Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, due to a family obligation, I was unable to vote March 9th of this year. I would like the record to reflect how I would have voted on the following votes.

On rollcall vote No. 132 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall vote No. 133 I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall vote No. 134 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall vote No. 135 I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle for being here today to pay tribute to really a great and very good man, Leo McCarthy.

I had the pleasure of knowing Leo for many, many, many years. He was not only my mentor; he was my friend. He was dear to my family. But he inspired me in public service. I had the privilege of serving as his chief of staff of his district office, which was in San Francisco, at the time, and I learned so much from him.

There are so many times, my colleagues, that the closer we get in terms of view of someone, the less we may like what we see. With Leo McCarthy, the closer I got, the more I saw, the more my respect for him was deepened.

He was a man of the fullest integrity. He was an honest man. An honest man. And he made everyone proud of his service to people not only in his beloved city of San Francisco but in the entire State of California. I think he helped to make California more golden of a State.

He was a policy wonk. He knew exactly why he had gone into government service. In all of his years serving on the board of supervisors in the city and county of San Francisco to his election to the assembly, the California Assembly, to his elevation as Speaker of the California Assembly, and then the time that he served as Lieutenant Governor, political writers, the people that he served, the counties throughout our State, 58 counties and the people that live in them, knew that Leo McCarthy's word was golden, that he was there to serve them and that that is what motivated him.

He was a great family man. All the years that he served in Sacramento, he drove home every single evening to be with his family in San Francisco. It was really the measure of the man. The love of his life was Jackie McCarthy, and he always said that she did the hard work because she was at home raising four extraordinary children: Sharon, Conna, Niall, and Adam. I wish all of my colleagues could have heard these four adults pay tribute to their father at St. Ignatius Church at the magnificent funeral mass that was in celebration of his good life.

He was a man filled with faith, and he served at a very early time in the minor seminary. And he said to me one day, Anna, that didn't last too long. And I responded to him, Leo, it lasted a lifetime. Because he blended his faith with the service that he gave to people and he was rooted in it.

When he left public life, he went on, and in the latter years of his all too short life, I think, I always wanted Leo to live forever, he founded a center at the University of San Francisco, his alma mater that he loved so much. And during the funeral mass, the Jesuits paid tribute to him. There must have been 30 Jesuits on the alter, the archbishop of San Francisco, the former bishop of Oakland, and the auxiliary bishop, John Westor, all there to pay tribute to Leo McCarthy. That Center for Public Service and the Common Good spoke of Leo's desire to help students get involved in public policy at the State, at the Federal, and the local levels.

Leo McCarthy had a singular friend that loved him in unquestioned ways. He was his aid when Leo first went to Sacramento as a member of the State legislature. He then was elected in his own right to the State legislature. He then went on to become the mayor of San Francisco. And that man is Art Agnos. Every single day of Leo's too long illness, which marked all of last year, and at all other times in his life but especially during that difficult time, Art Agnos was by Leo's bedside every day, every night.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by thanking all the members of the committee for passing the resolution. It will mean a great deal to the family. I thank Josh Andrews in my office. I thank all of my colleagues. I know this will mean a great deal to the family.

And I say to whomever is listening in, God rest Leo McCarthy's noble soul.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act.

Despite the recent surge in high corporate profits, middle class families have actually lost ground financially due to the rising costs of education, healthcare, housing and transportation. Unfortunately, under the current system for forming unions, workers are routinely denied the right to determine for themselves whether to organize. Employees oftentimes face coercion, intimidation, and harassment from employers trying to discourage unionization. These tactics discourage workers from bargaining collectively for higher pay, more substantial benefits, and better treatment in the workplace.

The benefits of unionization are well known. Workers who belong to a union earn an average of 30 percent more than nonunion workers and are much more likely to have health care and pension benefits.

Under this legislation, if a majority of workers in a workplace sign valid cards authorizing a union, then the workers would be able to have a union. This process is already possible; however, current law enables employers to veto the formation of a union without an election administered by the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB.

The Employee Free Choice Act also institutes stronger penalties for employers violating the National Labor Relations Act during any period when employees are attempting to organize a union or negotiate a first contract with the employer. In 2005 alone, more than 31,000 workers received backpay because of unlawful employer behavior of this sort. H.R. 800 also provides for up to $20,000 in civil penalties for willful or repeated violations during an organizing or first contract campaign. These penalties provide a serious disincentive for employers engaging in anti-union tactics.

The decision to form a union should be in the hands of employees. This legislation provides people with the opportunity to make this decision freely and fairly and to bargain for a better life for themselves and their families.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, the following are the remarks of remembrance given by the Honorable Art Agnos, former Mayor of San Francisco and long time member of the California Legislature on the occasion of the vigil and rosary of his former boss, mentor, and brother-friend, the Honorable Leo T. McCarthy, who passed away on February 5, 2007.

I never thought this day would come for me.

Over the 40 years I worked for Leo McCarthy, I came to

think of him as indestructible . . . as he became my boss . .

. my mentor . . . my role model . . . and simply my best

friend.

For me, Leo was never sick . . . never tired . . . never

discouraged . . . and never gave up . . . no matter what

confronted him.

He just showed up every day ready to tackle every challenge

that stood in the way of making life better for the poor, the

needy, the worker, the children, the aged and anyone else who

might need his help in our society.

Leo was one of those rare public officials who got better

in every way . . . the closer you got to him.

There were no feet of clay here.

One of my early remembrances of him is on our first trip to

Sacramento together in December of 1968.

Leo had just been elected to the assembly and it was my

first week on the job as his new assistant. On that day he

wanted us to drive together to checkout the new office and

meet with the Assembly leader Jess Unruh to discuss his

committee assignments.

I remember that it was raining hard that day, pouring, and

in what was to become our routine for the next 10 years--I

was driving and he was teaching, as we talked about the

issues of the day and what we might do about them in the year

to come.

Just as we passed Dixon on Highway 80, the rear tire went

flat and I had to pull over. As I came to a stop, Leo said

suddenly, ``Wait here, opened the car door in the pouring

rain and ran through a hayfield the length of a football

stadium to a service station to get help with the flat tire.

I stayed in the car warm and dry.

He was still soaking wet through his suit when we got to

Sacramento. Undaunted, he kept his appointment with Unruh as

though nothing had happened.

And that's the way it was, every time.

He never asked his staff, and there were hundreds of us by

the end of his political career, to do anything he wouldn't

do. He cared about all of us, our careers--our families, our

well being.

Every one of his former staff will tell you similar stories

about when he would apologize for taking them away from their

family when they had to work late on legislative testimony

for the next day, or how he would show up at the Operating

Engineers at 2 in the morning with food and encouragement as

we printed brochures to help elect another candidate who

would vote for him to be Speaker in 1974.

And what a Speakership that was!

The best description I ever heard was from the former

Republican Speaker of the Assembly, Bob Monagan from Tracy,

California.

Bob had left the legislature some years before and was the

President of the California Manufacturers Association when he

said Leo McCarthy's Speakership would be remembered in the

history of the California Legislature as the ``Days of

Lancelot.''

You see, Leo was a leader who inspired other politicians--

not with his power or tactics, but with his integrity, his

adherence to good principle, and his deep commitment to the

common good.

In all his years, there were no scandals, no innuendos, no

shameful disgrace, and the legislature followed his example

in doing the best work it ever did for the people of

California.

That's not me talking. It is every editorial written in

every major newspaper since last Tuesday.

Over the last 7 months, I saw a lot of him in the hospital,

as did many of you.

We talked about his career, successes and failures. We soon

ran out of failures, but the successes went on for ever. But

I had to bring them up--Coastal preservation, Nursing Home

reform, Farm Worker legislation, Subdivision Reform, Mental

Health, Child nutrition, Human rights, Legislative

Transparency and on and on.

But most of all, most of all, as great and prodigious the

volume of his work, Leo was proudest of his family.

Jackie was the light of his life. She was his love, his

energy, his will to live as they raised four magnificent

children you will hear from tomorrow morning.

And then you will know for yourselves why he always

answered the question: ``What was your most important work--

with a resounding, `My family!' ''

The things he did to try and make his contribution as a

father and a husband are legendary to all of us.

You have heard and read the thousands of roundtrips to and

from Sacramento by car, greyhound bus, and even airplane.

It was all very real because the kids were going to see

their father every night no matter what. He always said that

Jackie did all the work, but he had to be there for whatever

he could do at night.

One of my favorite stories starts one morning when I could

not drive him and he drove himself down to the greyhound

station to catch the 7 a.m. bus to Sacramento.

He was late and very much focused on the busy day to come

in the Legislature. So he sped into the parking lot, jumped

out of the car, tossed the keys and 20 bucks to the man

standing by the pay booth while running to catch the bus.

That night I got a call from a perplexed Leo asking where

his car was because the lot was empty and the attendant was

gone. For three days he did not believe me when I tried to

tell him that there was no attendant at that lot because it

was self pay.

We didn't talk about it again for a while because on the

fourth day he learned the car had been found intact by the

SFPD with an empty gas tank. And the rumor was that some

homeless guy was going around town telling about the nice guy

who tossed the keys to him with 20 bucks and ran off.

The longest trip home for Leo was one he took this past

January.

He had been in the hospital for 6 consecutive months--

something neither he, his family, or any of us could have

imagined when we watched him being wheeled into UC hospital

on June 1st of last year--not to mention the countless number

of difficult tests in all kinds of machines, hundreds of

needle sticks, a combined month and a half in the intensive

care unit, dialysis every other day, cups of awful tasting

medicinal concoctions, and bravely fight harder than ever

before as he became weaker and weaker.

But as his body failed, his mind and spirit did not.

There were several times when he was asked, ``Do you want

to go on?''

And every time--every time--his answer was the same. ``Yes!

I have things to do.''

He was planning family vacations next year with Jackie. He

was advising Kevin about jobs after Law School. He was

listening carefully to Courtney's added responsibilities at

work, talking to Niall about a big case, he was thinking

about Adam's new environmental business deals--he absorbed

all of Conna's scholastic and athletic news about her

children--he listened intently as Sharon discussed the latest

events at St. Stephens--he studied writeups about outstanding

college football players and discussed them with Dale so he

could make the best choices for his famous annual top 10 NFL

Draft choices list he published to family and selected

friends, and occasionally to Bill Walsh at the 49ers.

He did all this from a hospital bed he was too weak to get

out of, all the while monitoring and mentoring by phone and

in person, one more politician--the future Speaker of the

House of Representatives.

He loved the phone calls and visits from Nancy and her

right arm and another former McCarthy staffer, Representative

Anna Eshoo. Every week they were in town--they

were at the hospital checking up and giving Leo updates and

details on the key races--information the Republicans would

have paid dearly for.

And when he was too sick to talk, Nancy and Anna would call

me for a report.

Nancy got the short report because she was in an airport

somewhere--and Anna got the long report because she had time

to sort out the information in between our tears.

On election night last November, Leo was in intensive care

again and unable to take Nancy's call to tell him of the

democrats' victory.

Several days later he was back in his room and we were

watching a live CNN report showing Nancy and President Bush

on the Speaker Elect's historic first visit to the Oval

Office.

As the news report ended, shortly thereafter, the phone in

the room rang, and it was Nancy herself calling to check up

on him and give him a report on her meeting with George Bush.

I think he was prouder of Nancy's Speakership victory more

than his own.

Yes, Leo never gave up.

He said once to Mary Leslie, another terrific staffer

during the Senate Campaigns that ``Defeat will show you

another way to make a difference.''

That was Leo McCarthy.

So when he left elective office, he committed himself to

his successful business interests to secure his family's

future because his political interests sure never did.

And succeed he did--fulfilling a goal to fund a family

foundation for poor children as well as begin the Leo T.

McCarthy Institute for Public Service and the Common Good.

Today--on the campus of this great University, thanks to

the support and encouragement of Father President Steve

Privett, the leadership of Board President Joe Cotchett, and

the day to day guidance of Dr. Patrick Murphy, the ideals,

values, integrity, and lessons of Leo's life are blended with

academics and real time internships in a spectacular

opportunity for students.

In the years to come--more of the people who shared Leo's

commitment and vision will have a chance to share their

remembrances and lessons with USF students, and in so doing

perpetuate the meaning of a life so well lived.

It was a blessing for me to have been so close to Leo

McCarthy and his family.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me, the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, it has been a long and painful 4-year journey for the people of our country since this administration acted preemptively and unilaterally to invade and occupy Iraq, policies which I believe then and I still believe today would not and could not stand because they simply are not in our national character.

We were told Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. None were found.

We were told there was yellow cake. It was a falsehood.

We were told that there were trailers containing the evidence of deadly chemicals.

We were told the mission was accomplished.

We endured national and international shame when the horrific pictures depicting Abu Ghraib appeared.

We learned that our troops were not sufficiently equipped.

We mourned with our constituents as the death toll of American troops mounted and continued to mount. Just think, 137 casualties in November of 2004, then the deadliest month overall. Today, over 3,000 precious U.S. lives have been lost, with thousands maimed and injured and God knows how many innocent Iraqi lives lost.

We witnessed the world community's total support on 9/11, and we have witnessed the diminishment of America's credibility around the world because of the Iraq war.

We have heard the President and the Vice President talk about victory and insurgency in its last throes.

We have learned of manipulated intelligence and endured a no- oversight Congress.

Preemptive war, unilateralism, invasion, occupation, no post-war plan, an insurgency born of our blunders, and arrogance instead of reality.

Meanwhile, military experts, Generals Abizaid, Odom, Powell, and distinguished civilian leaders have called for change, a new strategy, and the urgency of diplomatic and political engagement, all to no avail.

One of the central findings of the recent NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, highlighted the lack of effective Iraqi leadership as a main component driving sectarian and communal violence.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, appointed by the President, reported the utter urgency of action by the administration.

Retired General William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan and member of the National Security Council under President Carter, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post on February 11.

I would ask that it be made part of the Record

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2007]

Victory Is Not an Option

The Mission Can't Be Accomplished--It's Time for a New Strategy

(By William E. Odom)

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly

delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions

from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees

it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-

American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of

producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the

consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is

a declaration of defeat.

Its gloomy implications--hedged, as intelligence agencies

prefer, in rubbery language that cannot soften its impact--

put the intelligence community and the American public on the

same page. The public awakened to the reality of failure in

Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of control of

Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are

still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the

war soon.

Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to

defeat or failure, and our politicians are famously reluctant

to admit their own responsibility for anything resembling

those un-American outcomes. So they beat around the bush,

wringing hands and debating ``nonbinding resolutions'' that

oppose the president's plan to increase the number of U.S.

troops in Iraq.

For the moment, the collision of the public's clarity of

mind, the president's relentless pursuit of defeat and

Congress's anxiety has paralyzed us. We may be doomed to two

more years of chasing the mirage of democracy in Iraq and

possibly widening the war to Iran. But this is not

inevitable. A Congress, or a president, prepared to quit the

game of ``who gets the blame'' could begin to

alter American strategy in ways that will vastly improve the

prospects of a more stable Middle East.

No task is more important to the well-being of the United

States. We face great peril in that troubled region, and

improving our prospects will be difficult. First of all, it

will require, from Congress at least, public acknowledgment

that the president's policy is based on illusions, not

realities. There never has been any right way to invade and

transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing,

but two truths ought to put the matter beyond question:

First, the assumption that the United States could create a

liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about

everything known by professional students of the topic. Of

the more than 40 democracies created since World War II,

fewer than 10 can be considered truly ``constitutional''--

meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly

accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a

generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim

political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic

fissures like those in Iraq.

Strangely, American political scientists whose business it

is to know these things have been irresponsibly quiet. In the

lead-up to the March 2003 invasion, neoconservative agitators

shouted insults at anyone who dared to mention the many

findings of academic research on how democracies evolve. They

also ignored our own struggles over two centuries to create

the democracy Americans enjoy today. Somehow Iraqis are now

expected to create a constitutional order in a country with

no conditions favoring it.

This is not to say that Arabs cannot become liberal

democrats. When they immigrate to the United States, many do

so quickly. But it is to say that Arab countries, as well as

a large majority of all countries, find creating a stable

constitutional democracy beyond their capacities.

Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country

together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is

to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than

a century to get over its hostility toward British

occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored

supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S.

occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity

toward the United States. Even supporters of an American

military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and

only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from

winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because its

senior members and their families live within the heavily

guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and

military command.

As Congress awakens to these realities--and a few members

have bravely pointed them out--will it act on them? Not

necessarily. Too many lawmakers have fallen for the myths

that are invoked to try to sell the president's new war aims.

Let us consider the most pernicious of them.

(1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible

aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon.

Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now

fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable!

Undoubtedly we will leave a mess--the mess we created, which

has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers

gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next

breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath,

a civil war, a terrorist haven, a ``failed state,'' or some

other horror. But this ``aftermath'' is already upon us; a

prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.

(2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence

from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of

the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy

in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq

and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put

Shiite groups in power--groups supported by Iran since Saddam

Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of

Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now

supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war

inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will

confront this contradiction helps explain the administration

and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to

Iran.

Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in

Vietnam: widen the war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this

time, the adverse consequences would be far greater. Iran's

ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And the

anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and

have more lasting consequences.

(3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-

Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened

Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have

remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its

strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial.

After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing

role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the

Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive

in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to

question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-

Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is

the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.

(4) We must continue to fight in order to ``support the

troops. ``This argument effectively paralyzes almost all

members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a

litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid

pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting

we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has

anybody asked the troops?

During their first tours, most may well have favored

``staying the course''--whatever that meant to them--but now

in their second, third and fourth tours, many are changing

their minds. We see evidence of that in the many news stories

about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq. Veterans groups

are beginning to make public the case for bringing them home.

Soldiers and officers in Iraq are speaking out critically to

reporters on the ground.

But the strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing

the war is the implication that the troops are somehow

responsible for deciding to continue the president's course.

That political and moral responsibility belongs to the

president, not the troops. Did not President Harry S. Truman

make it clear that ``the buck stops'' in the Oval Office? If

the president keeps dodging it, where does it stop? With

Congress?

Embracing the four myths gives Congress excuses not to

exercise its power of the purse to end the war and open the

way for a strategy that might actually bear fruit.

The first and most critical step is to recognize that

fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way

to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition

for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away

the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy

our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to

collaborate with us in Iraq and the region.

Second, we must recognize that the United States alone

cannot stabilize the Middle East.

Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are

actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using

sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening

``regime change,'' using the hysterical rhetoric of the

``global war on terrorism''--all undermine the stability we

so desperately need in the Middle East.

Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable

region, not primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our

military operations so they enhance rather than undermine

stability. We can write off the war as a ``tactical draw''

and make ``regional stability'' our measure of ``victory.''

That single step would dramatically realign the opposing

forces in the region, where most states want stability. Even

many in the angry mobs of young Arabs shouting profanities

against the United States want predictable order, albeit on

better social and economic terms than they now have.

Realigning our diplomacy and military capabilities to

achieve order will hugely reduce the numbers of our enemies

and gain us new and important allies. This cannot happen,

however, until our forces are moving out of Iraq. Why should

Iran negotiate to relieve our pain as long as we are

increasing its influence in Iraq and beyond? Withdrawal will

awaken most leaders in the region to their own need for U.S.-

led diplomacy to stabilize their neighborhood.

If Bush truly wanted to rescue something of his historical

legacy, he would seize the initiative to implement this kind

of strategy. He would eventually be held up as a leader

capable of reversing direction by turning an imminent, tragic

defeat into strategic recovery.

If he stays on his present course, he will leave Congress

the opportunity to earn the credit for such a turnaround. It

is already too late to wait for some presidential candidate

for 2008 to retrieve the situation. If Congress cannot act,

it, too, will live in infamy.

He identified the shortcomings of the administration's Iraq policy and presented some of the clearest and most prescient thinking on the issue to date.

He places in stark relief what many of our colleagues refuse to accept, that the preemptive, unilateral course set by the President is not a strategy for success in Iraq.

He says: ``The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy our pain.

``Second,'' he says, ``we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the Middle East.

``Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening `regime change,' using the hysterical rhetoric of the `global war on terrorism' all undermine the stability we so desperately need in the Middle East.

``Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable region, not primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our military operations so they enhance rather than undermine stability.''

So many experts, so many respected leaders, so many voices of patriots, and their critical analysis ignored.

Madam Speaker, in the preamble to our Constitution, three magnificent words lead the document: ``We, the people.'' The people of our Nation made the clearest and most important solemn judgment on Iraq in last November's election. They said, in overwhelming numbers, to change the direction of this war, to de-escalate, not escalate.

That is exactly what this debate is about. We pay tribute to and support our troops who honor our country with their service. We say, as the American people have said, enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first, I strongly support the use of biofuels to diversify our fuel supply and to reduce our dependence on imported oil.

Parliamentary Inquiry

It is at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I think what is important to understand in this debate is that there are significant technical obstacles that have to be addressed before biofuels can be widely deployed.

Many Members this morning during this important debate have spoken about the importance of biofuels. This amendment to the amendment actually kind of drills down, as it were, into the specifics and I think strengthens a very good bill.

The bill before us recognizes the specific infrastructure challenges that we are already facing in implementing the Renewable Fuels Standards program which was enacted in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. It anticipates the challenge of the more widespread use of biofuels, which I think most of us are for, by authorizing the EPA to initiate a research and development project to make biofuels more compatible with the existing petroleum storage and distribution system. If there is not distribution in this system, it simply is not going to work.

Now, the reason I am offering this perfecting amendment to Mr. Burgess' amendment, along with my colleague Mr. Cardoza, simply requires the EPA, as part of this R&D program, to consider strategies to minimize emissions. I want to repeat this, because these are the two operative words, to minimize emissions that may be released when biofuels are blended, stored, and transported.

We all understand that pollutants contained in gasoline and other motor fuels are released into the atmosphere as a result of combustion, and I think Mr. Burgess speaks to this, but his amendment is more about combustion. This is about emissions also occurring as the result of evaporation while fuel is held in storage tanks or transferred on and off tanker trucks.

In the case of gasoline containing ethanol, evaporative emissions of certain substances, specifically VOCs, can be greater than they would be from conventional gasoline. In certain regions trying to comply with the Clean Air Act, and I think Mr. Burgess, certainly Mr. Cardoza and others are driven by understanding that where they have ground-level ozone, these emissions could be problematic, in fact, increased.

A September 2005 report by the Bureau of Air Management for the State of Wisconsin estimated that evaporative emissions of VOCs of gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol, E-10, held in the fuel distribution system will be 15 percent higher than conventional gas.

In my view, it makes important sense for EPA to not only examine strategies that will reduce these emissions as part of this R&D program, but that it instructs them to do that.

I want to thank Chairman Gordon for his support of this effort, and I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) who is also a part of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be brief.

I appreciate what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying. I think it needs to be very, very clear to all the Members of the House who are going to cast a vote on this to understand what the underlying bill seeks to do.

It is an infrastructure bill. It is not a combustion bill. It is an infrastructure bill, and that is why I have offered the amendment to the amendment. It deals with infrastructure. It directs the EPA to minimize. We all want VOCs minimized. It is the way biofuels are going to become effective in our country, and how they are stored and how they are handled is going to give rise to what we are all seeking.

This is a bipartisan effort, and I do not think anyone should get confused about what we are voting on. I wish that as we did our outreach to Mr. Burgess that they would have been part of the same effort.

So we are all for biofuels. We want to make them effective and, again, remember that this is an infrastructure bill. It is not a combustion-type bill. So I thank the gentleman for giving me time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent John A. Hooper who passed away on January 17, 2007, at the Sequoias Portola Valley, California, at the age of 89. He was an extraordinary Californian and a public servant who devoted much of his career to serving his country.

Mr. Hooper was born in San Francisco in 1917, graduating from Thacher School in 1934 and from Stanford University in 1938 where he earned a bachelor's degree in political science. He earned a law degree from Harvard Law School and served as a captain in the U.S. Army from 1942 to 1946. He married Trish Lowrey, the great love of his life, in 1943 and they had four children during their enduring marriage of 63 years.

Mr. Hooper was a distinguished attorney with the law firm of Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro and practiced tax law for 10 years until he was asked by President Eisenhower to represent the U.S. Department of Defense in NATO. He also served under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson as Minister to the U.S. Mission to NATO. He was based in Paris with his wife and four children until 1967 and was honored with the Pentagon's Meritorious Civilian Service Award for his great work. His son, John C. Hooper, said: ``All of Europe was emerging from World War II, and the United States was helping Europe to get back on its feet; that was a real high point of my parents' lives.''

Upon their return to the United States, John, Trish and their family moved to the land his grandfather purchased, Mountain Home Ranch in Woodside where they lived until moving to the Sequoias. He devoted himself to working with charitable and community organizations, serving as president of Planned Parenthood of Northern California, as president of the Auxiliary of the University of California Hospital, and as president of the Board of Delegates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. He was a member of the Woodside Planning Commission for 7 years and served as its chair from 1979 to 1980. He was a member of the Pacific Union Club and president of the Cypress Lawn Cemetery Association.

I had the privilege of knowing John Hooper. He was an elegant, intelligent gentleman who was respected by his entire community. I benefited from his wise counsel and our country is better because of his patriotism and service. John Hooper was a national treasure and that's why Madam Speaker I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest sympathy to Trish Hooper and their children, John C. Hooper of Point Arena, Margo H. Blair of Chicago, Lawrence Hooper of Twisp, WA, and Helen McCloskey of Rumsey, CA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as we consider this important legislation to highlight several matters of critical importance within the funding allocations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA.

Over past years several of my colleagues and I have worked hard to ensure that NASA fulfills its commitment to its science mission, as well as its commitment to the excellent men and women who daily carry out NASA's cutting-edge missions. In particular, I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to my constituents at NASA Ames Research Center, one of the world's premier research facilities located in my district in California's Silicon Valley.

As we pass this continuing resolution, which we are forced to do by the inaction of the previous majority leadership, it is important that NASA recognize and adhere to the clear intent expressed by both the House and Senate under H.R. 5672, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007, and the accompanying committee reports--House Report 109-520 and Senate Report 109-280. I would like to highlight some important points from these bills.

Within the House-passed version of H.R. 5672, Congress included the following points:

Recognizing the disproportionate reduction proposed by NASA to its research and analysis budget, a recommended $50 million increase was included.

Following NASA's misguided attempt to discontinue funding the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, SOFIA project, the House concluded that should NASA's internal review of the program result in a recommended continuation of the program, NASA should accordingly reallocate funds to SOFIA.

Building on the priorities expressed by the House, the Senate Appropriations Committee subsequently included the following high- priority points:

In addressing NASA's management of the SOFIA project, Senate Appropriators stated:

``The budget request eliminates funding for the SOFIA mission in fiscal year 2007. Since the budget was released, NASA has completed a review of its decision and has concluded that there are no scientific or technical reasons for canceling the mission . . . This calls into question the credibility of the science directorate in making budget decisions and determining scientific priorities.

``The Committee expects NASA to come up with a plan to fund the SOFIA mission in 2007 from within available funds through a reprogramming request subject to section 505 of this act. In determining the funding strategy for this program, the Committee directs NASA to follow the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences Decadal survey in Astronomy and Astrophysics when setting mission and budget priorities. Missions that are ranked higher in the surveys should be given priority over missions that are ranked lower in priority with launch dates.''

To ensure the protection of NASA's critical workforce, the current moratorium on involuntary reductions in force, RIF, was extended from its current expiration date of March 2007 until the end of fiscal year 2008.

These provisions are unequivocal and must be honored by NASA as such. In particular, given Congress's stated and clear questioning of NASA's guidance of the SOFIA project to date, NASA should refrain from making significant changes to SOFIA without Congress first having the opportunity to review their proposals.

Additionally, it is critical that the existing prohibition on the transfer of funds between major accounts is observed consistent with the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. The reprogramming of funds across accounts has in the past been used to change funding allocations within NASA in ways that counter the legislative intent of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, NASA and its institutional capabilities are a critical component of our Nation's high-technology research and development infrastructure and must be protected for the sake of our future innovative capability. Ensuring these provisions passed by the Congress are honored as part of this fiscal year 2007 funding process will ensure NASA's continued excellence.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to introduce the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007. This legislation completes the work begun by Congress in 1998, by permanently banning discriminatory or duplicative state or local taxes on Internet access and e-commerce.

When Congress first instituted a temporary moratorium in 1998, the goal was to promote the growth of online commerce and encourage universal access. This policy has been a resounding success, fostering growth in productivity and innovation and widening public access to information. A 2006 report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project demonstrated that 73 percent of those polled were Internet users, up from 66 percent in a similar 2005 survey. While Americans use the Internet for a myriad of reasons, e-commerce has particularly flourished and continues to grow at an exceptional rate. In 2006 alone, online retail exceeded $100 billion, increasing 24 percent over 2005.

Despite the successes we have seen, there is still much work to be done. Internet usage still lags behind in rural and lower income areas and the United States has fallen from 4th to 16th in broadband penetration worldwide since 2001. In order to reverse this trend, we need to ensure that access costs are kept to a minimum. Prohibiting unnecessary access taxes will help accomplish this goal.

We also need to allow unfettered access to the products and new services that are only available through the Internet and prevent multiple layers of state and local taxes. Otherwise, we will open the door to a myriad of barriers to Internet commerce that will drive consumers from a web-based marketplace and stifle innovation.

Congress twice passed extensions to the moratorium in 2001 and again in 2004. Unfortunately, in November of this year the most recent extension will expire. Should Congress fail to renew this moratorium the continued growth and progress in Internet access and e-commerce will be endangered.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my efforts to make this moratorium permanent and finally assure consumers that their Internet access and e-commerce will remain unhindered by discriminatory and duplicative taxes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Audrey C. Rust, who is celebrating her 20th anniversary of leadership at the Peninsula Open Space Trust, POST.

Ms. Rust is a graduate of the University of Connecticut, and prior to joining the Peninsula Open Space Trust as its executive director in 1987, served as the director of development and membership for the Sierra Club. She also directed West Coast capital giving programs for Yale University and served in a variety of development capacities for Stanford University. She has also served as a member of the board of directors of the Land Trust Alliance and the League of Conservation Voters in Washington, DC.

Under her leadership, POST has worked effectively through public- private partnerships to acquire and protect over 50,000 acres of land on the San Francisco peninsula. These lands have become parts of the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, California State Parks, county and city parks, regional open space preserves and private farmland. Ms. Rust's vision helped bring POST to the national stage and on multiple occasions Congress has voted to support her efforts by providing funds for public land purchases and the adoption of POST lands into national areas of conservation. I am particularly proud of our work together on the acquisition of the Phleger estate, now part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and Bair Island, now part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

Ms. Rust's work on land conservation is nationally recognized. She has received the League of California Voters Environmental Leadership Award, the Times Mirror-Chevron National Conservationist of the Year Award; the Cynthia Pratt Laughlin Medal, the Garden Club of America's top environmental honor, and the Jacqueline Kennedy Award from John F. Kennedy University.

There are few who embody the commitment to conservation and our collective future as Ms. Rust does. In POST's most recent Annual Report, Ms. Rust wrote:

Open space defines our sense of place on the Peninsula, and

it is worth saving, because it is where we as humans touch

mysteries that last long after we are gone. It is the best

gift we can pass down to those who follow us, because it

connects us to our past and our future, allowing us to share

a communal memory of what it's like to live in this

extraordinary place. By setting aside land for permanent

protection, we declare to the future, ``This is what we

value; this is what we deem precious.''

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Audrey Rust whose 20 years at POST have benefitted millions of Americans and millions more to come. She is an exceptional leader, a powerful voice for conservation, and a great American.

Madam Speaker, I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation which commits nearly $14 billion to renewable energy technology and energy conservation and I rise in strong support of it.

Today we are eliminating unneeded subsidies and tax benefits for the largest and most profitable energy companies, and instead, investing the resources in the development and deployment of renewable energy resources and energy efficient technologies and practices.

This investment is critical because the status quo is not sustainable for our country.

We know that:

(1) The burning of fossil fuels is accelerating global climate change.

(2) We have only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves yet we consume 25 percent of the world's annual oil production.

(3) Two billion people on our planet today do not have access to electricity which is a basic necessity of life and economic security. They aspire to the prosperity we enjoy.

(4) Without a change, we will face stiff competition for oil from the developing world. The Department of Energy estimates that China and India will spur a tripling of energy consumption among Asia's developing nations in the next 25 years.

Rather than a series of problems, I see a tremendous opportunity for our nation.

In Silicon Valley in my Congressional District, the entrepreneurs who developed personal computers, the Internet, e-commerce, biotechnology, and nanotechnology are now turning to energy as the next great frontier for innovation and growth.

With the growing global demand for energy, they understand that the U.S. has the opportunity to be the primary exporter of clean energy and clean energy technology.

In the first 9 months of 2006, these entrepreneurs helped fund $600 million of U.S. investment in green technology.

They are investing in bio-fuels, bio-fuel infrastructure, and R&D to make bio-fuel production more efficient.

One company in my district is developing a fuel cell system that will produce clean, onsite electricity for homes and offices while also providing transportation fuel for hydrogen vehicles.

Others are developing technology that will put fuel cells in laptop computers, consumer electronics and automobiles.

They are developing and manufacturing new, more productive solar cells and solar technology.

Some of the largest computer, technology, and Internet firms are working to develop solutions to reduce the power used by large data centers.

In my region, Tesla Motors, now the third-largest American-owned auto maker, has produced a new line of efficient electric sports cars, with more practical and affordable models on the way.

This isn't happening just in Silicon Valley. Wal-Mart is committing $500 million a year to become more energy efficient and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

Just as it was important in the creation and commercialization of the Internet, Federal leadership is needed in this endeavor.

With the funding we're setting aside today, we're setting a national priority and providing the impetus for research, development, and deployment of new and emerging renewable energy technologies in the United States.

This is a very positive step toward energy independence and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5.

In today's increasingly competitive economy, a college education is more important than ever. That's why it's essential for us to ensure that anyone who has the desire to receive a higher education has the opportunity to do so. Higher education shapes citizens as well as the future of our country.

Today escalating college costs and legislation passed by the Republican Majority in 2006 are creating insurmountable barriers across the country for students to afford a college education. According to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, financial obstacles will prevent at least 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a four-year public college over the next decade. This is an inexcusable waste of our most valuable resource, the young people of our country.

H.R. 5 will lower these barriers, cutting interest rates in half over the next five years for undergraduate students with subsidized student loans. This relief is targeted to reach those most in need . . . students and families making between $26,000 and $68,000. When fully phased in, this legislation will save the typical borrower in California with $15,125 in subsidized federal student loan debt approximately $4,830 over the life of their loan. All told, this legislation will provide students with $5.5 billion in financial relief and is entirely paid for through adjustments in lender rates, participation fees for financial institutions and collection fees for defaulted loans.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. By doing so we will take an important step to improve access to higher education across the country as well as helping to relieve the burden on middle class families across the nation.

I thank our distinguished chairman and am proud as an

original cosponsor to support the bill that is before us.

Mr. Speaker, when the Medicare part D legislation was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives in 2003, I voted against it. I think it is worth recalling that evening. I think it is worth recalling that evening. The 15-minute vote on the clock was left open for almost 3 hours, where arms were broken and twisted in order to secure passage of the bill.

One of the most troubling aspects of the legislation to the American people, and we have all heard it from our constituents, was that the legislation said that the Secretary of Health and Human Services was prohibited, prohibited, from securing the best price to purchase pharmaceutical drugs. That is a bad rub with the American people.

They saw through it, and we are here today to correct that provision. Drug prices under the current Medicare prescription drug plan are more than 80 percent higher than prices negotiated by other agencies in the Federal Government.

They are more than 60 percent higher than prices in Canada. This year alone, many beneficiaries and private drug plans will see their premiums increase by an average of 10 percent, while some premiums will rise to more than six times their current costs to beneficiaries. So this effort today is a very full and clear and purposefully directed one, and that is to get better prices for prescription drugs.

Whether you are covered by insurance or not, some here are in Medicare, some not, as Members of Congress, but you know, that when you go to buy, when you go to purchase, that we are paying high prices. We all support the innovation of the pharmaceutical industry.

We know how important the innovation of the pharmaceutical industry is. This is not a vote or a bill to harm that or to damage it, but we want to be fair to the American people. We made a pledge that we would do this. This correction is more than in order.

I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. I want to congratulate Mrs. Emerson for the courage that she has demonstrated on this issue over the years.

Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007 which will repeal a provision of the 2003 Medicare law which prohibits the Secretary of HHS from negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare's 43 million beneficiaries. The bill not only permits the Secretary to negotiate, it requires him to.

Mr. Speaker, I opposed the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan passed by the House in 2003, and in the nearly three years since its passage it has been demonstrated conclusively that it does not contain drug price inflation, nor does it offer our nation's seniors the best prices for their prescription drugs. A recent Families USA study shows that under the current policy, prices charged by Medicare drug plans are in fact rising at more than twice the rate of inflation.

Drug prices under the current Medicare prescription drug plan are more than 80 percent higher than prices negotiated by other agencies in the federal government and they are more than 60 percent higher than prices in Canada. This year alone, many beneficiaries in private drug plans will see their premiums increase by an average of 10 percent, while some premiums will rise to more than six-times their current cost to beneficiaries.

This week the University of Michigan Medical School released a study which found that people who live in different states but take the same drugs, pay dramatically different prices for their prescription drugs, at times differing by thousands of dollars. The authors of the study found the extreme disparities were due to the fact that individual drug plans negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to devise their own drug lists, premiums and co-pays.

Under the legislation before us, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will not only be required to conduct important cost-saving negotiations, but individual drug plans will still be permitted to obtain further discounts or prices lower than the price negotiated by HHS for covered prescription drugs. This will encourage increased competition in the marketplace, which will help guarantee America's seniors the lowest price possible on their prescription drugs.

In an additional effort to encourage lower drug prices, the bill also expressly prohibits the Secretary from limiting seniors' access to certain medications, or from favoring one drug over another through restrictive formularies.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform estimates H.R. 4 will reduce overall drug costs by 25 percent. Over a 10-year period, the total savings for Medicare beneficiaries would reach an estimated $61 billion. These savings would be reflected in lower premiums, I reduced co-pays, and lower out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries in the ``doughnut hole.''

Mr. Speaker, America's seniors deserve better than the current Medicare drug plan, and the American people know it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues Congresswoman DeGette and Mr. Castle for the outstanding work they have done in bringing this bill before the House. I am proud to support it, and I think that this is a very important moment for the Congress. Why? Because this bill really represents hope for the American people.

I often say to my constituents that I am in the business of hope, to give hope to people with what I do and the vote that I cast. There is a reason why this bill is an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill, because 72 percent of the American people support stem cell research.

There is only one type of stem cell research that is not funded by the Federal Government today and that is embryonic stem cell research. There are tax dollars for all the others: for cord blood, for amniotic, and for adult. That is why we have the bill before us today.

We all have constituents, we all have members of our families that have diseases that have befallen them and injuries that have befallen them and where they come to us and say, please, take action on this. So as someone that considers herself in the business of hope, I am especially proud to not only be a part of this effort but also be part of a new Congress that is giving hope to

people that a Congress will take action on those things that are really relevant to people in their day-to-day lives: that the American people, the working people of our country, be given a raise in the minimum wage; that people across this country will be given substantial hope that we will take action on this bill; and that, hopefully, the President will continue the line of hope by changing his mind and signing the legislation into law.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague. And, Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to see you in the chair.

I rise in support of H. Res. 35. And I believe that for all of us on both sides of the aisle that this is a moment of high responsibility.

If there is anything that we became painfully aware of, it was that we did not have a seamless operation, intelligence operation, to help protect our country. So what we are debating and discussing here are not a handful of sentences. What we are doing is we are blending, for a very important reason, the power of the purse and the power of the policy. They can no longer stand as independent smokestacks, number one.

Number two, I ask all of my colleagues of the House, could the abuse and corruption that was done unto the budget survive the scrutiny of what we are proposing here, where a member of the Intelligence Committee committed those crimes?

So this is a moment of really high responsibility. I welcome ideas from both sides of the aisle. They are always important. But I think the overriding principles here are really what have been stated by so many, including the comments that I am making. As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I welcome, I welcome more oversight. The problem with intelligence relative to the Congress is there has been undersight or no sight, and that is dangerous for our country.

So I support these reforms. I think that they are very important. It is a

moment of high responsibility for the Congress, and I salute the Speaker as well as the chairman of the committees of jurisdiction for bringing this much-needed legislation before the House, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.