan way the implementation of

the existing rules which we believe, as you know, require a majority vote for the hiring of a staff director. That is the way it has always been. From our perspective, that is the way it was intended to be. So it would be a bipartisan or, better yet, nonpartisan handling of the responsibility of the Ethics Committee.

I would hope that in the near term, next week and the days thereafter, that we would work together to try to get this moving forward. Because I think it is important to both sides of the aisle, it is important to the integrity of the House, and I think it is important to the American people.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and I have no doubt about his sincerity in that desire. I would simply observe that had we had the opportunity to debate the privileged resolution, which really seeks to redress the House's positions, that perhaps we could have explored more broadly the differences that exist as they relate to the staffing of the committee. Both sides apparently believe that they are correct in their interpretation, but hopefully both sides want a bipartisan and not a partisan staff to proceed with its work.

Unless the gentleman wanted to say something, I would yield back the balance of my time.

I think the gentleman is probably correct, and of course the resolution offered did not resolve the question. We understand that. But I think the gentleman is correct, it would not resolve it any more than the vote on the rules in January resolved the changing of the rules and the feeling that they were not appropriate to provide the context in which we could proceed.

I know that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) very honestly and sincerely, as I do, wants to see this matter resolved and see the committee move forward so it could become a matter of history and not a matter of current debate so we can focus on the important issues confronting this country.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

I thank my friend, and I thank him for the work that he does with the Page Board. His leadership and faithfulness in this effort is very much appreciated, I know, by these young people but appreciated also by the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

I always like to have this opportunity to thank you young people. You have had an extraordinary opportunity which millions and millions of those your age will never have. You have had an opportunity to see firsthand the operations of the people's House, the House that was established by our Founding Fathers to reflect, as they viewed it, the passions of the people from time to time. That is why we have 2-year elections.

That is why the only way you can serve in the House of Representatives is to be elected. You cannot be appointed. You can be appointed to the

U.S. Senate. You can be appointed Vice President of the United States, but you cannot be appointed to the House of Representatives.

You have had an opportunity on a day-to-day basis to help us make sure that democracy works. You may not think of what you did as high falutin and it perhaps was not, but it was critical to the functioning of this House.

I would ask you as you leave here to leave with a sense of responsibility, a sense of responsibility to convey to your classmates, to your friends in your neighborhood, to your future college classes, your future workers, coworkers, and your families and others and your fellow citizens your view of democracy as it is represented in this House. It is, of course, not perfect, because it is, obviously, human beings that participate in this, and as I know all of you know too well, we humans are not perfect.

However, as Winston Churchill said, while it may not be perfect, it is better than all other forms of government that have been tried. And I have been here now, this is my 26th year. You were born during part of my fifth or sixth term in office. As president of the Maryland Senate, I had the opportunity to run the page program in Maryland, and I always hoped that they would go back and say, you know what, they care, they care about our country, they care about us. They disagree. There are deep divisions from time to time, but, for the most part, almost everyone is trying to represent what they believe to be the best interests of their country.

Therefore, you will urge your fellow citizens to participate in the process, as hopefully you will as well. Having more knowledge than they, the more you participate, the better our democracy will be.

So I thank you for your service, not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of the Democratic Members of this House. There is no partisanship in the respect and affection that we have for all of you outstanding young people who make us proud of the generations that are coming and are confident that our country will be better for your future service and your service now.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois for giving me this opportunity, and I thank him for his leadership of this page board. Good luck.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on International Relations, who does such an extraordinary job and who knows firsthand the extraordinarily adverse consequences of racism and anti-Semitism and other ``isms'' wrought against human beings.

I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her sponsorship of this resolution and for her leadership on these issues.

Madam Speaker, intolerance based upon one's religious beliefs, ethnicity and race is a poison that has coursed throughout the body of human history; and it has caused untold pain, suffering and strife. Unfortunately, that is not on the ash bin of history. It is present today.

The Members of this House, the elected representatives of the strongest and freest nation on Earth, have a moral responsibility to expose and combat such intolerance and prejudice wherever it rears its head, whether it rears its head in the United States, in the United Nations, or any other place in the world. That is precisely what this important resolution seeks to do.

This resolution calls on the United Nations to officially and publicly condemn anti-Semitic statements made at U.N. meetings and by U.N. member states. It is to the discredit of the United Nations that anti-Semitism continues to find a forum in that body. This resolution also calls on the U.N. to create worldwide programs about the Holocaust in an effort to reduce anti-Semitism, and it directs the Secretary of State to report on anti-Semitic activities by the U.N. and its member countries.

Let me add, Madam Speaker, that last year I strongly supported language included in the omnibus appropriation act that directs the State Department to report on votes in the General Assembly concerning Israel. I regret to inform you, Madam Speaker, that there are nations, many nations, indeed the overwhelming majority of nations, who fail to support the United States and its positions on Israel more than 10 percent of the time, the majority of nations in the United Nations.

The disturbing, undeniable truth, Madam Speaker, is that rank anti- Semitism continues today in the world body ostensibly dedicated to peace, understanding and tolerance.

Israel, Madam Speaker, is the only member of the U.N. to never have served on the Security Council. It is denied the opportunity to serve on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, while well-known human rights abusers, Syria, Sudan, Libya and countless others, serial abusers of human rights in their own countries, have served on that body. And each year, Madam Speaker, Israel is singled out for criticism nearly two dozen times in the general assembly, each year, while Sudan, who has seen the murder of thousands of people, or Rwanda, millions, or at least over a million, receives not the attention that it should.

Madam Speaker, too many U.N. members believe that they can make anti- Semitic statements and take anti-Semitic actions with impunity. This Nation ought to send a very loud, a very clear, a very definitive message that that is not the case. Anti-Semitism is unacceptable in any corner of the world, in any forum in the world, but particularly so in the forum committed to world peace, to world understanding.

Members who believe that they can act with impunity are wrong, and they must be held accountable. They must know that their anti-Semitic statements and actions not only affect their relationship with this Nation but also eviscerate their credibility in the family of civilized nations.

Again I congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida and the gentleman from California for their leadership, not just on this resolution, Madam Speaker, but every day of every week of every month of every year because that is what it takes to ensure that anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, and every other kind of prejudice and bigotry is rejected in this body and in every place that we find men and women of goodwill.

Mr. Speaker, late last month--on April 25, 2005--the family and friends of Neale Chaney Slater, the community of Mechanicsville, and the State of Maryland suffered a devastating loss when this caring and accomplished young man was struck down just as he was preparing to enter the prime of his life.

WhIle driving out to help a local farmer, Neale, 20 years old, was killed in a tragic two-vehicle accident on Route 5 in Hughesville.

Yet, in such a short period of time, Neale gave so much to so many others.

At the age of 16, Neale joined the Mechanicsville Volunteer Fire Department, and had held the office of assistant secretary and treasurer.

Neale was a Firefighter II and certified emergency medical technician, and was recognized by his peers with the Mechanicsville Volunteer Fire Department as ``Rookie of the Year'' in 2001. He also was awarded Fire Prevention Awards in 2001 and 2002.

``He told me he was following the family tradition,'' said Willie Wilkerson, president of the department, noting that Neale's grandfather and uncle had also been members of the department. ``For such a short life, he got a lot accomplished.''

That, in fact, is an understatement.

Neale was a 2003 honors graduate of the Leonard Hall Junior Naval Academy in Leonardstown, where he achieved the rank of Battalion Commander in his junior and senior years.

He also was awarded Midshipman of the Year in 2001, 2002, and 2003, and was also awarded the Military Excellence, Headmaster's and Loyalty Awards at graduation.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this was an exceptional young man--a young man who envisioned a career in public service early on.

At the time of his passing, Neale was a Cadet in the Maryland State Police, which he joined in 2003. This coming fall, he was set to join the State Police Academy.

Without question, Neale embodied the best this country has to offer through his dedicated public service, his educational achievements, and the respect he had earned from all who knew him.

Neale was held in high regards by the community he served, and rightly so. Colonel Thomas E. Hutchins, Secretary of the Department of State Police, said that Neale was ``a young man with a strong work ethic who was committed to doing his best in every mission he undertook.''

Mr. Speaker, the passing of one's child, particularly one with so much to contribute to his community, his State and his Nation is as painful as it is incomprehensible.

Today, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to Neale's parents, Eleanor Fowler Slater and Austin Joseph Slater, Sr., as well as all of his family members and friends.

I realize that these words are small solace. But I hope the Slaters, in time, find some comfort in the fact that they raised a truly fine young man who will be sorely missed and never forgotten.

The Slaters have established the Neale Slater Memorial Fund in his honor at the Leonard Hall Junior Naval Academy for a graduating senior intending to enter law enforcement.

I know the recipients of this scholarship will always be inspired by the example set by Neale, and the extraordinarily positive impact he had on his community will be felt for generations to come.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this Defense Authorization Act because I believe it provides the critical items necessary for our forces arrayed in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world. I also support the recognition of the pay necessities that confront our people and gives them a raise.

In addition, it provides increases in enlistment bonuses obviously necessary, hazardous duty, and other special pay to improve recruiting and retention, and funding for a number of key modernization priorities that will ensure that our military remains the best-equipped fighting force in the world for decades to come.

I believe many Democrats will vote for this legislation because we are committed to providing our troops with every resource necessary to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan and anywhere else the call to defend freedom takes our men and women in the military.

However, this measure is by no means perfect. First, I would say I was disturbed by the rule. I was particularly disturbed, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), one of the most substantive amendments that was offered, was not allowed by the Committee on Rules. I think it is a shame that we did not have a full debate on the Spratt amendment dealing with proliferation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it highlights the Republican Party's inability to move past the threats of the Cold War to the threats posed by global terrorism and have a full debate on the ramifications of that.

Specifically, this bill underfunds the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which has helped to keep unsecured weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union out of the hands of terrorists. This is the gravest threat that our Nation faces; yet, funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program barely keeps pace with inflation, even though the 9/11 Commission urged that it be expanded. At the very same time, this bill provides billions of dollars for a national missile system that moves forward the process of developing new nuclear weapons. Neither of these priorities helps to protect the American people from a future terrorist attack.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this bill, but it is a shame that we will not have a fuller, effective debate on the grave policies that this bill deals with or fails to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and want to congratulate the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) for her leadership and his leadership on this bill. This is, I think, one of the most important bills that we will consider for the welfare of people not only in this country, but throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear about what this bipartisan, moderate bill would do and not do. This legislation, which has 200-plus cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, would not permit Federal funding for cloning; it would not permit Federal funding to create embryos, nor would it permit Federal funding to destroy embryos.

This important legislation simply expands the current Federal policy of allowing Federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived after the arbitrary date of August 9, 2001, from embryos created for fertility treatment that would otherwise be discarded.

Recall that on that date, President Bush announced that Federal funds would be available to support research on human embryo stem cells so long as such research was limited to existing stem cell lines. At the time it was believed that 78 stem cell lines were eligible. Yet today, as we know, only 22 such lines are available for research, and these lines are aged, contaminated or developed with outdated research. Meanwhile, there are at least 125 new stem cell lines with substantial potential that federally funded researchers cannot use.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, I believe the issue before this House today is this: Will we foster embryonic stem cell research, research that holds great promise for the potential treatment or cure of diseases such as ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other diseases, and offer hope to those with spinal cord injury and other injuries of the nervous system, or will we stand in the way?

I know that the opponents of this bill believe that we are ignoring the ethical and moral implications of such research. I do not share that view. But, in fact, this legislation requires the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health to issue guidelines for ethical considerations; it requires a determination that the embryos would never have been implanted and would have been discarded; and it requires the donor's written, informed consent.

Mr. Speaker, I realize this is a difficult issue for many. It is, however, I think, an issue that the American people have made a judgment on. It is an issue which they, I think, overwhelmingly support. The polls seem to reflect that at least 60 percent of the Americans asked the question support this important effort. They believe it holds promise for them, for their spouses, for their children.

We have talked much about life on this floor. It is important that we do so. It is important that we do so in a thoughtful and principled way.

I believe that this moderate, well-thought-out, carefully constructed bill takes a step that America expects us to take. This is the People's House. I believe the people would have us pass this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the citizens of Israel and the entire Jewish community on this 57th anniversary of the State of Israel's founding, also known as Yom Ha'atzmaut.

For 57 years, the Israeli people have faced persistent challenges and threats, and they have prevailed--and will continue to prevail and flourish--because of their unshakable courage and faith in Israel's democratic future.

Israel is today the only true democracy in the Middle East, and the foundation of her government is similar to our own--freedom of religion, freedom of speech, respect for basic human rights and respect for the rule of law. The American-Israel partnership is unbreakable. We are both nations of immigrants. We are safe havens for the oppressed. We are partners for peace. And we are united in fighting terrorism.

I am pleased that once again this summer I will have the opportunity to lead a delegation of Democratic Members of Congress to Israel. Two years ago, I had the honor of leading the largest Congressional delegation in Israel's history to the Jewish state. And, I believe it is imperative that our newer Members see Israel's security challenges first-hand and gain a better appreciation of her importance to America's national security interests.

I urge my colleagues to support this important Resolution.