Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the courageous gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for the great job he is doing trying to contain Federal spending, and I really do want to thank our appropriations chairman. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is a great hero, not just in Florida but nationally. He has set priorities straight. He has done an incredible job.

I want to say that I do speak in favor of this amendment, though, on offsets. We know that we are going to have emergencies on a regular annual basis. We do not know where they are going to be. We do not know what they are going to be. That is why they are emergencies. This is one of the reasons we need a huge supplemental fund, a rainy day fund in the Federal budget, just like a family budget or a business budget needs one, and that is something that conservatives in this House have advocated for.

I support the funding for FEMA. They ran out of money before the first hurricane in Florida. We had four. Thank goodness and thank God that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and his friends understand the pressure that has been put on the people of Florida and we are going to live up to our moral and financial obligations.

Thank God for people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who have started the Washington Waste Watchers to try to save money where it is being wasted and defunded all the legitimate needs of the people throughout our country.

Mr. Chairman, there are bureaucrats running agencies throughout our country, and they know that if they do not use and spend all of their dollars every year, they don't get to save them. So what they do is they go out in extraordinary ways and find ways to spend the money in unfortunate and unnecessary ways so they get more money the following year.

That type of mentality is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and his amendment is trying to address.

House conservatives have asked that a rainy day fund be put in place every year for emergencies, because on an average basis, FEMA knows there are 30 declared disasters each and every year in America. We do not know where or when, but they are going to happen. And the appropriate way is to budget for those emergencies.

I can tell you, the rainy day fund, we know it rains in Florida, and God knows it has rained a lot the last four hurricanes.

Finally, Floridians are great resilient people. They can survive four hurricanes. If we can survive deficit spending by the Federal Government largesse for the next 20 or 30 years, that is a different story.

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

I have to tell the Members I cannot imagine a more important debate, sadly, that we must have. The question is whether or not the United States House of Representatives is going to sit idly by and be silent while activist radical judges unravel the very fabric of our society by undoing the basic building block that has made this and every civilization that has ever been successful a success.

What we have got to recognize is that we have an obligation as a Congress here. Yes, there are three separate and equal branches of government in the United States under our wonderful Constitution given to us from the Founders. However, it is unfortunate that all too often lately, the judicial branch has essentially forced legislature into drafting reactions to what they have invaded, which is the territory of the Congress in making laws for the country. And thus this constitutional amendment is absolutely necessary.

Of course, a healthy jealousy between the three branches is always a good thing. It was designed by Madison and the Framers in order to have a give and take between the three branches. But it is emphatically within the province of the Congress to make laws that affect the people of the United States of America, and all too often courts are trying to do that for us.

Today, we are here to protect the very definition of marriage. The American people have spoken very clearly time after time about the importance of defending the traditional view of marriage. This amendment does not prohibit any consensual behavior between any two American citizens. It does not prevent any two people from behaving however they would like. What it does do is to defend for our children, for our posterity, the traditional, historic definition of marriage.

It is unfortunate that the will of the people increasingly is being violated by activist judges so that they can impose like philosopher- kings their view of a better way to do things, and they have certainly come up with a better way to do traditional family life. And they are going to, as they did in Massachusetts, try to impose it on all Americans.

Thomas Jefferson, near the end of his life, wrote in a letter to Edward Livingston on March 25, 1825: ``One single object . . . will merit the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.''

Mr. Speaker, with that, I beg Congress to protect marriage, protect our children, protect our future. Vote for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his leadership on this issue, especially, along with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and her brave leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the Constitution is going to be amended. Either radical, unelected judges are going to amend the Constitution from the bench to redefine the traditional view of marriage, or the people's Representatives here in this House and across in the other body are going to act to amend the Constitution to preserve the traditional, historic definition of marriage. I notice that none of the opponents yet of this amendment have said that he or she will do whatever it takes to defend marriage when the time comes, but the action is unnecessary. If they are willing to commit to do whatever it takes to defend marriage, that is another matter; but that is not what they are saying.

Mr. Speaker, we have already seen the Massachusetts Supreme Court undo over 400 years of history in Massachusetts, undo a Constitution which is older than the United States Constitution, and find some new right. In doing so, in establishing same-sex marriage, what the Massachusetts court did is to belittle the traditional definition of marriage and all of the States that actually believe that. They said that there was no logical reason to preserve the benefits of a marriage between a man and a woman.

Even the liberal Washington Post Editorial Board was shocked by the Massachusetts judge's decision, stating in their editorial, ``We are skeptical that American society will come to formally recognize gay relationships as a result of judicial fiats.'' That is exactly what we are here to prevent, the judicial fiat that will undo the traditional definition of marriage which has protected and been the building block of this country forever. None of the States, not one of the State legislatures has ever tried to redefine marriage, but we have had courts in Vermont, in Hawaii, and in Massachusetts now attempt to do that very thing.

What we are here to do is to remind people that under the fourth article to the United States Constitution full faith and credit clause, when one State establishes a marriage as something other than a man and a woman, eventually all other 49 States will be forced, despite DOMA, which we have heard is going to be struck as unconstitutional, both liberal and conservative scholars agree, 49 States will have the definition that Massachusetts has imposed by the bench on their people imposed on us unless we act today.

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

Madam Speaker, whatever any one of us thinks about the merits of the specific language, it does not belong in a defense authorization bill. If these provisions were introduced as a freestanding piece of legislation, they would have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary; and that is where they should appropriately be dealt with, not in a conference on a wholly unrelated topic.

Second and more importantly, let me address the merits of the proposal before us. All of us, as the gentlewoman from California pointed out, all of us deplore hate crimes. The perpetrators of such crimes deserve the harshest punishment under the law as the law allows. The evidence indicates that they are receiving such punishments under the current law in a wide majority of the cases.

However, this really is misnamed as a hate crimes piece of legislation. What it ought to be called is an unequal protection proposal, because what this bill basically does is to say that the dignity and the property and the person and the life of some Americans gets less protection under the law if we pass this amendment than other American lives. That sort of unequal treatment is exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to prohibit, in my view.

I completely understand the positions of those who want this legislation, but I fear they have not fully thought through the potential consequences of adopting this legislation.

When someone is murdered because the killer does not like the color of their skin, that killer deserves harsh punishment; but the killer deserves it because the victim is a human, not because of the killer's hateful thoughts.

We must honor the victim's humanity and do justice, irrespective of the race, gender, the sexual orientation, or any other given trait. It is the victim's humanity that matters here. Nothing that the killer has thought about the victim can alter the value of that human's life which has been taken.

This proposal does not target hate crimes; it just specifies certain types of hate crimes for special treatment. I think we go down the wrong road here when we value certain lives differently because of race, gender or other factors, and believe that the hate crimes provisions tend to do that. That road leads to all sorts of mischief that I do not like to think the well-meaning sponsors of this proposal intend to accomplish.

So I ask that we continue to honor the value that all human life is precious, and value it no matter what the person's skin color is, no matter what some vicious criminal thought of that person's skin color.

Justice ultimately ought to turn on the fundamental worth of the human being and not the thoughts of the specific criminal. Article XIV of our Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. But in this regard, I would ask what about other groups that have not been targeted for special protection under this piece of legislation? What about children? What about senior citizens? What about the infirm, disabled, teachers, seniors, mailmen, women, veterans, and even public servants who may be the victims of the ultimate hate crime, terrorism?

The same spirit that hate compels a criminal to commit a crime due to one's race, gender or religious persuasion also may compel him or her to commit a crime against anyone in these and many other groups. Yet these others are excluded from protection. Under this hate crime proposal, they are protected and they are treated unequally.

So we oppose the inclusion of these provisions. The so-called hate crimes provision is a political feel-good statement that is anti- prosecution and anti-law enforcement and makes it less likely that violent criminals will ultimately be convicted and punished.

The bill will make it easier for criminals to create a shadow of a doubt and evade conviction for certain types of crimes if the prosecutor decides to roll the dice and include the necessity to prove the burden of intent based on race or the other special categories set out in the bill. It increases the burden on the prosecution to prove one additional element, and it increases the opportunities that criminals and their defense attorneys will have to create that certain shadow of a doubt and ultimately escape justice altogether.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the esteemed gentleman from Missouri's comments. I happen to agree that in terms of sentencing, there ought to be consideration of certain aggravating factors like hate and bigotry, as he expressed.

I believe that under the current Federal sentencing guidelines for virtually all, if not all Federal crimes, that is exactly what the guidelines permit now, but they do not create the burden of a separate element.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

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

Madam Speaker, in addition to the other arguments that we have put forth saying that it is just wrong to treat people unequally in terms of the protection we give victims, focusing on victims, I want to tell my colleagues a lot of us believe very deeply that, as with respect to every individual American before the law and before God, we are equal and ought to be treated equal and certainly our laws ought to include that.

What we oppose is the fact that what this bill does is specifies certain people for extra protection under the law. It necessarily says other people are not going to get that extra protection, and it tends to do the very things that a lot

of my friends on the other side say they do not want to do. It tends to divide Americans. It tends to Balkanize Americans. It tends to separate Americans. It tends to put hyphens in front of all Americans, because if one does not have a hyphen in front their name they are not eligible for protection under this piece of legislation.

Once again, this is misnamed. This is not a hate crimes proposal. This is an unequal protection under the law proposal.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

No, but I will support my colleague when he files the bill to take away the special protections of Members.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question.

The point of this is that we should not be giving certain people special protections that we are not giving all Americans, and the gentleman earlier stated that he thinks it is very different for a thug to come along and batter, for example, somebody because of their race or their color or their ethnicity than it is to beat up somebody just on the street because of the fear it creates.

Madam Speaker, I can tell my colleagues that a lot of senior citizens, a lot of little old ladies carrying their purses from and to the market, one example, who are not protected by this bill live in fear every time they have to go out on to the streets. All of us deserve equal protection.

What we want to do in opposing this is make sure all Americans get the equal protection they are entitled to under the law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I agree with the gentlewoman from Wisconsin that the Americans she cited ought to be free from the fear of violence whether it is because of their color, their ethnicity, their race, their religious beliefs. But what about American veterans? Should they not be free from the fear of violence? What about senior citizens? They are not protected by this bill. How about America's children as they come to and from school every day. Is there anything in this that gives same protection it gives the special treated classes? Is there anything that protects our teachers in this bill and then protects the police officers that patrol our streets in this bill? Is there anything that protects a lot of Americans who have served their country and are just going about their business every day?

Madam Speaker, it is the position of those who oppose this unequal protection proposal that all Americans deserve equal protection under the law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 9\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Madam Speaker, I am glad to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my great friend.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, just as a parliamentary inquiry, does the gentleman from Michigan have the right to close?

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

Mr. Speaker, to close in opposition to this motion, I would say again that the arguments against this proposal being added by the conferees are very strong. This is a Department of Defense authorization bill. It is about defending our country, and we are interjecting an extra issue that we should not be dealing with here. This needs to go to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Number two, States can and often do prosecute these types of crimes. We ought to preserve the 10th amendment and allow traditional State crimes to be prosecuted at the State level.

Number three, this gives enormous prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors could add this as a bargaining chip to threaten that they are going to bring a hate crimes allegation when in fact really are just trying to impose a stiffer sentence through the plea bargaining process.

Number four, we have not discussed how freedom of speech, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) so eloquently argued, can be tied up in who should be charged with a hate crimes allegation and who should be charged with just a typical crime allegation. Often it is political correctness that determines who gets punished and who does not.

Finally, the most important reason is this is misnamed as a hate crimes proposal. This is an unequal protection proposal.

Since before 1868 in this country, since before the 14th amendment, sadly some Americans got less protections under the law than other Americans. Fortunately, since 1868 we have made a lot of progress in that regard.

What this proposal does is to give certain Americans more protections than others, exactly what we tried to do in 1868 with the 14th amendment. This does nothing to give protection to children, veterans, teachers, police, or to our many seniors throughout the country; and that why it is fatally and morally flawed, despite the best of intentions by the proposer.

This proposal divides America. It hyphenates America, it balkanizes America, and you get special protection if you are a member of a special class under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, criminals are like wolves. They are like lions. They prey on those who get the least protection from the herd. If we say children and seniors and veterans should not get the same protection, we need to be aware what the criminals will do. They will prey on those left unprotected.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, the way to fight hate in America is to teach, it is to preach, it is to love, and it is to respect. It is not to divide, to balkanize, to hyphenate Americans and to grant special privileges and protections.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I note the Olympic accomplishments of Ryan Lochte, a constituent of mine from Port Orange, Florida.

For swimmers, the Olympics represent the ultimate contest. No other swimming meet rises to that level of competition. In his first Olympic event, 20-year-old Ryan Lochte earned the gold.

That event was the Men's 4 x 200 meter Freestyle Relay--one of the most exciting finishes in the 2004 Summer Olympics. Here, the underdog American team of Ryan Lochte, Michael Phelps, Peter Vanderkaay, and Klete Keller faced an Australian team that dominated this event for several years.

After Michael Phelps gave the Americans a one-second lead in the first leg, Ryan Lochte and Peter Vanderkaay extended that lead to 1.5 seconds. But Klete Keller faced the Australian legend Ian Thorpe who proceeded to cut into that lead. However, Klete Keller rose to that challenge. As a capacity crowd rose to its feet for the finish, Klete Keller touched the wall 0.13 seconds ahead of the Australian. And Ryan Lochte and his teammates won the gold.

Two days later, Ryan Lochte competed in the Men's 200 meter Individual Medley. He came out of the final turn fifth in a field of eight. But in those last 50 meters, Ryan--swimming the freestyle, his best stroke--passed three swimmers to capture the silver and turn in his career-best time of 1:58.78.

Two proud and sacrificing parents contributed to Ryan's success. His father--Steven Lochte--is a nationally-recognized swimming coach and coaches the Spruce Creek High School team and the Daytona Beach Speed club team. Mr. Lochte pursues an untraditional coaching style that develops young swimmers at a gradual pace. Thus, his proteges blossom at the critical age of late teens and early 20s and avoid the burnout experienced by many young athletes. Mr. Lochte personally witnessed his son's feats in Athens.

Ryan's mother--Ileana Lochte--taught Ryan how to swim. She's a typical swim team mother who has traveled to hundreds of meets and been her son's biggest cheerleader. Ms. Lochte stayed home when Ryan went to Athens because school had started for Ryan's younger siblings. But she was standing by the pool at the Port Orange YMCA when her cell phone rang with the news of Ryan's gold medal win.

Ryan adds to the Gator legacy while attending the University of Florida and is an 11 time All American swimmer. He has brought much pride to his family, teammates, and his community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Speaker, it is very rare that I come to the well to encourage my colleagues to pay attention to television in general or the news in specific, but I do that here today because there are unconfirmed reports that there are some shocking documents that may be produced tonight by 60 Minutes and CBS News concerning some American presidents.

It turns out that, reportedly, CBS News has documentary evidence that Washington did not cross the Delaware to surprise the British but, rather, in an attempt to surrender in the American Revolutionary War. We are waiting to see the specifics of these documents.

Apparently, President Eisenhower, on the day of D-Day, was not commanding the American and allied troops but, rather, was golfing somewhere in the British Isles, and the allegations are that there may be a golf scorecard produced tonight on CBS and 60 Minutes news.

It turns out that President Richard Nixon, apparently, we again have not seen the evidence yet, never did have a dog named Checkers. Actually, the Nixon dog was named Alger Hiss, for whom the Nixons were secret admirers.

And finally, apparently, there is evidence that we may see tonight that President Reagan was all along a closet socialist and urged Mr. Gorbachev to tear down that wall to provide an opportunity to roll through and conquer Western Europe.

Mr. Speaker, 60 Minutes allegedly is not going to renounce any of these allegations until they have definitive proof to the contrary, and I would urge my colleagues not to always believe what you hear. And sometimes, do not even believe what you see.

I thank the gentlewoman for organizing this hour and our colleague from Florida (Mr. Foley) whose district really took the brunt of both the one-two punch from hurricanes one and two. My district fortunately is a little bit more inland for the most part although I represent from Kennedy Space Center up to Daytona Beach on the beach. We also got hit with a one-two punch. By the time the storm hit us, it was significantly diluted from, say, where the first storm hit Punta Gorda but it was still significant. We got hurt bad. We had people without power for a week. We had an enormous amount of damage done, trees and debris all over, kids lost a week of school. But what is remarkable as you live through the awesome fury of Mother Nature is how resilient the people of Florida and their leaders have been in this response to these two disasters that have really hurt us very badly.

I want to share an experience. One of the things that I did after the first hurricane is to take a little tour with our sheriff of Orange County, Sheriff Kevin Beary. Senator Bill Nelson joined us on that tour with some other local public officials. I will never forget going to a mobile home area that had been mandatorily evacuated, but there was a gentleman that decided to send his family out. He was going to ride out the storm. Within the first 5 minutes of 130, 120-mile-an-hour winds, the entire roof of his mobile home blew off. Within the next 5 minutes, most of the walls had blown off. He only survived the storm because he was able to take all of the food out of his refrigerator and pull the door shut. I guarantee you by the time Frances came around, that same gentleman had evacuated what was left of his mobile home.

One of the lessons that we have learned is that if people will listen to their leaders as a disaster comes through, we are getting much better at predicting the path of hurricanes. Obviously they change their minds at the last minute and you can never know for sure, but it is an enormous amount of help in a State like Florida. We have got only a couple of major arteries, transportation arteries and interstates that people can evacuate on. If everybody from Palm Beach, Broward and Dade County decided to leave within the same 2 hours, we would have nothing but a parking lot for a week on I-95, for example. What we have learned to do is evacuate in stages as our intelligence becomes better and because of that, we are talking about tens of billions of dollars lost, but thankfully we are not talking about thousands or even hundreds of lives lost in large part because of our great Governor Jeb Bush and the leadership he has shown. We can eventually clean up the streets, the debris, we can rebuild the buildings and we can replace most of the property that has been lost over time.

We will rebuild a healthy, thriving, economic Florida, although it will take time but obviously if you make a decision that costs you your life, that is a decision you can never recover from. The casualties given the awesome fury that these storms have invoked on Florida so far have been thankfully, and we thank the Lord for this, have been thankfully relatively minor, especially considering some of the storms in the past.

One of the great things that we have learned to do at the National Hurricane Center is to do a much better job in long-term forecasts, meaning 4- or 5-day forecasts in terms of where these hurricanes are going. It is the reason that we can plan, it is the reason we can evacuate, it is the reason we can board up the proper pieces of property. It is the reason that we can get people into safety. It is the reason that we can get supplies in before the storm hits rather than waiting for weeks afterwards. It has obviously saved not only a lot of lives, but it has done a great job in reducing the property destruction and it has stopped aggravating an already frustrated group of Floridians throughout the State in virtually every county that has been touched one way or another by this incredible storm.

The 5-day forecast is run out of the Naval Operations Center in Norfolk, and they have done a terrific job in making sure that we can define as narrowly as possible which areas are most likely to be hit by the storm. And as Craig Fugate, the Director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, observed, ``All Floridians should welcome the increased awareness that the 5-day forecast has provided.'' We are grateful for that.

The other thing that I did immediately after the storm was to call the sheriffs in our area. I happened to be at the Emergency Operations Center in

Tallahassee on 9/11, the day the terrorists attacked. I spent that day as the Speaker of the House of Florida with Governor Jeb Bush and other leaders as we made decisions about how to respond to attacks that we did not know when they would end. We did not know whether Florida might be a target as well that morning on 9/11.

But what I learned there that day is, all of the private agencies, from Red Cross and other charitable organizations, from the Federal agencies, including FEMA, from all of our departments at the State level, transportation, health, we have learned remarkably to respond in a regional and Statewide way to disasters that heretofore, before Andrew, were really thought to be a local problem by and large.

And it is the remarkable coordination by all levels of Government and agencies within the Government that not only hopefully will help us with these nature-ordained disasters but will help us deter and respond, if we ever should need to, to manmade attacks, namely terrorism.

I want to tell the Members that FEMA has done a much better job, as the gentlewoman was just saying with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley). In the aftermath of Andrew, we had literally weeks where we did not have certain equipment, certain supplies, certain emergency necessities.

In this situation, that has not been the case, with the exception of power. In some cases, we have had people down for a week or two without power. That is an enormously challenging, frustrating, maddening experience. I can tell my colleagues when it is 110 degrees outside, and the kids are hot, and they do not have the ability to go anywhere, to relax, to take a cool shower, it is very difficult to function.

But with the exception of power, we have had, within a day or two for the most part, gas supplies back up and running. We have been able to get the debris cleared up in the roads so people could get to and from their shopping centers to buy fresh food, to replenish supplies. So the response in Central Florida has really been amazing.

Already FEMA assistance in Florida has reached more than $162 million as of today. Approximately $100 million of that is in emergency housing, people that literally would not have any shelter if it was not for the work of FEMA. Everywhere I went, my sherifs, my local law enforcement, my local fire chiefs, my local mayors and county commissioners all remarked that FEMA was giving them everything that was humanly possible to provide in a fairly organized and reasonable manner, and they were very grateful.

One of the issues that has already been touched on by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) when he was first here was, in the aftermath of Andrew, we had really had a crisis. We had 11 property and casualty, i.e. homeowners' insurance, go bankrupt. Even State Farm in Florida literally went belly up. And only because of the good graces of the other 49 State Farms in the various States decided to bail out the State Farm program were they able to pay claims and stay in business.

If, in Florida, we lost all of our property and casualty market, that is, if insurers no longer wanted to write homeowners' insurance policies, Americans everywhere need to be aware of what the effect would be on Florida's economy and ultimately on the United States' economy.

The truth of the matter is that real estate is one of our key economic drivers in Florida. We do not have a big manufacturing base like many States in the Midwest, for example. But we have an awful lot of thriving commercial and homeownership in the real estate area, and it is one of the things that drives not just the Florida economy but ripples and has a positive effect on the entire U.S. economy.

If we do not have the ability to have insurance, lenders will not lend to buy property. Not only will the lenders and the mortgage brokers and mortgage bankers go out of business, but the people that work for title companies will go out of business. People that build houses, subcontractors, people that build pools, people that sell lumber, people that survey property, we would literally have dozens of industries wiped out potentially for a significant period of time.

As a consequence, we did a couple of things that were very important. It is the reason, after two horrible storms, the Florida insurance property and casualty market is still relatively healthy. It would not have been true if we had not done some of these reforms.

One is, we provided a catastrophic policy that all companies are obligated to pay into to prepare for an event like this. That catastrophic insurance has only used about half of its reserves at the last count, which means that we are still able to function and hopefully the insurance market will still stay relatively healthy.

We upgraded all of our building codes. A building permit to build a new home, especially in coastal areas, means that one has to have a seriously upgraded plan in civil engineering that will protect their property from most winds below 100 or 110 miles an hour. Mobile homes, before the Andrew event, often were put together in a very cheap and slipshod manner, and they literally were just standing like a house of cards on a concrete floor.

We now tie down those buildings. We now make sure that they are much better produced and manufactured and secured in a way that most of the mobile homes that were built after Hurricane Andrew, in 1993, survived the storm in relatively good shape. So we are very grateful for that.

The last thing that I wanted to mention before I turn it back to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) is that all of us have some unique damages here. I have a lot of ferneries and nurseries as part of the key agricultural businesses in Congressional District 24. Under the Department of Agriculture's emergency plan to help farmers and agricultural leaders through a disaster like this, if they have a product that is consumed, they are eligible for some relief.

We are trying, with the good work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam); of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley); of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the Committee on Appropriations chairman, to see to it that we cannot get some relief for folks that produce the ferneries and the nurseries because they are just as severely impacted by the potential loss of all of their income.

The last thing that I wanted to mention is that, right before I came up here, this Saturday, I spent the better part of the mid morning with Jim Kennedy, the Center Director at Kennedy Space Center. I will tell the Members that we believe that Kennedy has had about $120 to $140 million worth of damages at this point. There are some 14,000 workers that have been off work that started back to work today. They are enthusiastic. They are determined that we are going to continue the leading manned space flight in the history of the world.

Fortunately, the three shuttle orbiters that were all there at the Center at the time were safely preserved in their buildings. All Kennedy Space Center personnel are safe and sound. But there have been a couple buildings seriously damaged, including the famous Vehicle Assembly Building.

Until a few years ago, the largest indoor-contained building in the world, this is where the Space Shuttle components are assembled and then moved to eventually the launch pad. By the way, the launch pads, gratefully, are also preserved intact. But over an acre of the south wall, 4-foot-by-16-foot aluminum panels have blown off, including part that make up the beautiful American flag, which is probably about the size of two or three football fields. So this is going to need to be repaired. It is going to take some significant time.

The Thermal Protection System Facility lost half of its roof. It is the place where the outside tiles and the thermal blankets inside protect the Shuttle crew from the intense heat, and literally the top of the building was peeled off like a can opener.

The Florida Space Authority was asked immediately after the storm whether it had any room to possibly continue the production of these very critical tiles for return to flight on a timely schedule and the blankets, and thanks to Winston Scott, the Executive Director of the Florida Space Authority, within seconds, he told Jim Kennedy that absolutely they were going to be able to use the facility that the Florida Space Authority had.

Within 3 or 4 hours, components of the tile and the blanket manufacturing

and processing team was moving into this new facility. So we had very little interruption in what could have been a very significant challenge.

Finally, the diligence of the men and women in the Kennedy Space Center team, including NASA and the private contractors, has made this such that, like a lot of us, we are going to have some damages to repair. We are going to have some streets to clean. We are going to have some buildings to put back in place. But, fortunately, in my district, the Kennedy Space Center came through with the type of harm that could be fixed, fixed very rapidly, and we are anxious to get back to work and get back to normal in Florida.

The last thing I will say is, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for her leadership here, but we know, having been through two of these now just in the last month, that our thoughts and our prayers are with the folks in the Panhandle of Florida, the folks in Alabama, the folks in New Orleans. We are thinking about them.

And if there is anything good that comes out of these horrible events, it is the way we bond together as communities and as families. I do not think I will ever forget teaching my two small boys, Tommy, who is 12, and Sean, who is 6, as we literally pulled out mattresses from some of the other bedrooms. We pulled them into Mom and my room. We were there with our blankets and pillows. We had our transistor radios. The power was, of course, out. We had a cooler, and we had everything that we needed as a family there during about an hour and a half of real horror during Charley.

But families bond. Communities bond. States bond, and we are grateful to the people of America for thinking about and helping Floridians

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield.

I have a friend who is a civil engineer, and his primary job is to certify each and every set of plans, which is now required since the 1993 changes. I remember asking him at one point, because he designs dozens or hundreds of homes, Why would he have to certify each set of new plans for each new home? Why could he not just certify a model? Would that not be a lot less expensive, cheaper? And his answer was that every location and every building is a little bit different and that, absent this, some day we may regret that we did not require the diligence that the gentlewoman is talking about. That is in the design stage.

Obviously, we required more substantial materials in places. We required storm shutters in certain areas. We have allowed those people to take discounts from their insurance if they would go out and purchase storm shutters. All of that investment was some of the best money ever spent by individual home buyers and home builders in Florida, and I think we are all grateful that we changed, and we were adaptable, we were flexible after Andrew.

There will be lessons learned from Charley and Frances and Ivan, but thanks to her leadership and the policymakers that are forward thinking in Florida, I think we will be in even better shape the next time we face one of these horrible events

Right, Mr. Speaker.

And again, we appreciate her leadership on that. As I took the helicopter ride, we deliberately went over some of the nurseries and ferneries, and they have a lot of glass and plastic buildings that they use to soak up the sun and provide the right amount of water. They do a terrific job, but they have been devastated in many respects. And they are sort of caught in the middle. If they are a typical business, they are eligible for a very low-interest Small Business Administration loan if they are subject to a disaster attack. If one is an agricultural farmer that grows products for consumption, they are covered by emergency processes in the Department of Agriculture's contingency budget.

But if you grow ferns or other nursery products because your product cannot be consumed, you are at this point considered eligible for neither business assistance nor for agriculture assistance. So it is one of those things that we will work with the administration on to try to fix as rapidly as possible.

I yield back to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great occasion because 35 years ago a mesmerized world watched as Americans landed on the Moon. Behind me stands a moon rock that was brought back by our Apollo astronauts, and next to me is a picture of a man standing on the Moon. Thousands viewed Apollo as their calling. They assembled and launched the Saturn V from Kennedy Space Center. They overcame the tragedy of Apollo 1 and guided Apollo 11 through harrowing moments. Many of today's science and engineering leaders throughout our country were inspired as children by this adventure.

We will be able to surpass our current discoveries. The space vision that the President has laid out will take us beyond imagination. Recently Americans watched in awe at pictures coming from the Mars rovers. Soon thousands will come to Florida's space coast to watch the Shuttle return to space.

We are a restless, inquisitive, pioneering people. We yearn to go. We yearn to explore. We are Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate this great 35th anniversary of Apollo 11.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Feeney) for his great leadership over many years of space.

Mr. Speaker, today's Florida Today editorial started out by saying this: ``On July 20, 1969, humanity changed forever. The moment the boot of astronaut Neil Armstrong touched the surface of the Moon, the future of humanity no longer was tethered to Planet Earth.'' And, indeed, 35 years ago a mesmerized Nation and a mesmerized world watched as Americans landed on the moon. Today we celebrate that accomplishment.

Looking back at the history of the Cape, the human space flight program began in June, 1959, when a Mercury boilerplate capsule was brought down for a test flight called Big Joe, when NASA needed tools at that time, they went to Sears Roebuck in Orlando. They used a flatbed truck, a wooden cradle, and mattresses to transport the Mercury capsule to the launch pad. Just a few years later, Saturn V rockets, the largest rocket ever built, were assembled in the Vehicle Assembly Building, the second largest building in the world, and transported 3 miles by the Crawler Transporter, then the largest tracked vehicle in the world.

Thousands of men and women viewed Apollo as a calling and not just a career. They overcame the tragedy of Apollo 1, guided Apollo 11 through some frightening moments during descent to the lunar surface and shortly after landing, and brought home a crippled Apollo 13 safely.

Inspired by what they witnessed on television, hundreds of thousands of children dedicated themselves to math and to science, thereby giving birth to many of today's science and engineering leaders.

Unfortunately, Apollo was not designed to sustain itself forever. By the end of 1972, mankind retreated to spaceflight around the Earth.

America now possesses a great vision for space exploration under which we will become a spacefaring people once again. We will undertake a paced, sustainable, and affordable journey that breaks free from merely orbiting the Earth. We will not be fixated on a destination and a timetable, but rather pursue an evolving program of exploration and science.

Along the way we, like all explorers, will be surprised by our discoveries. We will unleash the imaginations and talents of thousands of aerospace professionals, reminding all of them why they chose their calling.

Earlier this year, Americans watched in awe as the pictures from Mars came back from the Mars Rovers. In a few months, thousands will line the banks of the Indian and Banana rivers to watch the Shuttle once again return to space. We are a restless, inquisitive, pioneering people. We yearn to go.

Mr. Speaker, I include the full editorial from Florida Today for the Record.

[From Florida Today, July 9, 2004]

Ready for New Goals

On July 20, 1969, humanity changed forever.

The moment the boot of astronaut Neil Armstrong touched the

surface of the moon, the future of humanity no longer was

tethered to planet Earth.

Thirty-five years ago today, as millions worldwide watched

televised images transported more than 250,000 miles through

space, a silent but mighty shift roiled the river of history.

Humankind had become residents of the solar system.

The question now is, will America return to that path of

manned exploration and discovery? Or be satisfied to rest on

great deeds of the past, reported on the yellowing pages of

crumbling newspaper?

For those who remember, that magnificent day and the four

fantastic years that followed made up an odyssey that dwarfed

all other human efforts.

Historians called the human exploration of the lunar

surface mankind's greatest technological achievement.

That claim would get no argument from those lucky enough to

have lived in Brevard County in those breathtaking times.

The vigorous, patriotic and enthusiastic space workers who

poured into this county through the 1960s helped turn Brevard

from a backwater into the single spot on the globe from which

man has journeyed to another celestial body.

They came in response to a challenge by an equally vigorous

president, John F. Kennedy, who in 1961 declared it was

``time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in

space achievement, which in many ways, may hold the key to

our future on earth.''

The goal was clear: The United States must, ``before this

decade is out,'' land a man on the moon and return him safely

to the Earth.

Those words triggered a serendipitous combination of the

leader, the people and the times, to launch a technology that

altered our world.

From communications and telemetry to computers, what came

to be known as the Apollo project generated knowledge that

sent the national economy on a long road of technological

innovation that reverberates today.

Not surprisingly, Brevard in those years averaged among the

highest of any U.S. county in levels of educational

achievement,

creating a legacy of interest that's reflected today in

Brevard schools' strong performance in science and math.

Locally and nationally, the benefits of the Apollo remain

immeasurable.

That's why it's incredible that for more than 30 years, the

moon's cold surface has not felt another human step.

What might science have discovered, 35 years after

Armstrong and fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin made those giant

lunar leaps, if the nation had continued that dazzling

trajectory of human exploration, instead of letting the

banner fall?

Such a softening of national purpose must not--must never--

be the story of the American future.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 713 by my good friends Mr. Pence, from Indiana, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, from my own home State of Florida.

On Friday, July 9, the United Nation's International Court of Justice issued a 14-to-1 majority opinion stating that Israel's building of a security barrier is illegal, construction must stop immediately, and Israel should make reparations for any damage caused.

The ICJ's ruling also said the United Nations' General Assembly and Security Council should consider steps to halt construction of the security barrier.

This decision by the ICJ is not only the latest in the international community's long line of blatantly anti-Israel actions, but also sets a dangerous precedent by allowing the ICJ to go beyond its traditional jurisdiction.

I deplore the court's decision. Israel has a right to protect their people from those who believe that the path to salvation is paved with the blood of Jewish women and children. I have traveled to Israel and have seen the aftermath of these senseless homicide bombings.

The security fence is not only within Israel's rights to build but it has also proven to be an extremely effective tool for fighting terrorism. In 2004, no Israelis have been killed or wounded by suicide bombings in areas protected by the fence, while 19 Israeli citizens have been killed and 102 have been wounded by suicide attacks in areas unprotected by the fence.

The fence has produced a 90-percent drop in terrorism emanating from the northern West Bank, formerly the originating point for scores of devastating suicide bombings and other deadly terror attacks.

The International Court of Justice was set up in 1945 under the Charter of the United Nations to be the principal judicial organ of the Organization. Article 36 of the Court's Statute forbids bringing contentious cases before the Court unless there is agreement by all parties involved.

Obviously the ICJ did not recognize this limitation as more than 40 nations, including the United States, the European Union, Australia and Canada, submitted briefs to the Court opposing consideration of the matter of Israel's security fence. The objections that were voiced in those briefs detail concerns regarding jurisdiction as well as the politicization of the court.

Though not legally binding, the advisory opinion has already prompted the introduction of anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations and will have the effect of emboldening efforts to isolate Israel internationally. The General Assembly will meet tomorrow to seek international support for the ICJ decision and try to impose U.N. sanctions against Israel for trying to defend its citizens.

When will the United Nations cease to thwart efforts to squash the evil, murderous organizations who rob us of our right to security? How long must the American taxpayers continue to support an international agency that no longer promotes basic freedoms of peace, security, and democracy?

Please join me in saying to the United Nations that we will not support the blatant misuse of its International Court of Justice to further the cause of these terrorist organizations. Vote ``yes'' on House Resolution 713.

Mr. Speaker, in 1854, a young and dynamic America witnessed several historic events. The Republican Party was organized. Commodore Matthew Perry signed a treaty opening Japan to American trade. And Penn State University was founded.

Penn State was at the forefront of the uniquely American practice of widespread higher educational opportunity. In 1863, Penn State became one of the first two land grant educational institutions. Penn State now includes over 20 campuses with 83,000 students.

Penn State is nationally known for its athletic triumphs. More importantly, it has affirmed the value of the scholar-athlete. Penn State graduates its athletes at rates substantially higher than fellow Division I schools. It's no accident that Penn State's library is named for its beloved Joe Paterno while its sports arena is named for a former Penn State president.

Penn State consistently demonstrates its prowess in the sciences and engineering. My district's Kennedy Space Center has launched four Penn State alums into space including Guion Bluford, the first African American to fly into space. Penn State ranked ninth in university patent recipients in 2002. Several Penn State graduate schools rank in U.S. News & World Report's top ten.

But alumni are the real interpreters of Penn State. 466,000 serve as teachers, farmers, physicians, lawyers, artists, scientists, engineers, and yes even Congressmen and women.

So this Penn State alum sends his congratulations to Penn State for its sesquicentennial.

Mr. Chairman, it is an important night tonight, because I find myself in between a fight with two sets of freedom fighters, two groups that care deeply about freedom. But the suggestion made by the last speaker, who is a dear friend of mine, that we are interrupting relations between families, in my view, is a little bit like saying that somehow the United States was responsible for a catastrophe visited upon us by Hitler because we refused to give Anne Frank lunch buckets before the Holocaust.

My colleagues, there is way too much at stake here to sit back and say that this is a totalitarian regime that we are going to do business with. I have freedom fighters, including the sponsor of this amendment, who is a hero of mine, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who believes deeply in limited government. He believes deeply in free trade. He believes deeply in the things that make our country and free nations great. But I have to say that the question before us tonight is, are we going to accommodate, will we appease, will we compromise with, will we do business with, will we facilitate, will we provide basic resources to a dictator that has put his own people in jail, under the knife in prison, who has basically undermined every single basic liberty we have ever experienced?

Our own State Department has identified, as one of the sixth major exporters of terrorism, the Cuban government. Are we going to recognize that, or are we going to reward that and facilitate that? That is the question here tonight. The question is what Lady Freedom would do here tonight.

I have freedom fighters on both sides of this argument and people I respect. But fundamentally if we send the message to Castro that he and whoever replaces Castro can stay forever and punish freedom, throw 70 reporters in jail on an annual basis simply for reporting the truth, if they will constantly undermine what is good about our free world, then we have got to live with ourselves as the price comes due for allowing freedom to be undermined.

It is true that this is a policy that for some 45 years has not worked. The first 35 the Soviets supported them. With the last 10 years, we have had a chance to undermine Castro. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to please oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman and appreciate his great work on this issue. I will tell my colleagues that the problem of spending in democracies is nothing new. It is not endemic to America. Churchill once said, ``There is nothing so easily learned by one government from the last government as spending other people's money.'' Indeed, spending other people's money is a very intoxicating experience.

Our Democratic friends say that PAYGO applications, finding the money as you go, ought to apply equally to tax cuts as they do to spending. I have got two reasons why that is so true. In the first place, according to Americans for Tax Reform, the average Floridian, where I represent, has to work until July 8 this year to pay for his or her share of Federal, State, local taxation and regulation. I think our Democratic friends would like every Floridian to have to work until August 8 every year to pay for their fair share of the government burden.

Secondly, what our Democratic friends do not understand is that spending is too high, but taxes are not too low.

The other last point I would make about applying PAYGO equally to tax cuts is this: if we had dynamic scoring where people could estimate the actual effects of the tax burden on people, it might be a reasonable idea. Our Democratic friends think if we trim the taxes on something like we did in the case of the luxury tax, we will get 300 percent of the revenue. What we really did was put people out of business, put people more on welfare.

On the other hand, in 1986 the Congress cut the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, Federal revenues doubled.

Mr. Chairman, the time now is to restrain ourselves. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget and the entire committee have done a great job. I applaud them for their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, for all Americans, Ronald Reagan was a happy warrior who fought all of his life for freedom with a gracefulness and a confidence that inspired all of America. But for American contemporary conservatives like myself, Ronald Reagan was more than that. He was our Plato, laying the philosophical groundwork for limited government, freedom, and self-responsibility.

He was our Moses. After Lincoln, republicanism had been adrift in fighting our way out of a desert filled with statist tendencies and the march towards bigger government and welfare dependency, something Frederick Hayek described as ``The Road to Serfdom.'' Reagan reminded conservatives that America had a great rendezvous with destiny ahead.

Reagan was our Washington, the first contemporary President to consistently lay out conservative principles and steadfastly, calmly, and timely lead us during threats to freedom from big government and taxation at home, threats from tyrannical hegemony from abroad, to secure what our first President called the ``sacred fire of liberty.''

Finally, Ronald Reagan was a Churchill, warning of external threats not only to our homeland's freedom but of gathering storms building globally which endangered the aspirations of freedom fighters across the globe. And like Churchill, he then led us and led the free world in refusing to appease or coexist with totalitarian threats but instead insisting, like King Henry at Agincourt, that we wade into the enemy and win.

Finally, to quote Senator Benjamin Hill when he was speaking of the death of Robert E. Lee, I would like to quote him with respect to Ronald Reagan: ``He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a soldier without cruelty; a victor without oppression; and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbor without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy; and a man without guile. He was a Caesar, without his ambition; Frederick, without his tyranny; Napoleon, without his selfishness, and Washington, without his reward.''

This week America gives President Reagan his very just reward.

By 1980, America's leaders were presiding over a self described ``national malaise'' domestically, 12 percent interest rates, 20 percent mortgage rates, and a rising misery index across the land.

Internationally, America seemed resigned to coexistence with an Evil Empire that had enslaved and killed tens of millions, and drawn down upon two-thirds of the world's people an ``iron curtain'' of suffering and hopelessness.

A decade later, it was morning again in America. Tax rates were cut from 70 percent to 25 percent, Gross Domestic Product rising at the fastest rates since World War II, stock markets booming and the American spirit transcending long forgotten malaise.