Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today the House is taking up an important piece of tax legislation, the Timber Tax Act of 2005. Unfortunately it is attached to a fiscally irresponsible tax cut that I cannot support. However, I do support the Timber Tax Act and hope that the House will bring this legislation to the floor for a separate vote.

In today's economy, the forest products industry is very important to Washington State with 8.5 million acres of privately owned forestland. There are more than two million people in the U.S. who make their living working for the forest products industry and more than 45,000 in Washington alone. This industry is the state's second largest manufacturing sector.

Timber is a unique and risky investment compared to other long term investments. It can take between 20 to 70 years to grow timber that is ready for harvest, which means significant upfront investments in forestry are also subject to risks of nature, clearly demonstrated by last year's hurricanes and wildfires. If passed, the Timber Tax Act would encourage reinvestment in forestland, which supports an industry that provides important jobs to many Washington State residents.

Mr. Speaker, this debate on this resolution, and the resolution itself, continues two very dangerous patterns that have sort of governed all of our actions in Iraq for far, far too long.

First of all, there are no specifics, as Congressman Snyder said quite articulately, as to how we are going to achieve this victory.

When this debate was billed, we were told this was going to be the floor of the House, the People's House talking about how to deal with the very tough challenges that now present themselves in Iraq. Even the President admits that things have not gone the way we had planned, and we need to step up and figure out how to fix the problems.

And yet, this resolution doesn't say a thing about that. It says, terrorism is bad, our troops are good, and we want to win.

This House is failing in its mission with such an open statement that does not get at the how of winning. How are we going to deal with an open-ended commitment to Iraq? How are we going to pay the price for that? Is it even in the best interest of our goal of a stable and peaceful Iraq to say that our troops will stay there for as long as is necessary?

Those questions are not answered. Unless we in this House are willing to step up and put policy forward, we shouldn't say that this is a debate about the future of Iraq. It is not. We have many hard questions that need to be answered. This resolution does not do that.

And the second dangerous trend is the pattern of the President and the majority in this Congress to say anyone who disagrees with them is somehow unpatriotic and defeatist, which to my mind means that we all need a refresher course on why democracy is important. We are all very good at saying that it is important. It is important so that we hear all the voices, not just those who disagree with us. That way we can learn from our mistakes, which we desperately need to do in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in disappointment--though I must say, not in surprise--about the exercise the House is engaged in today. This is not a true debate about our policy in Iraq. A real debate on Iraq would allow us to consider alternative proposals and vote on meaningful amendments that could help us improve the very difficult situation there. Instead we have before us an un-amendable, rhetorical document about the war on terrorism that barely focuses on Iraq itself, and certainly doesn't deal with the real challenges we face there. This process is an offense to our democracy.

What is even more troubling, Mr. Speaker, is that this kind of undemocratic approach is precisely what led to the Bush administration's many costly mistakes in Iraq. Americans have seen how the administration's stubborn single-mindedness and refusal to consider alternative views and dissenting opinions have cost us dearly in Iraq. The facts are all-too-well-known:

When General Shinseki said that far more troops would be needed to secure the peace in Iraq, he was ignored and soon retired--and the result was that the troops we did send struggled unnecessarily to prevent and control a massive insurgency.

When advisors warned the administration not to de-Baathify and disband the Iraqi military and security forces, they were ignored. As Prime Minister Tony Blair has publicly admitted, this was a grave mistake that effectively pushed thousands of military-trained, disempowered Sunnis into the streets, fueling the post-war insurgency.

And the administration's refusal to heed dissenting views on Iraq continues to this day. Now that the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has brought to light massive amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse in the reconstruction contracting, I understand that the administration and the Republicans in Congress are trying to prematurely end his mandate.

This is a clear pattern, Mr. Speaker, and the consequences of this arrogant, undemocratic approach are real. It has cost us dearly in American lives and resources, undermined our efforts to build peace and stability in Iraq, and delayed our departure from the country.

Mr. Speaker, I supported the use-of-force authorization in October 2002 in order to give the President the leverage to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for his threatening behavior and refusal to submit to weapons inspections. And that is what makes it all the more frustrating that the President misused that authority by rushing to war and committing so many grave and costly mistakes in Iraq.

So no, Mr. Speaker, this is not a real debate. A real debate would allow us to consider the important questions in Iraq: Can we afford to make an open-ended commitment to staying in Iraq? Has our troop presence there reached the point where it is inhibiting a successful transition to full Iraqi sovereignty? Can our strained military and ballooning national deficit handle it?

How can we accelerate the transition to Iraqi sovereignty and responsibility for their own country? How best can we engage in more robust diplomacy with our allies and key regional players who can help bolster the new Iraqi government and contribute to its reconstruction?

How can we improve Congressional oversight so that we can identify and rectify the enormous mistakes the administration has made in Iraq?

These are the questions we should be debating, Mr. Speaker, because they directly affect our ability to achieve success in Iraq. We owe it to our brave men and women in uniform and to the American people to ask these questions. But instead, we have a resolution before us today that is basically irrelevant when it comes to the real issues in Iraq. It says, essentially, that we support fighting terrorism and that we are committed to achieving success in Iraq. I agree with that, but that doesn't say anything about how we get there. That is the important question.

Mr. Speaker, today Congress is continuing to utterly abdicate its oversight responsibility. Since the outbreak of war, this Congress has done little more than endorse the administration's policy in Iraq, instead of asking the tough questions and scrutinizing that policy, as the Constitution requires us to do.

Mr. Speaker, I hope, despite this Congress' refusal to conduct oversight, that we can be honest today as we look ahead in Iraq. We all want to see an Iraq that is stable, secure, and free. Our troops are doing an outstanding job, and they deserve our full support and respect. But the fact is that success or failure in Iraq increasingly depends on the decisions of Iraqi leaders, and they must understand that. In order to achieve success in Iraq we must accelerate the transition to Iraqi sovereignty.

I believe that significantly reducing our military footprint is critical for making that happen. While we cannot simply abandon Iraq at this point, drawing down our forces levels in a responsible way in the coming months will force the Iraqis to take greater responsibility for their own security and reduce their dependence on U.S. forces. It will also send an important message to the Iraqi people that Americans are not there to occupy the country, but rather seek to begin leaving as Iraqis take control of their own country.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as we move forward in Iraq, both the future and the past matter. We must make the best of a difficult situation by working diligently to help Iraqis take full responsibility for running their country so that our overburdened troops can come home. And we must do so in a manner that does not give the violent Islamic terrorists in the world any greater strength. Yet we must also be willing to acknowledge and learn from our mistakes

so that we can chart a new path forward. That requires holding the Bush administration and this rubber-stamp Congress accountable for their failures.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 173: On ordering the previous question. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 174: On agreeing to H. Res. 821, the rule providing for consideration H.R. 5385. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 175: On the Blumenauer amendment to H.R. 5385. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 176: On final passage of H.R. 5385. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today the House of Representatives passed S. 1382, a bill which would allow the Puyallup Indian Tribe to convert parts of their tribal land into a Trust held by the Department of the Interior.

The Puyallup Tribe has worked in partnership with the State of Washington, the Port of Tacoma, Pierce County, the Cities of Fife, Puyallup, and Tacoma to finalize an arrangement that will enable more than $450 million in new investment and create an estimated 4,000 construction jobs and nearly 6,000 permanent jobs in Pierce County. Under the multi-party agreement--which builds on the 1988 Puyallup Indian Land Claims Settlement--relocation of some of the tribal lands will enable construction of a major new container terminal on the Blair Waterway.

S. 1382 is critical to the success of this broad-based agreement, and I look forward to the President signing this important legislation into law so that it can be fully implemented and the region can realize the benefits. I commend all parties involved on the way they worked together to allow for this expansion which will be an economic driver for the region.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this comprehensive, bipartisan legislation which will address one of the most significant challenges identified by the 9/11 Commission: an attack at our ports. I commend my colleagues for working together to bring forth this important piece of legislation that will enhance our security, improve the efficiency of trade and provide necessary funding for the critical missions of our Coast Guard, Customs and Border Agents, and others involved in the maritime industry.

The Puget Sound region has a long maritime history. As we've moved towards a global economy, Washington state had responded accordingly and has become an important global partner in facilitating and improving international commerce. It is estimated that 95 percent of U.S. trade flows through the nation's 361 ports, equaling almost $1 trillion annually.

As trade with Asia continues to grow, west coast ports, like the Port of Tacoma, are playing an ever larger role. I am proud to have the Port of Tacoma located in my district. It is the nation's sixth largest port by cargo container volume, it handled over 2.1 million containers last year and continues to be a major economic engine in the South Sound region. In addition to its growing capacity, the Port of Tacoma is also one of the nation's strategic military ports, helping to transport Fort Lewis-related cargo overseas in support of our troops. I commend the Port of Tacoma for taking the necessary steps to tighten facility security and continue to serve the vital role in the national homeland security efforts.

With the Port of Seattle to the north and the Port of Olympia to the south, the Port of Tacoma works collaboratively with its sister ports and takes a regional approach to improve the security in and around the facilities. In fact, the Port of Tacoma and Port of Seattle worked together in Operation Safe Commerce, a federal program designed to create the knowledge base required for international standards for containerized shipping. Both ports are actively working with private and public entities to identify supply chain vulnerabilities and develop improved methods and technologies to ensure the security of cargo entering and leaving the United States. Many lessons were learned in working with manufacturing and shipping partners and this knowledge will help us improve our efficiency while protecting our citizens and critical infrastructure. I am pleased to see that additional funds are available in this legislation to continue this important program.

The SAFE Port Act takes many critically important steps to prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This bill strengthens our domestic and international security efforts by making improvements to high-risk cargo targeting and tracking systems. The bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to deploy nuclear and radiological detection systems to our major ports by the end of next year. Ports will also have the much needed resources they need through the Port Security Grant Program to improve facility security.

Screening containers prior to its arrival at our U.S. ports is critical and I am pleased to see that the Department of Homeland Security is working to evaluate new radiological and other detection devices for use at foreign seaports. I believe these new technologies will arm our security officers with improved information and allow us to better protect our critical infrastructure. The bill also includes improvements to our international screening programs: the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT).

The important role that our ports play in security and commerce has too often not received the appropriate level of priority. As a result, funding for the security of our ports has been sorely inadequate. This legislation moves forward in the right direction. We must do all we can to protect our communities, our critical infrastructure and our homeland. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the SAFE Port Act today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the life and accomplishments of Sam Volpentest, who recently died after a lifetime of service to the citizens of Washington state.

Although born in Seattle in 1904, Sam was best known for his work on behalf of the Tri-Cities in the Eastern part of our state. From the time he moved there in 1948, Sam was a respected member of the regional community, operating a variety of businesses and co-founding the Tri- Cities Nuclear Industrial Council, now TRIDEC, to foster development in the Richland, Kennewick and Pasco communities. He served as president of the Richland Chamber of Commerce and the Richland Kiwanis, and said his greatest I achievement in 40 years as a registered lobbyist was having the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, an Energy Department science lab, built in the Tri-Cities.

Sam served as a mentor to many Members of our state's Congressional delegation, and I will always remember the energy and commitment he demonstrated when I worked with him as a Member of the Armed Services Committee. When I first worked with Sam, I remember a man in his mid- 90s who worked harder on his issues than anyone else. His enthusiasm and knowledge of the issues affecting the Tri-Cities provided this region with a

respected voice advocating its interests in Congress.

Our state's delegation will miss the insight and perspectives of this community leader. The Tri-Cities--and indeed all of Washington state-- will always remember the commitment and dedication of Sam Volpentest.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that is a part of today's Department of Justice Authorization Act. Enacted in 1994, this law provides access to programs and services for many victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Since VAWA was first passed, domestic violence has decreased by almost 50 percent and incidents of rape have decreased by 60 percent More than one million women have used the judicial system to obtain domestic violence protective orders.

During my time as a former King County Prosecutor I saw how VAWA successfully helped many people. The criminal justice system was improved by training police and prosecutors to respond more effectively to incidences of domestic violence or sexual assaults. The Act also provided legal aid so victims may seek justice to their crimes. It provided the tools in order to protect the victims and provide them with the services they need to escape this horrible situation.

But there is still more work to be done. Each year, 960,000 incidents of violence are reported in which the offender has acted against a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend. It is unacceptable that women are still being abused. It is unacceptable that high school students are sexually harassed. It is unacceptable that these victims face the fear and embarrassment of telling others about their situation.

Unfortunately, some victims are faced with the situation where their abuser is a law enforcement officer. I recognize that law enforcement officers are faced with many complex situations and a great deal of work-related stress. I recognize that law enforcement officers are faced with complex situations on a day to day basis while trying to make our communities safer. However, these situations can push many to their limits and cause hardships in their jobs and personal lives.

I would like to bring to your attention the case of Crystal Judson. On April 26, 2003, Tacoma Police Chief David Brame shot his wife, Crystal Judson Brame, before he killed himself in a parking lot in Gig Harbor, a community near my district. Their two young children, ages 8 and 5, sat nearby in their father's car. Crystal had been the victim of abuse for many years prior to this incident, but she was unable to obtain help for herself and her children in part because she lacked the tools and resources she needed.

Unfortunately, there was no policy in place for the City of Tacoma or the Tacoma Police to address this issue.

In response to this incident, the Washington State Legislature passed a law in 2004 establishing standards for law enforcement agencies within the state to prevent and punish future incidents of domestic violence committed by law enforcement officers. I am pleased to see law enforcement agencies taking this matter seriously and implementing policies that help them address these situations.

I am disappointed that I--along with several of my colleagues from Washington State--were not able to offer two amendments that sought to address this issue. The first amendment would have simply clarified that Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecution (STOP) program grants were available to law enforcement agencies to develop policies to address law enforcement officer domestic abuse. STOP grants promotes a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to improving the criminal justice system's response to violent crimes against women by encouraging the development and strengthening of effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to address violent crimes against women and the development and strengthening of victim services in cases involving violent crimes against women.

The second amendment would initiate a study conducted by the Department of Justice to investigate the incidence of domestic violence involving law enforcement officers. Little research has been done on this specific issue in over a decade. A study conducted by the Justice Department could provide policymakers with critical facts and information as we seek to undertake a federal effort to address the issue. While I am pleased that Chairman Sensenbrenner agreed to conduct a GAO Report on law enforcement-officer-involved domestic violence, I hope this study will be conducted in a speedy manner to ensure other victims like Crystal Brame are not left without a voice.

I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure ample funding for VAWA and STOP grants. I look forward to supporting the Chairman in his request and look forward to the results so we can do more to assist victims of domestic abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment for the Federal government's delayed response to Hurricane Katrina. I am extremely concerned about the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Michael Brown and call for his resignation.

Brown and his senior leadership team have demonstrated a stunning level of ineptitude that made the disaster of Katrina and the loss of life and property much worse than it had to be. This tragic event has made clear that the FEMA team is not up to the job of protecting Americans from either natural disasters or from any possible terrorist attack. Security is a paramount concern to me and Americans deserve a competent and able emergency management agency. Now that it is proven that this team is incapable, we can't afford to wait to replace Director Brown.

I also strongly disagree with the suggestion--made by many in the Administration and the majority--that Americans shouldn't ``point fingers'' or play the ``blame game'' as the relief effort continues. Thousands of lives are at stake right now. We are also spending billions of public dollars on the recovery and those resources must be spent effectively and efficiently. We need an experienced team now to implement the government's plan for repairing the southeast region, not after a lengthy review process. While I support that broader review, one thing is immediately clear: The director of FEMA is plainly not up to the important job at hand.

Consider the following critically important facts.

Despite days of warning, FEMA did virtually nothing to prepare for the impact of Katrina. Director Brown reportedly waited 5 hours after Katrina struck before he proposed to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff that he send 1,000 Homeland Security workers into the region to support rescuers. Even then, his letter gave personnel 2 full days to arrive on the scene to begin offering assistance. It was 5 agonizing days before FEMA and DHS showed up in any significant numbers with adequate supplies to help the tens of thousands of people in New Orleans.

Equally disturbing are the efforts of FEMA and others in the Administration to explain away these inexcusable actions. Claims have been made that local leaders in Louisiana did not ask for help and that the Federal government could not have foreseen that the levees around New Orleans would be breeched in the event of a significant hurricane.

The utter absurdity of these claims makes it even clearer that we need new leadership at FEMA if Americans are to have any confidence that the agency will wisely and effectively deal with the continuing crisis in the Gulf Coast, much less prepare for future natural disasters or terrorist attacks.

First, locals did ask for help before the storm hit and FEMA assumed responsibility for dealing with the fallout from Katrina. Louisiana's Governor Kathleen Blanco declared a State of emergency for Louisiana on August 26th and on August 27th, she requested Federal support. On that same day, and acting on your authorization, Director Brown responded to Blanco's request for assistance and declared that FEMA would ``mobilize equipment and resources necessary to protect public health and safety by assisting law enforcement with evacuations, establishing shelters, supporting emergency medical needs, meeting immediate lifesaving and life-sustaining human needs and protecting property, in addition to other emergency protective measures.''

Second, the coming disaster was clear. Max Mayfield, the Director of the National Hurricane Center has confirmed that both Director Brown and Secretary Chertoff listened to his agency's briefing on Katrina's likely impact. Mayfield made repeated warnings about the hurricane and was quoted by the New Orleans Times-Picayune as saying, ``We were briefing them (FEMA and DHS) way before landfall. It's not like this was a surprise. We had in the advisories that the levee could be topped.'' It is alarming that, given this knowledge, FEMA thought it was appropriate to sit back and wait instead of aggressively preparing for the disaster.

Third, the vulnerability of the levees was well established. Last year, FEMA conducted a simulation involving the potential evacuation of New Orleans as a result of a Hurricane. For my years experts had been predicting that the levees could be breached by a hurricane and that the results would be disastrous, costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars. In 2001, the Army Corps of Engineers conducted a study and found that the levees in the region needed to be updated, raised, and the pumping systems modernized. In the event of a category 4 or 5 hurricane, like Hurricane Katrina, the levees would fail and the cities within the levees would be at risk of flooding.

Perhaps most troubling, Federal officials knew from news reports and from Mayor Ray Nagin's comments that tens of thousands of New Orleans residents would not be able to respond to the call to evacuate. Despite this understanding, no action was taken to accommodate those who could not evacuate their city.

I am deeply troubled by what this failure of leadership could portend for another disaster or attack. Some of FEMA's top positions have been staffed with individuals who have ample political and campaign experience, but virtually no understanding of how to prepare for and respond to a disaster of any magnitude. We expect State and local responders to be well trained and qualified. The same must be true of FEMA's leaders. There is no doubt that a new and better skilled leadership team at FEMA is required in order to best protect our Nation.

The tragic events caused by Hurricane Katrina have left hundreds of thousands of Americans with shattered homes and families and without food and water. I am committed to joining together to provide relief and to save as many lives as possible.

I have seen the compassion of Americans as volunteers, donations and financial assistance has flowed into the southeast region. We must now do our part to repair the damaged region and assist in rebuilding the lives of many of our citizens. I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues in Congress to help the people in this devastated region.

Mr. Chairman, ``Today, I rise to discuss the need for the United States to be a true leader in the fight against global poverty. More than 1 billion people live on less than $1 a day and another 2.7 billion people struggle to survive on less than $2 a day. So what do these numbers really mean? They mean that well over half of the world's population is struggling in poverty and one-sixth of the world's population can't meet even the most basic needs for survival. This is morally unacceptable.

I applaud the President's leadership on the issue, including his commitments to increased debt relief and direct assistance to Africa that were discussed recently at the G-8 summit in Scotland. Programs like the Millennium Challenge Account, which have allowed us to increase development aid and target it more effectively, are an important part of the solution. But, the United States still lacks a comprehensive strategy to help eliminate extreme global poverty. We need to leverage development aid, debt relief, technical assistance and public private partnerships. We need to coordinate with world bodies, including the United Nations, in helping impoverished'' countries devise plans that will work for them.

I'm pleased that this bill includes language that will move us in the right direction. The language, that I requested be added to the bill as it was being drafted in committee, declares that the elimination of extreme global poverty should be a top foreign policy priority for the United States and that the U.S. should work with all the players involved in this fight, including developing and donor countries and multilateral institutions to coordinate polices to address global poverty. Most importantly, the language urges the President to develop a comprehensive strategy to eliminate extreme global poverty. It says this plan should include foreign assistance, foreign and local private investment, technical assistance, private-public partnerships and debt relief.

I'd like to thank Chairman Hyde and the entire International Relations Committee for including this language in the bill. The United States has the opportunity to take a firm leadership role in bringing relief and a better future for billions of people around the world. The time to act is now and we can get started with developing a comprehensive plan and I look forward to continuing to work in a bipartisan fashion on increasing the United States commitment to global poverty.''

Mr. Speaker, there is really nothing terribly, terribly wrong with this resolution. Talking about a need to invest in greater innovation, research and education, certainly makes sense. The vexing thing for me is this Republican Congress and White House has systematically unfunded almost all of those items. We heard the numbers from my colleagues, and I will not go back over them, except to remind folks of the recent debate we had over the appropriations bills.

Repeatedly, throughout the debate, as Democrats talked about spending more money on a variety of different items, the Republican appropriators said, You know, this is the money we have, this is the best we can do with what we have.

Well, let us look at the decisions that left us in the position where ``this is what we have.'' One of the consequences of those decisions is we do not have enough money to fund the research, education and innovation that is necessary. All of the items that are ticked off, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of

Health, No Child Left Behind, we all know what they are. We know how important in the global economy innovation, research, education and skills training is. Yet the programs that fund those vital needs, vital needs particularly for blue-collar, middle-class and lower-class workers, are consistently cut, reduced, not funded like they should be because of the budget decisions of this Congress.

Part of it certainly is the tax cut. That has been the decision of this Congress; supply-side tax cuts for people making a lot of money at the expense of all of these programs we are talking about today. It is incredibly vexing to hear the Republican majority stand up and talk about how much they care about these programs.

At a minimum, I wish they would make a choice, they would say: Supply-side tax cuts for people making a lot of money, that is what we support; that is what we are going to do. That being done, we cannot afford to do these other things, and that is okay. But to stand up today and say that you care about them when you have created a budget environment where they cannot be funded is disingenuous, to say the least. If these are priorities, then let us change the budget. And it is not just tax cuts. We can look at the spending decisions of the last 6 years that have seen massive increases in overall Federal spending while, at the same time, underfunding these critical items.

The budget priorities of the Republican Congress are responsible, and an empty ``Sense of Congress'' resolution is not going to fix that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment, and this is after I opposed it last year; but I learned two things since that vote that caused me to change my position.

First of all, as has been emphasized by the opponent of this amendment, section 215 has not yet been used by the Justice Department. We hear that if we eliminate this provision, it will somehow jeopardize our entire country and that we have been able to hold off the terrorists for 4 years because of the PATRIOT Act. Yet they acknowledge at the same time that section 215 has not even been used. So, obviously, it is not critical to that effort.

The second reason is the reason this is very important. There is no clear standard for when it can be used. If a person goes to a judge and gets a subpoena by some standard, probable cause or some other standard, then that makes sense. That is in fitting with the Constitution. The problem with section 215 is that you go to the Foreign Intelligence Services Act court and seek that warrant. It is a secret court.

We do not know what the standard is. There should and must be a clear standard before the Justice Department can seek this kind of information from our citizens. If that clear standard were put in law, that could change things; but there is no standard here, and this law has not been used. So it is not critical, and it can potentially be abused. So let us eliminate that potential and support the Sanders amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today in the United States House of Representatives, we commend the men and women of our Armed Forces and civilian employees of the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development for their services and actions in response to the earthquake and tsunami of December 26, 2004. In particular, I would like to recognize the active-duty and reserve servicemembers of the 62nd and 446th Airlift Wings stationed in my District at McChord Air Force Base. The Airmen who deployed filled many different roles from aircrew members to maintainers and aerial port personnel and security forces. McChord's aircrews flew badly needed supplies to countries throughout the region. The C-17's unique ability to land in the most austere conditions allowed it to deliver aid where other aircraft couldn't. In particular, I would like to commend Colonel Wayne Schatz, the 62nd Airlift Wing commander, who deployed to Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, and became the Deputy Director of Mobility Forces for the entire operation. While there, he helped marshall the massive humanitarian airlift mission, directing hundreds of aircraft that delivered nearly 3,000 tons of relief supplies to countries most in need of aid.

All told, Team McChord's contributions to the relief efforts included: 1.8 million pounds of relief supplies delivered; 660+ passengers moved; and 48 relief missions flown.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of the men and women in my District who participated in this noble operation.

Mr. Speaker, today, I wish to extend to Paul Allen and the entire SpaceShipOne team my heartfelt congratulations on their huge achievement. Since Orville and Wilbur Wright first took to the skies, mankind has consistently dreamed of loftier goals and continued to push the edge in manned flight, both commercially and through government endeavors. On October 4, the entire SpaceShipOne team expanded man's dream of commercial flight into space. While a noble achievement, this is but the first step in a long process towards the dream of many on Earth to fly to the reaches of outer space. Some day this dream will be a reality and it is because of the efforts and skills of people like those at Scaled Composites and the visionaries like Paul Allen that will make this dream a reality.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April 25th, the labor community of Pierce County, Washington and American workers nationwide lost one of their most progressive advocates and dedicated voices, Phillip M. Lelli.

Joining the longshore workforce on the Tacoma waterfront in 1949, Phil dedicated his entire career to expanding opportunities at the Port of Tacoma. In doing so he revolutionized the local waterfront.

As President of the Tacoma Longshore Union, ILWU Local 23, for almost twenty years, Phil championed unprecedented standards of efficiency within the labor force and innovations on the docks. At the same time, he strengthened the bargaining power of the ILWU and protected the rights and wellbeing of the longshore men and women.

Truly committed to the expansion of opportunity at the port, Phil elevated his involvement and was a pioneer in forming partnerships with the greater maritime community. He believed in the rewards of port and union cooperation and he continuously advocated on its behalf. In 1977 Phil became the first longshore worker elected to Tacoma's mainstream Propeller Club, and later the Propeller Club awarded Phil its greatest honor, Tacoma Master Mariner for 1982.

Phil's list of accomplishments and legacies is long and impressive. His influence has had a ripple effect in the Tacoma community that will continue long after his passing.

I honor the life of Phillip Lelli on an appropriate occasion. Today is National Worker's Memorial Day, a day observed by trade unions since 1989 to honor American workers who have been killed or injured on the job in the last year and an occasion to rededicate ourselves to protecting the health and wellbeing of workers in the future. While Phil recently lost his life after a battle with cancer, he truly worked day to day until his very last to protect the American worker--a commitment that intensified after the loss of his youngest son, Ross, in a waterfront accident in 1989.

Phillip Lelli's passing is a loss to all who knew him, and I extend my deepest sympathy to his family in their great loss. My thoughts and sympathies are also with other families across the Nation today who are mourning the loss of their loved ones on this day of reflection.

Mr. Speaker, throughout this Presidential campaign, we have heard from the Republicans repeatedly that they will not question Senator Kerry's patriotism. We all figured that was an empty promise, but it has been proven true in the well of this House this morning.

Several Republican Members came up and directly called into question Senator Kerry's patriotism based on his objections to the Vietnam War. And beyond that, we have even heard Republicans out on the airwaves questioning his service in Vietnam.

I do feel that there are many more important issues in this campaign that are legitimate to talk about. Senator Kerry has unbelievable support from veterans in this country. All 50 States have veterans for Kerry organizations that are strong and hard-working to support the Senator and, perhaps most tellingly, are the people who served with him in Vietnam. All of those people are supporting Senator Kerry regardless of their political stripes. Many are taking large chunks of personal time to go around and be supportive of him.

His record in Vietnam and his record afterwards should not be questioned, and it is being questioned by the Republicans. I think Senator McCain said it best some time ago when asked about this and asked about Senator Kerry's protest against the war. He said that Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam fighting for our country more than gave him the right to protest the war if he thought it was wrong.

Senator Kerry honorably served this country in Vietnam, volunteered to serve, volunteered for combat duty, and he honorably upheld the traditions of this country when he came home and pursued his personal convictions to oppose the war. We should recognize that service.