Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution, S. Con. Res. 48, supporting the goals and ideals of National Epilepsy Awareness Month.

More than 2.3 million people in the United States have some form of epilepsy. Thirty percent of them are children under the age of 18. About 180,000 new cases of seizures and epilepsy are diagnosed each year. A large number of children and adults have undetected or untreated epilepsy. Yet so many people know very little about the condition, including how to detect it, and how to treat it.

I serve on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee and have long advocated an increased federal commitment for both the research and treatment for adults and children with epilepsy. I have supported greater epilepsy research at the National Institutes of Health to study causes and cures of this neurological condition. I was honored to be a part of establishing the first epilepsy-specific program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And I am pleased that this year the House has provided $3 million for the Health Resources and Services Administration to implement a demonstration public health program to serve people with epilepsy who lack access to adequate medical care. I hope that funding will be included in the final omnibus appropriations bill for this purpose.

While the progress we have made so far in increasing research and improving public health strategies for epilepsy is important, we must also continue to increase awareness and education. By increasing awareness we can affect social attitudes, government programs, and the delivery of health care services for persons currently without treatment. We can improve efforts for prevention and treatment. And perhaps one day soon we can find a cure.

In about 70 percent of epilepsy cases there is no known cause. Of the remaining 30 percent, the most frequent causes are head trauma (such as from a car accident, sports accident, or a fall), brain tumor, stroke, poisoning (including lead poisoning and alcoholism), infection, or maternal injury.

But with treatment, people can achieve full or partial control of seizures in about 85 percent of cases. Drug therapy is often required treatment, and less often, surgery. Dietary changes can also sometimes control seizures.

Improved prevention and treatment is dependent on improved awareness and education.

This week many of us in Congress are discussing the need to provide seniors greater and improved access to prescription drugs. Seniors with epilepsy are no different. They need unimpeded access to, and coverage for, the critical anti-epileptic drugs that treat their condition. Many people with epilepsy are concerned about the availability of all anti- epileptic drug options when enrolling in managed care plans. A Medicare bill that pushes seniors into managed care may not meet the needs of this population. When we consider the Medicare legislation before us, we must ensure that seniors, including seniors with epilepsy, should not be forced to worry about their drug coverage.

I applaud this resolution and support the establishment of an annual Epilepsy Awareness Month.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Agriculture Research Service (ARS) of the Department of Agriculture for 50 years of outstanding research. ARS is the established leader in agriculture science, producing quality research used by many to help create responsible science-based policy. As we prepare to celebrate their accomplishments of the past half-century, it is also an opportunity for us to bear in mind future achievements.

ARS is the largest science organization in the world dedicated to agriculture research. As the Department of Agriculture's in-house agency. ARS conducts research to solve problems that are of high national priority and in the best interests of the Nation. This science is vital to the mission area of several Department of Agriculture agencies such as the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). ARS also serves a number of other Federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and some components within the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Interior (DOI). Not only is ARS responsible for providing data to these agencies, they also distribute information to producers, consumers, and other stakeholders.

It is easy to see that research is an essential tool, but it is also a worthy investment. Federal agriculture research is a critical element in maintaining our competitive edge in the international arena as well as helps us address environmental challenges. We can better protect our resources from plant pests and animal diseases and can expect improved water quality, resource conservation, and renewable sources of energy. The value of these should research programs benefit not only agriculture, but all Americans.

ARS is able to carry out their mission of providing scientific research through collaborative efforts. There are more than 2,100 scientists conducting research at approximately 100 locations across the country and overseas. At any given time, ARS has more than 1,000 research projects underway, each of which is incorporated into one of 22 national programs. The network of laboratories and research centers across the country allows ARS to address problems quickly and efficiently.

I am proud to represent one center that has significantly contributed to this effort, the Beltsville Area Research Center (BARC), located in Beltsville, MD. I have worked with BARC over the years and have witnessed the work these researchers do and how critical it is to our daily lives.

BARC is the largest and most diversified agricultural research complex in the world. Beltsville's record of accomplishments and programs has earned the center international accolade and attracts thousands of visitors each year. Research in the Beltsville area addresses issues of agriculture importance and high national priority through programs in the Plant Sciences Institute, the Animal and Natural Resources Institute, the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, and the U.S. National Arboretum. I am sure BARC will live up to its reputation of producing high quality research on the cutting edge that will propel U.S. agriculture into the future.

We should take great pride for the many milestones that have been met and continue to support ARS and American agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, in 5 days, we will observe the 40th anniversary of one of the darkest moments in American history--the assassination of our 35th President, John F. Kennedy.

President Kennedy stirred the imagination of our Nation and inspired a generation to ``ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.''

Today, Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in honoring a man who answered that clarion call to a life in public service; a man who quite literally was a pillar in President Kennedy's New Frontier; and a man who is one of the greatest public servants in the history of our Nation.

I, of course, am referring to Robert Sargent Shriver, Jr., who celebrated his 88th birthday one week ago.

Sargent Shriver's devotion to this nation--and humanity--sets an example for all to emulate and a high bar that only a few will ever hope to exceed.

A native of the State of Maryland, and in fact a member of one of the Free State's founding families, Sargent Shriver has dedicated his life to improving the lives of others.

A few years ago, Sarge was asked to explain his lifelong commitment to public service. ``I just feel my faith,'' he said. ``A life of service is like catching a disease. In a family it's passed on. . . . Our five children are all involved in service. It's in their veins.''

There is no doubt that this generation and future generations of Americans are the beneficiaries of his life of service.

After graduating from Yale Law School in 1941, Sarge enlisted in the Navy, where he received the Navy Unit Citation and the Submarine Medal for service in both the Atlantic and Pacific.

After World War II, Sarge accepted a position as assistant editor with Newsweek magazine. He later went into business with Joseph Kennedy, President Kennedy's father, and met Eunice, his wife of more than 50 years.

Sarge than moved his family to Chicago, where he served on the Board of Education. In 1956, he was elected President of the Board, the youngest person to serve in such a position in any major American city.

And in 1960, he joined the Presidential campaign of then-Senator Kennedy. After the election, he was asked by President Kennedy to create the Peace Corps and in March 1961 was appointed its founding Director.

Sarge's vision for the Peace Corps was straight-forward and strong: ``to permit Americans to participate directly, personally, and effectively in this struggle for human dignity.''

In nearly 6 years at the Peace Corps, Sarge developed programs in 55 countries with more than 14,500 volunteers. Forty-two years later, the solid foundation that he created has only strengthened and expanded. Today, 163,000 Peace Corps volunteers have served in 135 countries.

However, while Sarge is rightly identified as the founding father of this great American idea, his contributions to the Peace Corps do not tell the whole story.

Sarge also served as the first Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity under President Johnson. Then, between 1964 and 1968, he created VISTA, Head Start, Community Action, Foster Grandparents, Job Corps, Legal Services, Indian and Migrant Opportunities and Neighborhood Health Services.

And, then, from 1968 to 1970, he served as U.S. Ambassador to France, before being

nominated in 1972 to serve as the Vice Presidential candidate on the Democratic Party's ticket with George McGovern.

Few Americans have given so much to help so many. Yet, in the twilight of this incredible life, Sarge and Eunice continue to give.

To call this record of public service exemplary is a vast understatement. Words cannot adequately convey the decency and humanity that has been brought into the lives of millions worldwide through the work of Sargent Shriver--international lawyer, ambassador, humanitarian. His life's work shall live on long after this and succeeding generations have passed the torch of public service to their progeny.

``Serve, serve, serve,'' Sarge was know to say, ``because in the end it is the servants who save us all.''

Mr. Speaker, today, I honor a great American and wish him only the best, and I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this Resolution recognizing Sargent Shriver.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us is one I will support. It will provide adequate pay, housing and training for the men and women serving our country on active duty and in the Guard and Reserves. It funds important modernization priorities that will ensure that the weapons systems with which we equip our troops are the most advanced and capable in the world for years to come.

However, the report is not perfect. I am disappointed by the way in which the conference report treats civilian employees of the Department of Defense. Simply stated, the report will strip more than a third of our Federal civilian employees, over 700,000 hardworking men and women, of their most basic worker protections and rights.

I am sorry the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) left the floor. He indicates 71 and some of the other articles that protect Federal employees will not be waived. That is technically true, but the bill allows them to be suspended for the next 10 years. So although they technically cannot be waived, they will not be in effect at the decision of the Secretary.

Let me be clear. I am not opposed to thoughtful reform of our civil service system. However, the report goes too far. It will undo decades of some of the most important worker protections enacted by Congress and supported for decades by Republican and Democratic Presidents alike.

Notwithstanding these concerns, Mr. Speaker, I will support this important agreement. I expect it to pass by a wide margin with broad support from both House Democrats and Republicans who stand squarely behind our troops and in favor of protecting our national security.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for the purposes of informing us of the schedule for next week and, perhaps, the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am not sure by the announcement regarding next week's schedule. Is it the gentleman's expectation that we will be in next Friday or not?

I yield to the gentleman.

All right. So we will be off Friday. Now, is the gentleman pretty definite on the following Monday that we will be in at 6:30 as opposed to the normal Tuesday?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader. Last week we passed a continuing resolution until November 21. The gentleman did not indicate in his discussion of the schedule for the next 2 weeks the balance of appropriations bills that are pending, nor did he mention an omnibus appropriation bill. Can he clarify and give us his best thinking at this point in time as to where we are on the CR for November 21 and being able to leave on November 21? I know the gentleman mentioned the possibility of being here on Saturday, November 22. And does the gentleman expect any appropriations bills other than the energy and water, which he did reference would be on the floor either next week or the following week?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that information. If that occurs, as the gentleman says may happen, if that occurs, can you give us your current thinking with reference to the date to which a further continuing resolution would be targeted?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, the FSC bill, Foreign Sales Corporations Extraterritorial Income legislation, you did not mention that. Can you tell me when or if you expect that bill to come to the floor? I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, we too are concerned about the WTO's finding of noncompliance and the EU's assertion that if we do not act by the end of the year they are going to act. That is a $4 billion item possible cost to this country.

My understanding is the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has a bill. As the gentleman knows, there is an alternative available which, I think, frankly enjoys bipartisan support, at least the letters that are being sent around to colleagues would indicate that. In light of the fact that we want to pass legislation, Mr. Leader, can you assure us that the Crane-Rangel-Manzullo alternative would be allowed as a substitute to that piece of legislation to assure that we could, in fact, pass something?

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

With respect to the Labor-HHS-Education bill, which is the largest appropriation bill, as the gentleman knows, that still is outstanding, do you expect that we will have a freestanding conference report on that bill, or do you expect it to be rolled into an omnibus?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the majority leader knows, there is substantial concern on this side of the aisle in this part of the House that some 206 or more districts, perhaps, will be left out of this bill in terms of consideration for individual

education and/or health projects. I want to express our great concern about that. There has been a lot of discussion about it in the press, a lot of discussion about it on the floor. The gentleman does not necessarily need to comment on it, but I want to emphasize to him the great concern that we have, as two people who have served on the Committee on Appropriations. The majority leader is not on the Committee on Appropriations now, but he has served on that committee. I am not sure he has been on there 2 decades, but a long time. If that occurs, in my memory that would be the first time.

Now, of course when Mr. Natcher was the Chair, there were no specific projects delineated for individual districts listed in that bill. But from the time that that started to be done in the mid-90s, this is the first time that I can recall on this bill or any other bill, that there has been a blanket preclusion of over 200 districts from participation in the investments made in those bills in the welfare of the American people. So I want to express that. The gentleman does not need to respond to that. I will yield to him if he wants to make a comment. He does not need to respond, but I want to reiterate that.

Mr. Leader, on the conference report on energy, I also want to ask you about the labor-health because of the magnitude of these bills.

The energy bill, obviously, is a major piece of legislation, an important piece of legislation. For the past several weeks you and I have been talking about conferences. You indicated this bill is coming to the floor. I again bring to your attention, Mr. Leader, that our Members appointed by the Speaker to the conference have no knowledge of a meaningful conference having been held on this bill. They do not have any meaningful knowledge of what might be in the bill.

That is true as well, I will tell the leader, of the labor-health bill. I am a conferee on the labor-health bill. I have received no notices of meetings. I have attended no meetings. I have learned of no meetings with respect to that bill. The lack of the ability of Democrats to participate in these conferences, again, I tell the leader from my perspective, is unprecedented. It is certainly not unprecedented when Members meet with them. One side of the aisle would talk about their strategies, their priorities, their objectives. But, historically, when conferences have met, both sides have been invited to attend. There has been discussion about issues.

The energy bill which is contemplated to come to this floor next week, I tell the gentleman, our side does not perceive that has happened. They have not participated. And I know that there has been a pledge that the conferees will at least, even though they are not participating, not invited, not able to articulate their view, will at least get 48 hours receipt of the conference report for the opportunity to review it for 2 days before it comes to the floor.

I ask the leader in the case of the energy bill, will that be the policy on this side of the aisle and, therefore, if the energy bill is coming on Wednesday or Thursday, will the conferees receive at least a copy of the conference report no later than Monday?

Reclaiming my time, the key phrase there, Mr. Leader, is should a conference be required. You are having meetings. We know that. You are having discussions. We know that. I reiterate again, notwithstanding all your numbers there, the Democrats are not included.

I will tell the gentleman further, as he knows, that in the other body the bill that passed the Senate was the Senate-passed bill from last year. Senator Domenici, who is one of the conferees on the floor, said we are going to substantially rewrite this bill in conference. So the debate on the floor seemed somewhat irrelevant. It was a device to get them to conference.

So this conference, more than some others where real bills were passed in both Houses, is a very important venue for the formulation of policy. Democrats are not being given access to those considerations in a full manner. But I am pleased, Mr. Leader, that 48 hours prior to the conference meeting, that we will be getting, whenever that may occur, that we will be getting a copy of the marked up proposal so that we can consider that, digest it, and bring our views to the conference.

I assume, Mr. Leader, that that conference will be unlike the FAA conference to which this body recommitted a bill, which never met as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) pointed out on the floor, it never met, and as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has lamented and, as a result, you have to waive the rules.

Mr. Leader, with respect to Medicare, we are in the same position. Do you expect the Medicare prescription drug bill to be on the floor any time in the next 2 weeks?

I thank the gentleman for his observation; but, Mr. Leader, let me say something. Really what you just said is the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is meeting with all those who seek to improve the legislation. Improvement, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. There are 435 Members elected to this House, Mr. Leader, as we all know. Their perspective on what improves or harms legislation differs, sometimes very substantially. But

our Founding Fathers, Mr. Leader, formed a House representing a diverse American public, from many regions of this country, many areas of every State. Every State has differences within that State. My State does. Your State does.

To say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is only going to talk to those that he perceives as interested in improving that legislation is to say that a bill that passed this House by one vote after the roll was kept open for some 45 minutes is to say that at least half of this House will be excluded.

Mr. Leader, that is not in my opinion and in the opinion of this side of the aisle, and I believe in the opinion of the American people, the way they expect this House to run. It is not the gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) view of what improves or does not improve this bill that counts. It is each of us who are elected to represent our constituents and put on the table the alternatives we believe improve that bill. They ought to be considered. We do not believe that is being done, Mr. Leader.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, you and I may have a different perspective obviously. You recall, as I have discussed in the past, the Patients' Bill of Rights. Everybody was for the Patients' Bill of Rights. In fact, in the 106th Congress, as the leader will well recognize, when he was the whip and responsible for counting votes, the Patients' Bill of Rights passed this House with over 250 votes of people who saw it in a way that ought to pass, ought to be the law of the land.

As you will recall, the Speaker appointed eight out of the nine Republican conferees who had opposed the bill. Now, maybe that is the way the House in your recollection has always worked where 250 people vote for something. It never came out of conference, not surprisingly, when you had eight out of nine of the Republican conferees in the majority that opposed the bill that were in the conference. So apparently if it is on your side of the aisle and you oppose something, locking it up in conference is okay. If you are on our side of the aisle and you want to see a Patients' Bill of Rights or you want to see a Medicare prescription bill and you want to see a prescription drug bill that does not eliminate Medicare, that provides for affordable and accessible health care at a price that can be afforded by all of our seniors, then somehow you are perceived as not wanting to improve the bill and, therefore, is not worth being included.

As you know, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), one of the senior Members of this House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) tried to have arrested not too long ago and thrown out of the Committee on Ways and Means by the Capitol Police.

You will recall that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has now gone to where the conferees, theoretically, were meeting and was asked to leave. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, one of the seniors.

Now, I will remind the chairman that Mr. Rostenkowski chaired this committee and invariably made sure that Republicans were, in fact, included, and invariably when bills came to the floor, he had Republicans supporting those bills and they worked with him. And you will recall that he worked with the President of the United States when we were in the majority to pass the 1986 tax bill. So that may be your recollection, Mr. Leader, of how the House runs.

Reclaiming my time, I agree with the leader. We disagree. Our recollections are not the same. Our experiences are not the same.

Now, I have been here a little longer than the leader, but we have both been here a long time, and when we were in charge you complained as well. Therefore, you can empathize, as you say, with the pain that we feel in the minority.

But it is not the pain that we feel is so important, we want a bill. We may want a slightly different kind of bill than we think that the majority will report out on prescription drugs, but we want a bill. And the people who supported us want a bill, and they may want a bill that is slightly different; and democracy works when all sit down together and discuss their perspectives and try to forge a bill which accomplishes their objective. I do not think we are doing that. I lament that, and I do not think it is in the best interests of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, it is not in the quality of legislation that both the gentleman from Texas and I want to pass, even if we see that quality somewhat differently. I thank the gentleman for the information he has given us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to the distinguished whip of the Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues, in my opinion, should review the work of Sir Isaac Newton. It was Newton, after all, who wrote 4 centuries ago: to every action, there is always opposed an equal reaction. Today we are seeing that principle play out right before our eyes.

Earlier this year, the majority party enacted its third tax cut in 3 years, the most recent one giving America's millionaires an average tax cut of $93,500. And what do we suppose is the reaction to that action? Underfunding the No Child Left Behind Act by $8 billion? Yes. Cutting heating assistance for our Nation's poor? Certainly. And the smallest percentage increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health in 18 years? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is true.

The 2.5 percent increase for NIH in the House-passed version of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bill, which is the same increase proposed by the Bush administration, pales in comparison to the 15 percent annual increases NIH has received in recent years under our bipartisan program to double the medical research budget. I would say, parenthetically, we actually did not do that. The number got to a double, but because we added $1.7 billion in additional responsibilities for our biomedical terrorist research, actually we did not reach the double. But the proposed 2.5 percent increase for NIH fails to keep up with inflation in research costs and will not allow for any real increase in research efforts. In other words, this is a retreat.

This appropriation even fails to provide funds to complete the John E. Porter Neuroscience Research Center, which is now under construction on the NIH campus.

Mr. Speaker, the 3.5 percent increase for NIH in the Senate is certainly preferable to what this body passed. But even that 3.5 percent increase would fail to cover the cost of renewing ongoing grants at committed levels and would barely keep pace with inflation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important motion that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) has made to instruct offered by our side of the aisle, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) in particular, to insist on the highest funding levels possible for NIH. We should not permit, Mr. Speaker, tax cuts for the most affluent Americans to squeeze out funding for research on Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, and a host of other health concerns that affect the American people.

Isaac Newton was correct. For every action, there is an opposite reaction. Cutting NIH is that reaction.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by Mrs. Lowey to accept the Senate's level of funding for the U.S. contribution in fiscal year 2004 to global programs to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Speaker, this should not be a difficult motion for Members on either side of the aisle to support.

It simply calls for the adoption of a funding level for HIV/AIDS programs that was supported in the Senate last week by a vote of 89-1.

Furthermore, it does not even reach the authorized level of funding that was signed into law by the President and supported by 375 Members of this House in May.

In fact, the President during his State of the Union Address committed $15 billion in foreign assistance spending over 5 years to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. Congress has since authorized this level through the enactment of H.R. 1298.

Regrettably, the President's budget did not call for the full $3 billion authorized for FY 2004, and the amount provided in the House version of the fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations bill falls woefully short of that $3 billion which is necessary to begin making good on our commitment.

Mr. Speaker, the problem of HIV/AIDS is especially acute on the Continent of Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, where 29.4 million people are living with HIV and AIDS.

Put another way, while the African Continent accounts for only about 10 percent of the world's population, more than 70 percent of the worldwide total of infected people reside there; and there are 11,000 new infections in Africa every day.

Earlier this year I had the opportunity to travel to South Africa and saw first hand the extent of the pandemic, the challenges facing African countries as they attempt to deal with this scourge, and the dire need for economic assistance to implement prevention programs and to provide treatment for those already infected.

We are at a crucial stage in the global war against HIV/AIDS, with the number of worldwide deaths expected to double from last year's estimate of just over 5 million to nearly 12 million next year.

To those who would argue that we cannot afford the additional funding provided in the Senate bill, I say that even this level is still not enough.

Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to help stop the spread of this HIV/AIDS, to provide comfort and relief to those already suffering its effects, and to give hope to millions around the world who live in despair because of this horrible disease.

Our compassion and morality command that we seize that opportunity and live up to the commitment we have made.

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

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once remarked, ``An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.''

Today as we note the untimely passing on Sunday afternoon of our friend and former colleague, Indiana Congressman Frank McCloskey, who lost a year-long battle with cancer, let it long be remembered that this Hoosier embraced not only the important concerns of his constituents in southwest Indiana, but also the broader concerns of all humanity.

In the early 1990s, I worked very closely with Congressman McCloskey and others to call attention to the atrocities and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic and his henchmen in Bosnia. Many in the international community, indeed many in this country, looked away. Frank McCloskey did not.

A fact-finding trip to Bosnia in 1991 stirred and galvanized Frank's passion. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congressman McCloskey was among the first in Congress to call for air strikes against Serbian positions in Bosnia- Herzegovina from which Bosnians were being shelled and murdered. Frank urged that Slobodan Milosevic be tried as a war criminal, which now is happening. He and I worked to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia, and he was not shy in criticizing the Clinton administration when he disagreed with its handling of that conflict.

Mr. Speaker, political expediency practically demanded that Frank McCloskey focus on shoring up his position in the 8th Congressional District. As is well known, he won his first election to this body in 1984 by four votes. But in spite of the fact that he won six congressional races in one of the most competitive districts in America, political calculation did not crowd out the humanity in Frank McCloskey's heart. He was commanded by conscience to do what he believed was right.

Frank McCloskey lived a full life serving in the Air Force, working as a newspaper reporter, and serving as Bloomington's mayor for 10 years before he was elected to this Congress.

Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by quoting John Kennedy who inspired Frank and inspired many of us in this body. Kennedy said: ``I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, human liberty as the source of national action, the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas.''

Mr. Speaker, those were words that Frank McCloskey lived by. We mourn his loss and offer our condolences to Roberta, his wife of 30 years, and his two children, Helen and Mark, as well as his family and many friends. Frank McCloskey made this a better body. He made this country better. We mourn his loss.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once remarked that: ``An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.''

Today, as we note the untimely passing on Sunday afternoon of our friend and former colleague, Indiana Congressman Frank McCloskey--who lost a year-long battle with cancer--let it long be remembered that this Hoosier embraced not only the important concerns of his constituents in southwest Indiana but also the broader concerns of all humanity.

In the early 1990s, I worked very closely with Congressman McCloskey and others to call attention to the atrocities and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic and his henchmen in Bosnia.

Recall that as the former Yugoslavia disintegrated and Milosevic trained his fury on Bosnia, millions were displaced, hundreds of thousands were killed, and tens of thousands were raped and tortured.

Many in the international community--indeed many in this country-- looked away. Frank McCloskey did not.

A fact-finding trip to Bosnia in 1991 stirred and galvanized Frank's passion, which, as the Indianapolis Star said on Monday, dominated both the twilight of his life and his political career. At the time of his death, he was the Director of Kosovo Programs for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, where he taught leaders how to govern democratically.

Back in the 1990s, as a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, Congressman McCloskey was among the first in Congress to call for air strikes against Serbian positions in Bosnia- Herzegovina. He believed such strikes were needed to prevent hostilities from spilling over to Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and other provinces.

Frank urged that Milosevic be tried as a war criminal, which now in fact is happening. He and I worked to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia. And he was not shy about criticizing the Clinton administration when he disagreed with its handling of the conflict.

Mr. Speaker, political expediency practically demanded that Frank McCloskey focus on shoring up his position in the Eighth Congressional District. As is well know, he won his first attempt at re-election to this body in 1984 by four--yes, four--votes.

But in spite of the fact that he won six congressional races in one of the most competitive districts in America, political calculation did not crowd out the humanity in Frank McCloskey's heart. He was commanded by conscience to do what he believed was right--for his constituents, for his nation, and for humanity, too.

Mr. Speaker, Frank McCloskey crowded an enormous amount of living into his 64 years. He served our Nation for 4 years in the Air Force; graduated from Indiana University with bachelor's and law degrees; worked as a newspaper reporter in Chicago, Bloomington and Indianapolis; and served as Bloomington's mayor for 10 years before being elected to Congress.

Still, though his contributions were many, one cannot help but think that they would have been even greater had he been given the gift of more time in his life.

Let me close by quoting John F. Kennedy, who inspired Frank McCloskey, as well as myself: ``I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose,'' said President Kennedy, ``Human liberty as the source of national action, the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas.''

Mr. Speaker, those were words that Frank McCloskey lived by.

We are all the beneficiaries of his tireless efforts on behalf of human rights and basic dignity.

As we mourn his loss and honor him by naming this post office in his honor, I want to express my sincere condolences to his wife of 30 years, Roberta, and his two children, Helen and Mark, as well as his family and many friends.

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

Let me start, as we start almost every one of these discussions, with the expression of respect and affection for the gentleman who chairs our committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), one of the best Members of this House. We disagree, obviously, from time to time on issues, but he is a gentleman who runs his committee and leads, to the extent that he can, this institution in a fair manner.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, because perhaps above his pay grade we have not seen the same kind of fairness extended and the same kind of adherence to good order that ought to happen. My distinguished friend says sometimes below his pay grade perhaps we do not find that either.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress seems destined to end the first session of the 108th Congress in the same hapless and undemocratic way in which we began it. One of our first acts this year was to pass an omnibus appropriations bill on February 13 that wrapped up 11 of the 13 annual spending measures for fiscal year 2003 in one piece of legislation. It was bad enough that we could not finish our work on time and had to pass that omnibus bill 4\1/2\ months, a full third of the year, after the start of the fiscal year. But what was even worse was the fact that the Republican leadership dropped that 3,000 page bill on the Members and forced them to vote on it within a few short hours, a 3,000 page- plus bill.

As I said back in February, that was the worst appropriation process that I had seen in 22 years in this body. That was not the desire of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) nor the result of his leadership.

However, we now seem determined to outdo ourselves once again. Here it is, November 5, and only 3 of the 13 annual appropriations bills have been signed into law; Defense, Homeland Security and the Legislative Branch. Another spending bill, Interior, awaits the signature of the President. This body today will consider the conference report on the fifth, Military Construction. At least four other spending bills, however, are likely to be included in a year-end omnibus, Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-State, District of Columbia and VA-HUD, and three others are theoretically, Mr. Speaker, theoretically, in conference; Energy and Water, Transportation-Treasury and Labor-HHS- Education.

I will say, since this was written, it is my understanding there is actually, shockingly, a conference being held on Energy and Water. How do I know? Because the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) told me he was going to one. So I am very pleased to see that. I am convinced if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) were making the decisions, we would have full conferences on every bill that is pending.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is none, as far as I know, except a motion to go to conference on Foreign Operations which was approved this morning, so we cannot really hold them accountable yet.

Mr. Speaker, I am a conferee, duly appointed by Speaker Hastert, on two of those bills allegedly in conference, Transportation-Treasury and Labor-HHS. But let me say, if there are conference meetings going on today or in the past or in the future, I have not been notified of those hearings. I have not attended any. I do not know where they are occurring. I have not had an opportunity to have any input, nor have the 662,000 people that I represent had a voice in those conferences.

Either no meetings are being held, or duly appointed conferees on our side of the aisle are being purposely, deliberately, undemocratically excluded.

This House passed the Labor-Health bill on July 10. The Senate passed its version nearly a month ago, on September 10. When and where are the meetings, Mr. Speaker? Why are the conferees being deliberately excluded? I have asked the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that, and he assures me that we are having ``conferences of the willing.'' I presume that means conferences of those who agree. But the voices of dissent or difference are stifled, ignored and shut out.

This House passed the Transportation-Treasury bill on September 9. The Senate passed its version 2 weeks ago tomorrow, October 23. Are we meeting on that bill? I have no notice of it. If we are, why are conferees on our side of the aisle, appointed by the Speaker, being deliberately excluded from those meetings?

Mr. Speaker, let us face the facts: This leadership is rendering conference committees absolutely meaningless. That is a corruption of the processes of this House. It is a corruption of democracy and the people we represent in this, what we call proudly, the People's House. I do not believe that it is the policy that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) would pursue if he were making the decisions.

I have served, Mr. Speaker, on the Treasury and Labor-Health- Education subcommittees for more than 21 years. I am not a new kid on the block. I am used to being included in conferences. I can never remember a time when Democrats controlled the majority, Mr. Speaker, that we failed to hold real conferences on appropriations bills.

The distinguished gentleman from Florida, my friend for whom I have unlimited respect and affection, he and I have participated in numerous conferences on the Labor-Health bill that went for days, sometimes weeks. I can remember an extraordinary, historic debate between Senator Byrd and Bill Natcher on a very important provision of our bill that went on literally for days. They had a disagreement. They talked about it in conference. Reporters could see it, the public could see it, Members could see it.

There are no conferences that the public can see. There are no conferences the press can report on. Whatever is being done, is being done in secret, undemocratically, unfairly, and it demeans this institution, Mr. Speaker.

There are other conferences other than the Committee on Appropriations. There have been no real conference committees on two of the most important pieces of legislation still facing this Congress, on adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and on comprehensive energy reform.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House of Representatives, serving on this floor longer than any other Member, has been excluded from the conference to which the Speaker appointed him.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), third or fourth in seniority in

this House of Representatives, excluded from the conference on prescription drugs. He, however, heard there was a meeting. He went to the meeting. He went through the door, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said, ``You are not welcome, Mr. Rangel. This is only a meeting of the willing. No dissent is allowed in this room,'' except if you happen to be a Republican on the other side of the Capitol, in which case maybe we have to talk to you. But, then again, as we know, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Grassley apparently feels in effect he is shut out.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is absolutely outrageous that Congressional Republicans are considering across-the-board cuts to cover a $3 billion gap, we hear, between House and Senate spending bills. We have not been asked, however, to participate in a conference in which you may make the decisions on what to cut.

In the last 7 months, this Congress has passed two emergency supplemental appropriations bills totaling $166 billion. There was zero, none, no debate on how we would pay for those.

There was a bill pending in which the Committee on Ways and Means wants to add $60 billion to the debt confronting this country. No question about how it is going to be paid for, it will just be passed. And yet we worry about how to pay for some $3 billion for election reform, for veterans health care and for money to combat global HIV- AIDS, and how to provide $400 million to the Forest Service so they can fight devastating wildfires in the Interior bill.

Mr. Speaker, if this process were being run by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), you would find the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I standing here and saying we may disagree on this item, that item or the other item, but we have had a fair opportunity, as he gives us in every committee meeting, to state our points, to offer our amendments, to vote. That is not happening. It is not the gentleman from Florida's fault. The leadership of this House demeans the House by not providing for those procedures.

Mr. Speaker, it's with great regret that I come to the floor today to note the untimely passing on October 22 of Corinne Michel, a friend of so many of us privileged to serve in this House, and the wife of former House Minority Leader Bob Michel of Illinois.

As Mike Johnson, a former Chief of Staff for Bob Michel, told Copley News Service: ``[Corinne] was never affected by all the limelight. Bob used to say people in politics have their feet planted in midair. Hers were always planted firmly on the ground.''

And as Millie Arends, the city treasurer in the Michel's home city of Peoria, Illinois, noted: ``She was well-read on everything. Her husband said she was one his best assets.''

Corinne Michel was born in Onida, South Dakota, and was raised in St. Paul, Minnesota, Pittsburgh and Peoria, Illinois, where her father managed the Livestock Market News. In 1943, she graduated from Peoria High School, and then met Bob when the two sang in the a cappella choir at Bradley University.

Corinne was an accomplished classical pianist who graduated with two music degrees and then taught music in the Peoria public schools. In 1948, the Michels were married and eight years later Bob was elected to the House, where he served with distinction for 38 years--including 14 as the Republican leader--before retiring in 1995.

While Bob served his constituents and nation in Washington, Corinne raised the couple's four children back in Peoria. She was active in Peoria Players and Central Illinois Youth Symphony and helped bring opera and ballet to Peoria. She also represented Bob at events in his home District.

In Washington, she was active in Congressional spouse organizations and chaired the Republican Women's Federal Forum.

The Michels' son Scott told the Chicago Tribune: ``Music played a huge role in her [his mother's] life and she passed it on [to her children]. I would come home from school and there would be classical music on the stereo and she would be playing the piano.''

And said our colleague Ray LaHood, a former Chief of Staff for Leader Michel and the successor in his seat, said: ``She was one of the loveliest persons I have ever met.'' A sentiment that all who knew her shared.

He continued: ``She never sought the limelight . . . but her husband sought her advice and she gave it to him in her own quiet way.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my sincerest condolences to my friend, the former Republican Leader, who not only is a great credit to this institution but also an American of unquestioned patriotism and courage.

Bob Michel, who was wounded as an infantryman in World War II and received two Bronze Stars, the Purple Heart and four battle stars, laid his life on the line so that succeeding generations could experience the freedoms that we enjoy--and too often take for granted--today.

Let's recognize today that while Bob Michel soared to great heights throughout his career, he always had a steady, able partner on that journey--his beloved wife, Corinne, whose loss we mourn today.

I also want to express my condolences to the Michels' sons, Scott, Bruce and Robin; daughter, Laurie; and three grandsons. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. Speaker, sadly, the corruption of democracy continues in this House this day. Almost unanimously, we sent a bill back to conference committee for further consideration to protect the safety of the public.

During the course of that debate, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the subcommittee, said nothing in response to an assertion made about public safety. Nothing, I say to my colleagues, can be further from the truth.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) went on to say, ``So we will take this bill back to conference.'' Nothing, my colleagues, could be further from the truth.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) went on to say, ``We will revisit this issue.'' Nothing, my friends, could be further from the truth.

He went on to say, ``Anyone who would like, we will make a copy of this report available.'' Nothing, my friends, could be further from the truth.

There was no conference, there was no discussion, there was no democracy. Shame on the processes undermining democracy in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has turned what should have been a bipartisan achievement into a partisan travesty. When we passed this legislation by a vote of 418-8 on July 11, we explicitly barred the privatization of air traffic controllers. We did so because we were concerned about the safety of the American public. The Senate bill which passed 94-0 went even further. It extended the protection to airway system specialists. Why? On behalf of the safety of the American public.

Then the Republican leadership hijacked this legislation. It adopted a conference report that rejected the opinion of the House and rejected the opinion of the Senate and stripped out the language barring privatization, again, passed to protect the safety of the American flying public.

Instead, it allowed 69 air traffic control towers to be turned over to private companies which must always put the bottom line first, and it removed the protections for airway systems specialists, removed mandatory and terrorism training for flight attendants, and permitted foreign airlines to raid U.S. markets.

Even Republicans balked at these changes, and that is why this legislation has hung around for so long, but Mr. Speaker, without the explicit prohibition on privatization that was included in the bill we passed in June, the administration is free to move forward with privatization, notwithstanding the will of the House and the will of the Senate. That should not be acceptable in a democratic legislative body. The flying public deserves better. America deserves better. They need to know that the people on the ground responsible for air safety are not being forced to cut corners to save dollars.

I urge my colleagues to vote for a fair process and vote for the public safety by voting down this legislation and this conference report. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the coming week.

I thank the gentleman for the information. I would note that earlier today, of course, we passed a continuing resolution that will fund the government through November 7, next Friday. We are not going to meet next Friday. It is my presumption, therefore, that the gentleman or the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), or both of you, contemplate an additional CR.

You have not mentioned anything about the week of November 10 either, Mr. Leader. As you know, November 11 is Veterans' Day.

Assuming, as I assume, that we will not finish our business by the close of business on November 6, and in light of the fact the gentleman announced we will not be here on the seventh, can the gentleman for scheduling purposes give Members an idea of what might be the schedule for the week of November 10, again in light of the fact that November 11 is a day that most Members will want to be home with their veterans and citizens.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the leader for that observation. I think it is helpful that Members can be confident they can schedule events for the eleventh, Veterans' Day. I think that will be very helpful for Members.

The gentleman did not mention the FSC bill, the Foreign Sales Corporation bill. Can the gentleman tell us when you might expect that bill to be on the floor?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank you, Mr. Leader. That was going to be my question. Does the gentleman expect both the energy conference report and the Medicare conference report, the prescription drug report, to be on the floor next week?

Reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for his observations.

The leader and I, as the leader knows, have been having a lot of discussions about these conferences that are being held, somewhere, sometime, with some people.

I do not know whether the leader was informed, but the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) took the gentleman literally and found where a meeting at least was going on with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and Secretary Thompson, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), both conferees appointed by the Speaker, went, opened the door, and went through the door with a number of Committee on Ways and Means Members.

I must tell the gentleman with great sadness, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) was not overwhelmingly happy to see them, which surprised me to no end, after our discussions and my conversation with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), telling him how these conferences were going on

and you wanted to see a bill go through.

The gentleman might want to talk to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), because essentially he asked the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) to leave. We were shocked and chagrined and surprised, of course, that he would do such a thing.

I say this somewhat jocularly, obviously, but the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) were not invited to this meeting, and, if these bills come to the floor next week, they are going to do so without having any Democrat participate in any substantive discussions on the prescription drug bill.

The leader is correct, it is a complicated bill, an incredibly important bill, and both sides have expressed strong support for adopting a prescription drug plan for our seniors. There are obviously differences on what ought to be in that plan.

But I would again say to the leader, notwithstanding your belief, I think the gentleman may be not informed as fully as he might be, because we continue to have great difficulty finding out where these conferences that the gentleman has been talking about and that the gentleman and I have been talking about, where they are going on, when they are being scheduled and who is supposed to participate. We have been talking about this, and, at some point in time, we really do expect that we will be invited to the conferences.

We had a serious bill and we had some disruption on the floor today, Mr. Leader, with reference to the FAA reauthorization bill. We recommitted the bill from this floor to conference. No conference occurred. No Democrats were invited to attend. As far as we know, no conference ever occurred. The bill reappeared, however, with a change.

Mr. Leader, we do not think that is in the best interests of this institution, we do not think it is in the best interests of the country, and we do not think it is in the best interests of passing legislation, conference reports, which have broad-based support.

I know, as the leader says, these are difficult, and I do not doubt that the leader is absolutely correct, that when an agreement is reached, it is going to take 7 or 8 days for the staff to put it together and in shape. I think the leader is probably correct on that.

I am hopeful that even if we are never invited, which seems to be the practice to date, that, at the very least, when somebody, somewhere, in some room, somehow makes a decision as to the bill that is going to be reported to the floor, that, at the very least, we get a copy of that bill in a timely fashion so, as complex a bill as you correctly observe it is, we have the time to analyze it, digest it and determine what we want to do on that bill.

I would hope that these comments would be taken in a constructive way, Mr. Leader, because I am very serious about the fact that I have participated, the gentleman has participated, we talked about this in conference committees where we sat down, we talked about it. I can remember the gentleman and I agreeing on some and disagreeing on some in conference, in HC-5 in particular, where we had large numbers of people participating in conferences. I thought those were positive, productive, and reflective of what our democratic legislative process ought to be.

We are very distressed on this side of the aisle that that does not appear to be happening. I would hope that you, Mr. Leader, as the majority leader, frankly, as the person most responsible for the schedule, but also one of the most significant leaders in this House, that you would try to work in a very positive way in bringing about conferences, which, again, include the conferees appointed by the Speaker of the House.

I yield to the gentleman if he would like to make any comments.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for his observation. I must, however, say the information he has is different from the information I have on the conference.

On the FAA, for instance, there was a meeting on July 24 in which there was no paper, no markup notes, no chairman's mark, no suggested bill, and that was the last meeting, to which the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking Democrat, who, as you well know, worked hand in glove with Mr. Shuster and with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) over the years on those committees, simply did not participate. I agree with you, Mr. Leader, on that.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand that, and I appreciate that. I appreciate the gentleman's observation. We agree: a formal conference should have been held. Because it was not, the majority had to waive the rule in the rule that was presented on the floor of the House.

With respect to the energy bill and Medicare, I would tell the gentleman in neither case, in the energy bill nor in the prescription drug bill, did the Democratic conferees believe there has been a conference in either instance, in either one of these very important issues on which there have been any kind of discussions regarding the substance of those bills. I simply observe that that is shutting out the representatives of 130 million Americans on our side of the aisle to give their perspective, in conference, with conferees appointed by the Speaker.

Now, we all understand that we have discussions with Democrats on our side and there are discussions with Republicans on your side, talking about strategy, talking about compromise, talking about how to work things out. That is understandable. That is necessary. It always and must occur. However, at some point in time, the conferees, we suggest to the gentleman respectfully, need to be included in discussions, not in a pro forma conference at the end of the process, being informed what the bill is. That, frankly, is all that has been happening.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for his observation. We, I think, are getting different information from our principals. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), I think, do not share that same view as to whether or not they have been included, two of our most senior Members of this House, two Members deeply concerned about both issues.

In any event, Mr. Leader, I appreciate the gentleman clarifying the schedule for next week and the week thereafter. That will be helpful to our Members.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize ``Navy Day,'' observed on October 27th, and to pay tribute to the impressive work done at the naval bases in my district, Patuxent River Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Surface Warfare Center and St. Inigoes. The Fifth Congressional District's naval bases are critical facilities that help our nation meet the threats and challenges of a new century, and their geographic proximity to the nation's capital also makes them valuable homeland security assets as well. I would like to take the observation of ``Navy Day'' to salute their efforts and to acknowledge the vital roles and important military capabilities performed at these three facilities.

Navy Day was established on October 27, 1922 by the Navy League of the United States. October 27 was suggested by the Navy League to recognize Theodore Roosevelt's birthday. Roosevelt had been an Assistant Secretary of the Navy and supported a strong Navy as well as the idea of Navy Day. In addition, October 27 was the anniversary of a 1775 report issued by a special committee of the Continental Congress favoring the purchase of merchant ships as the foundation of an American Navy.

As a community, we owe special thanks to the members of the naval family that sacrifice their own safety to protect our nation. They define the spirit of public service and we are grateful for their past and present services. Over the past several months, in Iraq and around the world, their purpose has been the protection and security of our people, and the promotion of peace, stability and the rule of law in Iraq, the Middle East and the international community, and they should know that a grateful nation supports their service and sacrifice.

We celebrate Navy Day in commemoration of past and present servicemen and women of the Navy as they have fought the enemies of freedom and prevailed. Their courage and resolve is fundamental to our security and way of life. Navy Day gives us the opportunity to appreciate their achievements and gain inspiration from their bravery. They succeed because they are dedicated to the values of this country and to its national security in the face of global terrorism.

The Navy plays a key role in the lives of thousands of Maryland residents, and thus I continue to place the future of the Navy in Maryland as one of my highest priorities. As the Department of Defense, the White House and Congress prepare for the next round of base closings in 2005, I am certain that the overwhelming support of the community, the important three-way partnership between federal, state, and local officials necessary to protect this powerful economic engine for the state, and the valuable homeland security assets of these bases prove the important contributions to our nation's defense and prosperity of Southern Maryland's defense installations.

May God continue to bless our country and may God continue to bless the men and women of the fifth districts Naval bases.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for yielding me the time, and I congratulate her for her leadership on this critically important issue. She is the principal author of this resolution, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and I are pleased to join her in this important statement.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to associate myself with the very thoughtful remarks of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) on this issue.

I rise to also thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), my friend and counterpart on the Republican side of the aisle, the majority whip, for working with us closely and ensuring that this resolution, which is nothing less than a shared expression of our American values, receives prompt consideration tonight.

Madam Speaker, intolerance based on one's religious belief, ethnicity and race is a poison that has coursed throughout the body of human history, and it has caused untold suffering, pain and strife. This great Nation itself, Madam Speaker, was settled by people who fled religious persecution, and I submit that we, the elected Representatives of the strongest and freest Nation on earth and the progeny of that proud legacy, have a moral responsibility to expose and combat such intolerance and prejudice wherever and whenever it rears its head.

On Thursday, October 16, as has been said, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad made hateful and repugnant anti-Semitic remarks at the Islamic Summit Conference, and those remarks deserve and demand our condemnation in this resolution today.

Among other things, the Prime Minister stated, ``The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today, the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.''

He added that, ``They,'' referring to the Jews, ``have now gained control of the most powerful countries, and they, this tiny community, have become a world power.'' He urged Islamic Nations to unite against being ``defeated

by a few million Jews.'' And throughout his remarks, he referred to Jews as the enemy.

Madam Speaker, these anti-Semitic comments are not simply outrageous and hateful, they are divisive and dangerous. They serve only to foment the destructive lie preyed upon by Hitler and other anti-Semites throughout history, the baseless accusation of a Jewish conspiracy to control the world, to which the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) referred to earlier, and we, without question, must emphatically and without reservation, and in the strongest possible terms we can summon, reject these toxic untruths.

But let me add, Madam Speaker, that what is perhaps even more disturbing, as the gentlewoman from Nevada has so correctly pointed out, more disturbing than one man's malignant invective and his ignorance of the Jewish people's persecution today and throughout history, more disturbing is the fact that he received a standing ovation from many of the leaders of Muslim Nations in attendance. Not only as the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) pointed out did they not walk out, they applauded. They applauded approval.

Madam Speaker, that must be unacceptable, not just in this land but throughout the world. Agreeing with or acquiescing in such religious and ethnic bigotry is every bit as dangerous as an incitement to it, and neither the acquiescence nor the incitement can go unchallenged in the civilized world.

As the British politician Edmund Burke wrote more than 200 years ago, ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' We must not do that.

I thank the gentlewoman for her time.