Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of San Jose, California, I extend our deepest condolences to the thousands who have lost family and friends, and to those who are still searching for loved ones. As the chairperson of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, I want to let the people suffering today know that we care and that we Californians stand with them.

The people of California have also faced natural disasters in the form of earthquakes, floods, and fires. I recall the Loma Prieta Earthquake on October 17, 1989, that measured 7.1 on the Richter scale. Sixteen years have passed, but everyone who lives in the bay area remembers where they were when the earthquake struck. Americans everywhere stood with Californians, and this gave us the strength we needed to recover, rebound and rebuild.

As difficult as that earthquake was for us in California, the situation in the Gulf Coast is infinitely more challenging. Homes across the Gulf Coast are gone. People are left with nothing but the clothes on their back. Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian, Bay St. Louis, Waveland, Kiln, Slidell, and other towns barely exist.

Our Nation has never had a city in the desperate shape that New Orleans finds itself in right now. The rule of law has broken down. People at the Superdome and the Convention Center are suffering in ways that are just not seen in our country in the 21st century. Mayor Nagin has said that thousands may be dead in New Orleans. This is an unprecedented human tragedy.

As a Nation, we must be steadfast and commit ourselves to save these people. We must stand with all of the people of the Gulf Coast and let them know that we are here today to help them get back on their feet. We are here to lend them a shoulder to lean on. We will be with you as long as it takes to get your lives in order, as long as it takes to get our cities back.

The people of the Gulf Coast have experienced hell on earth over the past week. They will face challenges in the coming days, weeks and months that are almost unimaginable. People are hungry, sick, homeless, and desperate. The storm has hit everyone hard and it has hit the poor hardest of all. The Federal response to this disaster has been too little and too slow. The situation must change and it must change right now.

Last night I flew across our great country to be here today to participate in this emergency session of Congress. It is important that the necessary resources be provided for this disaster, but actual leadership by the administration is desperately needed right now. There are dead bodies floating in New Orleans as we speak. There are tens of thousands of our fellow Americans who have been without the help that they need for this entire week.

I do not believe that our Federal Government is incapable of mobilizing to meet this disaster. The problem is that we have not yet done so as comprehensively as is necessary. Even the President stated today that the response of his administration has been inadequate.

There will be plenty of opportunity in the months to come to analyze what we could have done better, but today our task is simply to do better, to engage in a massive mobilization to save the lives of our fellow citizens and to end the chaos that has descended upon New Orleans and other areas devastated by this hurricane.

Our Nation stands united with the victims of this ruthless storm. Our fellow citizens from Mobile, Alabama, to New Orleans, Louisiana, need to know that they have our commitment to do all that we can. The bill we passed today is just a start. We will recover. We will rebuild. We will prevail.

In the days and weeks to come, the Congress will have many tasks before it, from fully funding the Army Corps' efforts, to revising the bankruptcy laws so the victims who have lost their homes can have a fresh start. But today, we call on you, Mr. President. Article 2, section 1, the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States. We expect that the resources, the food, the water, the health care, the evacuation, the shelter will be brought to bear so our fellow citizens can end their suffering.

Mr. Chairman, after 9/11, I worked on the drafting of the PATRIOT Act in the committee and in the weekend drafting session, and I voted for the act on the floor. I think it is important to know that most of what is in the PATRIOT Act is not actually before us today. It is only the 16 provisions that are so- called sunsetted, which means that we need to review them and renew them, that are actually before the House today.

First and foremost, as the Justice Department said in their letter to me today, the most important thing in the PATRIOT Act is to help remove the legal barriers that prevented law enforcement and intelligence officers from sharing information so they could, so-called, ``connect the dots.'' That is important. There are other important things in the act.

I think it is worth noting that there are some things that disturb Americans that are happening in the United States relative to the arrest of American citizens and the holding of American citizens without charge, without access to counsel; but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the PATRIOT Act. They are not in the PATRIOT Act, no matter how concerned we might be about them.

I believe, however, that even though there are important components to the PATRIOT Act, there are some things that deserve more attention and more fine-tuning than they have received in this bill.

For example, section 505 of the act grants law enforcement the authority to issue national security letters, which are essentially administrative subpoenas, for all sorts of personal records about anyone without judicial oversight. These records include telephone and Internet records, financial documents and consumer records.

In addition, we enhanced this section in subsequent legislation to ensure that even more records could be subpoenaed from travel agencies, pawn brokers, casinos, car dealers and more; but all of this is without oversight of a court.

Prior to the act, national security letters could only be used to get records when there was reason to believe that the subject of the record was an agent of a foreign power. Not only did the PATRIOT Act remove the requirement that the subject of the record is a foreign power; it lowered the standard by which those records could be obtained to the relevancy standard.

We have not had meaningful oversight, in my opinion, on this provision of the act. Assuming that law enforcement does need the ability to get some of these records, and I do not dispute that, we do need to have some standards in place. As has been mentioned by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), one court has already struck down this section of the act as violative of the Constitution.

We know from our inquiry to the Justice Department that this provision has been used hundreds of times. We got six pages back of redacted records, but we really do not know the full impact; and we need to know more than we do today before we allow this sweeping tool to be renewed.

I also want to mention section 215 of the act. I believe that it may be important to obtain certain records, as has been outlined. But, again, we need to have a standard that is beyond relevancy.

So the question here really is about balance. We need to prevent terrorism, we all agree on that; but we also need to protect and defend the Constitution that has served us so well. So I would urge that we have the oversight that we will need by having some sunsets, and particularly taking a look at the national security letter. We do not need to violate our Constitution to keep our country safe.

Mr. Chairman, I will certainly vote for this amendment, but I fear that it does not fully solve the problem that has been identified by many. Before the PATRIOT Act, the government could obtain only limited records from hotels, storage facilities and car rental companies, and only if those documents pertained to an agent of a foreign power.

Now, the government can seek any records from anyone as long as it is relevant to an investigation. The FISA

court does not really have any discretion to deny these requests and, once they are granted, they are subject to a gag order.

Now, the Justice Department has told us that they have never once used section 215 relative to libraries, and I have no reason to disbelieve them; but the American Library Association reports that they have received 200 formal or informal requests for materials, presumably under some other section of the law, perhaps grand jury subpoenas, I do not know.

The fact is that Americans are aware of this issue, and I believe this is having a chilling effect on first amendment rights in terms of reading and speaking.

I believe it is important that government have the opportunity to obtain records when it is necessary to fight terrorism. I do believe, however, that the relevance standard is too low.

I also believe that when the House that previously approved a carve- out for identifiable information from libraries it spoke about the chilling impact. I believe we have a better way to get these records and also to untrouble readers.

So while I will support the amendment, it falls short of what is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment although it does not make some of the changes recommended by Mr. Scott in committee about ascertainment and minimization that we believe are important. It would allow for the requirement of oversight, which I think is important. The chairman has said many times that hearings have been held. They were, but they were basically held since April. We do have a tendency to postpone our work until it must be done.

One of the things that I hope we will take a look at that has not been discussed is section 209 relative to obtaining electronic information with a subpoena. That is a routine matter that caused no concern because it stored electronic data and that is not new law.

The reason why we need to look at it before 10 years from now is that as technology changes and all telephone communication becomes Voice Over Internet Protocol, theoretically every phone call would be subject to seizure by subpoena, which is not something I think any of us would agree we intend to do. That should be a wiretap standard and it may drift down to a subpoena standard. That is why we need oversight, not because there is a bad guy out there necessarily, but because the technology is going to change and change swiftly and potentially very much alter what we think we are doing here today.

Mr. Chairman, I would just note that we have spent since 9/11 only a couple hundred million dollars in homeland security to secure our rail systems. That is the real problem here. We spent nearly $25 billion on air security and a couple of hundred million on rail.

I would also not that although I do not oppose the death penalty, I doubt very much the death penalty is going to deter the suicide bombers. I think we need to look at not deterrents but at actually preventing the terrorists from harming Americans by protecting the systems and putting our money where our mouth is and in securing these rail systems which we have failed to do.

As my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary knows, I also serve on the Committee on Homeland Security. We are well aware of how deficient our efforts have been in this regard. That is the crux of this problem, not threatening suicide bombers with the death penalty.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to concur with the comments made by the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and to thank my colleague from California for the amendment, and just note that as I read through it and agreed with this, and I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, it occurs to me that there are a few other items that perhaps should have been included, and I am hopeful that the committee might, we do not have a sunset, but we might actually spend some time scrubbing the code and making sure that we have scooped them all up in an appropriate way.

Mr. Chairman, many of us, when we think about terrorism, feel exactly the way the proponent of the amendment does, that we want to exert maximum force against the offender. Those who would kill deserve to pay the ultimate price.

On the other hand, I am aware that there are people in our country and in our Congress who for religious reasons do not believe in the death penalty. The Pope did not believe in the death penalty and, obviously, he was not for terrorism any more than our religious colleagues who have that objection are for terrorism. So I think it is important to state that.

I also want to say I am a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I have been for 10 years. If there was a hearing in the subcommittee that I am not a member of all well and good, but I think this amendment poses some new things that the full committee would benefit from going through. The reduced number of jurors that is being proposed, the procedural changes that are quite new, I think, deserve the attention of the full committees. It is possible that this measure could run into constitutional problems. And I think we would be better served to sort through that in a thorough way than to expose these elements of the PATRIOT Act to court challenge.

Finally, I would just say as I said before, even though we seek, understandably, retribution against those who would do these horrible crimes, I am just skeptical that imposing the death penalty is going to deter the suicide bombers. Really, what we need to do is to spend the time and the money to take steps to protect ourselves in a more thorough way than we have done since 9/11.

As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am acutely aware, and we are on both sides of the aisle, I can tell you of the shortfallings that we have in our protection against terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, having just seen this amendment for the first time today, there are questions that are raised. I understand what the intent is, and perhaps if this passes we can clarify this in a conference committee; but I wonder about the liabilities of the banking industry that acts innocently to help immigrants transmit funds home.

The banks in California have been encouraged to regularize the remittance program. We talk sometimes about illegal immigration, and that is not anything that any of us approve of; but it is not the same as terrorism, and it is also not the same as those immigrants. It is also a financial services industry.

I do wish we could have heard from the financial services industry on this point because certainly it deserves some clarification. Maybe it does not do what has been suggested. We have had some communications from those who are concerned it does. But I do want to raise that on behalf of the California banking industry that has really stepped up to avoid the fraud and crime that has occurred with remittances before they did.

Mr. Chairman, here is my question. Section 208 of the Social Security Act apparently states it is illegal to use a false Social Security number for activities to obtain employment.

If I am a 14-year-old kid and I go out and make up a Social Security number so I can get a job and pretend I am 18, and I get money for it, have I violated section 208? And if so, if I deal with a bank, is the bank falling afoul of this terrorism statute?

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, although I plan to support this amendment to protect aircraft in U.S. airspace, I do want to rise and express my disappointment that the majority refused to accept an amendment that I offered in committee to further protect civilian aircraft.

In committee, I offered an amendment that would punish those who sell dangerous 50 caliber sniper rifles to known terrorists. Unfortunately, some in the majority viewed this as a gun control measure, but it is not. This is a national security issue.

Mr. Chairman, 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles are an ideal tool for terrorists because civil aircraft may be vulnerable to them. In fact, even early promotional materials for the 50 caliber rifle reference their threat to civilian aircraft. The promotional material states that the weapon could ``target the compression section of jet engines making it capable of destroying multimillion aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.''

The rifle's brochure goes on to say: ``The cost-effectiveness of the 50 caliber cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than $10 can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft.''

Since 9/11 our country has made great efforts to secure our civilian airplanes and airports. Terrorists will obviously adapt to our tactics; so it is vital that we plan and think ahead.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if we make it difficult to get weapons on a plane or into an airport, terrorists may look to destroy airplanes from longer distances. That is what the 50 caliber rifle is designed to do. These rifles are accurate at ranges of at least 1,000 yards and even further in the hands of a trained marksman. In essence, these weapons could give a terrorist the ability to take a shot at an aircraft from beyond most airports' security perimeter.

There is already evidence that terrorists have sought these weapons. According to the Violence Policy Center, al Qaeda bought twenty-five 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles in the 1980s.

My amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary simply said that if someone sells a 50 caliber sniper rifle to someone who they know is a member of al Qaeda they have broken the law. That amendment was defeated, and I think it is a shame. We should have passed my amendment and made it more difficult for terrorists to get ahold of these weapons. Unfortunately, we did not do so.

I will certainly support the gentleman's amendment but with regret that we did not do more.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

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

I support the amendment. No American should be investigated solely for membership in a nonviolent political organization or for engaging in other lawful political activity. This is important to all of us, but I wanted to note that in California we recently learned of the danger of not living up to the standard.

It has been reported by several media sources that the California National Guard was spying on the Mothers of Dead Soldiers and a group called the Raging Grannies, who are average age 75 years old, who were having a peaceful demonstration on the grounds of the State Capital on Mother's Day. I requested hearings in the Committee on Homeland Security. I have written to the California National Guard regarding this very serious allegation of a breach of first amendment protected activity. Federal funds may have been used.

I will vote for this amendment. It is the right thing, but we also need to have very aggressive investigative action when we hear about allegations of misconduct.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a member of our committee.

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

Although the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and I do not always vote together, I think he speaks wisdom this evening on the need to move beyond the narrow confines of this act. Clearly we do need to and we have broken down the walls between law enforcement and the intelligence community so that we can piece together the full picture and connect the dots. We need to do a much better job of protecting America from terrorists by taking those steps we can. He is right to offer this sense of the Congress amendment. We need to have more vigorous action in addition to the sense of the Congress activity.

All of us believe we ought to fight terrorism. Many of us are concerned that we have failed to do the balance of

privacy and the Constitution in some parts of the 16 provisions that are before us this evening.

As we know, most of the PATRIOT Act is actually not before the House of Representatives this evening. It is only 16 provisions, and of those 16 provisions, there are concerns about a few of them. But those are serious concerns, and we believe that those concerns can be dealt with. We are hopeful that, as this process moves forward, that the Senate that has taken these issues of civil liberties more to heart on a bipartisan and I would add unanimous basis may in the end prevail so that those who are troubled by the failure to really deal with some of the constitutional issues will in the end be able to support a bill at least at the end of a conference process.

But I do commend the gentleman for offering his amendment. It does not solve the other problems, but it is the right thing to do, and I look forward to supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I looked at today's floor

schedule, I was pleasantly surprised to see an item addressing the issue of declining United States competitiveness in the world.

The fact is the issue of competitiveness has not been a priority for Republican leaders in this Congress or in any preceding one in the last 10 years, and I thought perhaps finally the Republicans had woken up. Unfortunately, I was very disappointed when I read the text of the proposal because this plan is nonbinding; it has really nothing that will make the United States more competitive. That is what I have come to expect in this Congress, this Republican-led Congress: more talk and no action. And once again this resolution has failed to propose specific policies that would actually boost technological innovation or our commitment to education.

As many know, I represent Silicon Valley, along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), the most creative and innovative place on Earth; and if I were to bring your resolution back to the leaders of the Silicon Valley, the engineers, the techies, Ph.D.s, venture capitalists, educators, CEOs, I think I would be laughed all the way back to D.C. I suspect that you did not consult with any of the people in the tech industry because, if you did, we would have had something with a little meat on it that meant something.

We need a sustained commitment to Federal funding of R&D. The 2006 budget proposed by President Bush continues to cut R&D. It underfunds the National Science Foundation by billions of dollars; and the fact is if we do not count weapons research, this administration has sharply reduced federally funded scientific research, and this nonbinding resolution will not do a darn thing to change it.

We need to dramatically improve our math and science education in our country. We know that we are falling short, and meanwhile we are continuing to fail in our funding promises to No Child Left Behind. We need to reform our immigration policies so that the best and brightest students can come and study in the United States and not be poached by universities who are benefiting in Australia and England and elsewhere through our short-sighted and bureaucratic policies; and we need a sustained commitment to science research and education. We cannot afford to sit back and pass nonbinding resolutions that do nothing. We could at least enact the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Eshoo) bill for stock options.

With an exploding deficit, reduced support for education of Americans, a door shutting on Nobel-level scientists from abroad, no energy policy that will lead to energy independence, this proposal is worse than nothing because the right wing will not take action on competitiveness and will probably say they did something if this stupid and meaningless resolution is permitted to pass.

Republicans are like the guy in court who killed his parents and now pleads for mercy as an orphan. They have controlled the House of Representatives for 10 years. Their policies for the last 10 years have shorted education. They have shorted science. They have eliminated protection for tech innovation. These words do not change those failed policies, and I hope that we turn down this resolution and tell the truth that our policies are threatening the competitiveness of our United States, and this mere meaningless resolution will do nothing, nothing, to solve that.

Mr. Speaker, this week I and over 60 of my colleagues will introduce a comprehensive reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. VAWA is set to expire on September 30 of this year, so it is vital that this Congress quickly consider and pass the reauthorization.

Since its passage in 1994, VAWA has been a great success. It has provided over $5.5 billion in Federal funding to improve our criminal and community responses to domestic violence. But the statistics remain alarming. One in every four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime. Last year, California law enforcement received 198,000 domestic violence calls, with weapons involved in over 136,000 of those cases.

The reauthorization that we are putting forward this week will go a long

way to stop this troubling reality. And I want to acknowledge particularly the hard work of my colleagues who worked on this bill. It is truly a collaborative effort that includes prevention, not just response. And we must, we must approve reauthorization before the expiration on September 1. It needs to be broad, and it needs to be this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the achievements of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Silicon Valley as they celebrate 50 years as an advocate and resource for its members, business owners, professionals, students and the community in general by being the premier voice for Hispanic and minority businesses.

The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Silicon Valley, originally called the Mexican American Chamber of Commerce, was founded in 1955, and incorporated as a non-profit organization in 1975 when it began offering services to the Latino small business community.

Over the years, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has provided assistance and support to numerous Latinos and other minority small businesses in business education, economic assistance, international business, entrepreneurship, education, community development, loan program development, and procurement assistance, to name a few. The Hispanic Chamber has helped over 5,000 clients in the past 50 years and has helped businesses procure loans totaling over $3 million.

The Hispanic Chamber is a recognized leader and influential player in the development of the social, political and economic landscape of this region, and was recognized as the best Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in the United States by an independent auditing firm in 1999.

I am proud of the leadership, volunteers and network of supporters whose dedication has built Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Silicon Valley into an integral part of the fabric of our local community. And, in so doing, the Hispanic Chamber is contributing to making Silicon Valley a place that recognizes the vital role Hispanic businesses play in the economic development of our nation.

Mr. Speaker, Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America, recently wrote an opinion piece for the San Jose Mercury News. In this piece, Mr. Miller addresses some serious concerns about the Chinese government's trade policies and their efforts to control and limit information on the internet. Mr. Miller makes some excellent points and I encourage all of my colleagues to review his article.

[From the San Jose Mercury News, May 23, 2005]

In Walling Off Software Market, China Forgets Trade Goes Two Ways

(By Harris N. Miller)

Chinese trade practices have long been the subject of

complaint from U.S. manufacturers, particularly in the

textile industry. American high-tech firms now see the storm

clouds forming for their own business sectors. Two trends are

particularly disturbing: China's leaders are quietly closing

the doors to domestic market software competition while

simultaneously attempting to expand government control over

the Internet.

Despite U.S. protests, the Chinese government has published

draft regulations that effectively would close China's

government market to American and other foreign software

companies. Software is likely to be the

first of many government markets to close to foreign

competition.

When it comes to information technology, China is a waking

giant. With a total information and communications technology

marketplace of almost $100 billion, the Chinese appetite for

computers, software and networks has more than doubled since

2000. All things being equal, China's high-tech growth is a

good thing. With more than 1 billion people and a rapidly

growing economy, China should be a tremendously positive

trading partner, and the U.S. information technology industry

has championed China's accession to the World Trade

Organization.

But to be widely embraced, the door to global trade must

swing both ways. Not even considering a piracy rate exceeding

90 percent, China is now considering taking the additional

step of rolling back the access that foreign software

companies currently enjoy in the Chinese government

procurement market.

China is in the process of implementing a ``buy Chinese''

software procurement policy for government systems, which, if

implemented restrictively, will dramatically inhibit foreign

involvement in software sales to the Chinese government.

New draft procurement rules would require foreign software

firms seeking Chinese government business to either perform

50 percent of the development work in China and assign

copyright to a Chinese entity or make substantial R&D and

capital investments in China. Even those foreign companies

that might meet China's R&D, manufacturing or outsourcing

requirements could not compete fairly for government

contracts. Any Chinese government entity that wants to

procure foreign software eligible for purchase on these

grounds would have to apply and obtain a specific waiver.

Equally troubling, China is asserting a larger government

role over the operations of the Internet itself

In a society like China's, one that represses dissent and

rewards conformity, Internet access to news and information

from countless points of view is nothing less than a threat.

This is no doubt why Chinese officials have jailed dozens of

citizens for ``subversive'' Internet-related activity,

including issuing warnings about the spread of SARS or

advocating greater democracy.

This also explains China's interest in blocking politically

incorrect Web sites, collecting data on the Internet use and

site visits of individuals, monitoring Internet service

providers--even keeping tabs on Internet cafes.

Not exactly an advertisement for a government-run Internet.

But at the Working Group on Internet Governance, a group

affiliated with the United Nations, China said ``the basic

principles of the Internet, namely, openness, fairness, and

democracy and freedom'' are being diminished by the failure

of governments to play a more prominent role in Internet

governance.

Even though the Internet has flourished in a governance

environment that brings together government, the private

sector and civil society, China rejects this

``trilateralism'' because it denies ``the due responsibility

and role of governments in Internet policy-making.''

China wants full access to the U.S. market while attempting

to shut down the access that U.S. companies currently have to

its market. At the same time, China's government-first stance

on Internet governance threatens to throw sand in the gears

of Internet proliferation (and the democratizing influence it

represents). The U.S. information technology industry wants

to continue to support China's role as a major trading

partner. But that is possible only when free trade is truly

free.

Mr. Speaker, too often this debate has been categorized about who loves the flag. And it has caused me to think back about the great affection I feel for our flag. The fondest memory I think I have of being a mother is standing on the school yard of the elementary school with my children and joining with them and the other mothers as they saluted our flag. I remember crying, looking at our flag the first time I went to a Democratic convention and we sang the National Anthem and our flag was there. It was overwhelming, that the flag was there for our democracy.

And when we enter this Capitol and see the flag flying above it, it is an overwhelming experience to see that flag. We love it so much. And why? Because our Nation's flag stands for the freedoms that define this country. One of those freedoms is freedom of speech. Our country is strong and free because Americans are free to express their opinions even when we do not agree with those opinions.

If enacted, this bill would for the first time in our Nation's history modify the Bill of Rights to limit freedom of speech. As has been stated, it is clear that this amendment would only limit speech that some do not agree with.

Why are the Republican leadership of the House pushing this amendment? I think it is obvious that it would amend the first amendment. I think the majority party cannot really tolerate dissent.

I would like to read something that General Colin Powell said about this amendment when we had hearings several years ago. General Powell: ``The first amendment exists to ensure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree but also to that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.''

Jim Warner, a Vietnam veteran and prisoner of the North Vietnamese from 1967 to 1973, wrote this about the proposed amendment, and I quote this prisoner of war, this American hero: ``The fact is the principles for which we fought, for which our comrades died, are advancing everywhere upon the earth while the principles against which we fought are everywhere discredited and rejected. The flag burners have lost, and their defeat is the most fitting and thorough rebuke of their principles which the human could devise. Why do we need to do more? An act intended merely as an insult is not worthy of our fallen comrades. It is the sort of thing our enemies did to us, but we are not them, and we must conform to a different standard . . . Now, when the justice of our principles is everywhere vindicated, the cause of human liberty demands that this amendment be rejected. Rejecting this amendment would not mean that we agree with those who burned our flag or even that they have been forgiven. It would, instead, tell the world that freedom of expression means freedom even for those expressions we find repugnant.''

I think there is another reason why this amendment has been offered, and that is to divert attention from the shabby treatment of our veterans. Let us shift attention to our beloved flag; maybe the vets will not notice that Congress has not kept our promises to them.

According to the American Legion, 30,000 veterans are waiting 6 months or longer for an appointment at a veterans hospital. The Veterans of Foreign Wars estimates that as many as 220,000 men and women veterans could lose their benefits under the proposed veterans budget. Our veterans went to war to protect our Nation and to guarantee our freedoms, including freedom of speech and to ensure that those freedoms would be protected. Now we are about to undercut their sacrifice by amending the first amendment for the very first time. And to add injury to insult, we are also failing to provide the care our veterans earned with their blood and their sweat, and we are denying them what they deserve from a grateful Nation.

Some in the past have voted for this amendment assuming that the Senate will stop it, that we really will not do this bad thing to our country. I have great fear that the political landscape has changed. I think this is a sad and shameful day for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Steven Hao for his selection as a finalist in the USA Biology Olympiad, sponsored by the Center for Excellence in Education.

Steven was selected as one of twenty students from more than 5,400 who will compete in the National Finals. The four gold medalists from the National Finals will represent the United States at the International Biology Olympiad in Beijing, China. We hope that these students will achieve the outstanding success of the 2004 U.S. Team, who won an unprecedented four gold medals, a feat accomplished for the first time in Biology Olympiad history.

The Biology Olympiad promotes education and creativity in a way that is vital to a youth's development. These types of activities encourage students to explore the fields of science and engineering. This kind of innovation will drive the United States' economy into the future. As a Member of Congress from Silicon Valley, I fully understand the importance and impact that these studies have on America's prosperity.

I am proud to stand here today to recognize Steven for his accomplishments at the USA Biology Olympiad. Steven was also recently recognized for winning a prize at the 56th Intel International Science and Engineering Fair Project for his project on ``The Effects of Oxidative Damage on Protein Translation Efficiency.'' I urge him and all students to continue to take an interest in these fields, so that the U.S. will continue to lead the world in scientific research.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose legalizing marijuana, but I support this amendment. Just like the other voters in California, I do not see why we should prohibit doctors from providing for pain relief for their patients.

I will talk to you about someone I knew. I will call him Mr. X. He had terminal cancer, and he could not eat, and the only thing that could get him an appetite was marijuana. Mr. X, who was my age, had to go out and buy marijuana illegally. It was so horrible for him.

Why should we force the indignity on terminal cancer patients of having to do that? That is why my State voted to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana, so that cancer patients who cannot eat have the chance to get some nutrition. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we would interfere with that, and I strongly, strongly urge, on behalf of all cancer patients, please support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Alok Wadhwani for his award of Best Student Scenic Design in the 11th annual High School Music Theatre HONORS awards in San Jose.

This year, over 25 Bay Area High Schools competed in 10 unique categories, Judges from the American Musical Theatre were sent to each school to watch and evaluate performances. Judges were instructed to evaluate the quality of each production and performance, while keeping in mind each school's budget and available resources. This annual competition awarded four students who reside within California's 16th district.

Alok is a student from Valley Christian High School. He won the Best Student Scenic Design award for his work in ``Godspell''.

The High School Music Theatre HONORS awards promote artistic creativity in a way that is vital to a youth's development. The performances that these youth stage are extremely labor intensive, and promote discipline, team work, and dedication. High School Performing Arts programs are generally underfunded and have been greatly reduced in recent years. I recognize the hard work, time, and energy that these students and teachers put into these productions.

I am proud to stand here today and recognize Alok for his accomplishments. I urge him and all students to continue to take interest in the performing arts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kelly Black for her award as Best Female Performer in the 11th annual High School Music Theatre HONORS awards in San Jose.

This year, over 25 Bay Area High Schools competed in 10 unique categories. Judges from the American Musical Theatre were sent to each school to watch and evaluate performances. Judges were instructed to evaluate the quality of each production and performance, while keeping in mind each school's budget and available resources. This annual competition awarded four students who reside within California's 16th district.

Kelly is a student from Oak Grove High School. She won the Best Female Performer award for her role of Velma Kelly in ``Chicago''. Kelly will receive a scholarship to the

American Musical Theatre Artists Institute, a nine-week intensive professional training program.

The High School Music Theatre HONORS awards promote artistic creativity in a way that is vital to a youth's development. The performances that these youth stage are extremely labor intensive, and promote discipline, team work, and dedication. High School Performing Arts programs are generally underfunded and have been greatly reduced in recent years. I recognize the hard work, time, and energy that these students and teachers put into these productions.

I am proud to stand here today and recognize Kelly for her accomplishments. I urge her and all students to continue to take interest in the performing arts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Tommy Jernigan for his award of Best Student Lighting Design in the 11th annual High School Music Theatre HONORS awards in San Jose.

This year, over 25 Bay Area High Schools competed in 10 unique categories. Judges from the American Musical Theatre were sent to each school to watch and evaluate performances. Judges were instructed to evaluate the

quality of each production and performance, while keeping in mind each school's budget and available resources. This annual competition awarded four students who reside within California's 16th district.

Tommy is a student from Live Oak High School. He won the Best Student Lighting Design award for his work in ``Fiddler on the Roof''.

The High School Music Theatre HONORS awards promote artistic creativity in a way that is vital to a youth's development. The performances that these youth stage are extremely labor intensive, and promote discipline, team work, and dedication. High School Performing Arts programs are generally underfunded and have been greatly reduced in recent years. I recognize the hard work, time, and energy that these students and teachers put into these productions.

I am proud to stand here today and recognize Tommy for his accomplishments. I urge him and all students to continue to take interest in the performing arts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Live Oak High School orchestra for its award of Best Student Orchestra in the 11th annual High School Music Theatre HONORS awards in San Jose.

This year, over 25 Bay Area High Schools competed in 10 unique categories. Judges from the American Musical Theatre were sent to each school to watch and evaluate performances. Judges were instructed to evaluate the quality of each production and performance, while keeping in mind each school's budget and available resources. This annual competition awarded four students who reside within California's 16th district.

The Live Oak High School Orchestra is conducted by Greg Bergantz. Live Oak High School won the Best Student Orchestra award for its performance in ``Fiddler on the Roof''.

The High School Music Theatre HONORS awards promote artistic creativity in a way that is vital to a youth's development. The performances that these youth stage are extremely labor intensive, and promote discipline, team work, and dedication. High School Performing Arts program's are generally underfunded and have been greatly reduced in recent years. I recognize the hard work, time, and energy that these students and teachers put into these productions.

I am proud to stand here today and recognize the Live Oak High School orchestra for its accomplishments. I urge all students to continue to take interest in the performing arts.