Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), for organizing this special order tonight, but also for her leadership in the Out of Iraq Caucus, which is growing each and every day.

I think most Members now, whether they supported or opposed the authorization to use force, understand now that we must get out of Iraq. So I want to thank Congresswoman Waters and all of the members for continuing to beat the drum on behalf of the American people.

Last night, President Bush went on prime time television to present to the Nation the results really of what I call his ``listening tour'' on what to do about Iraq. Four years into this war, the President has suddenly taken an interest in listening, but he is certainly not hearing the American people.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted after the President made his case for escalation found that 61 percent of Americans oppose sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, with 52 percent saying that they strongly oppose the plan. Just 36 percent said that they backed the President's new proposal, and a majority of Americans said Bush's plan for our troops will make no difference whether the war can be won or lost.

The American people oppose this escalation. Members of Congress oppose this escalation. The President's own military advisers oppose this escalation. But in spite of this opposition, in spite of his claims to have been listening, the President went before the American people last night and basically just asked us to trust him, and

said, who cares about what the American people think or believe?

Well, I have a question for the President: Why, after the weapons of mass destruction that never existed; after the connections with al Qaeda that proved to be made up, with Iraq; after declaring ``mission accomplished'' and turning so many corners that made us, quite frankly, totally dizzy; why, given his track record, would we trust his judgment now?

Last night, the President said, ``Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me.'' Let me tell you, twisting the intelligence to rush this Nation into an unnecessary war was a mistake whose cost we have not yet begun to measure, not only in terms of lives and treasure but also in terms of our Nation's security.

I agree with the President that the responsibility does indeed lie with him, so he needs to rectify this mistake and bring our troops home and bring them home now.

It is clear that the President, quite frankly, has lost touch with reality. Iraq has become the defining issue of his presidency, and he is more interested in trying to save what remains of this horrible legacy than he is in proposing anything that resembles a solution to the mess that his administration has made in Iraq.

The President has proposed an escalation of the war in Iraq at precisely the time, the exact time, when the American people are calling for us to bring this war to an end. He is like the man who finds himself stuck in a hole and decides the best way out is to keep digging.

The question the Congress and the American people must now ask is, how many people should die so that the President can avoid admitting he has staked his Presidency and legacy on an unnecessary war whose implementation his administration has really botched at every single turn? How many have to die so that the President can save face?

The President talked about increasing funds for job creation in Iraq, which would be a wonderful idea, quite frankly, since we bombed the heck out of that country. However, his administration has a miserable track record. Just look at it on reconstruction and the former Republican Congress's unwillingness to conduct oversight over the waste, fraud and abuse and war profiteering, $10 billion-plus so far that is just being discussed, and we know it is more than $10 billion that has been stolen in the name of rebuilding Iraq.

So without a fix to this broken system, the President's proposed reconstruction funds are really just throwing more good money after bad, and the taxpayers certainly don't deserve this. This is, quite frankly, a cynical idea, with his policies the way they are now.

The President says that pursuing his failed policies in Iraq is critical to fighting global terrorism. But let me ask you, is spending $2 billion a week to referee a civil war in Iraq the best way we can spend our money in fighting global terrorism? Let's not forget, the 9/ 11 Commission pointed out there was no connection, I mean no connection, between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda prior to this war. Today, Iraq is a terrorist recruiting ground as a direct result, mind you, a direct result of this unnecessary war, and the longer we stay there, the worse it gets.

How much money should be spent propping up a failed policy in Iraq so that the President can kick the can and hand off responsibilities for his failed policy, quite frankly, this is what I think he is trying to do, to the next occupant of the Oval Office?

Finally, let me just say, in October, the President was asked if he would rule out military bases, permanent military bases, and his refusal to say yes, which he refused to say, really did fuel the mistrust of the Iraqi public and strengthen the insurgency.

So, Madam Chairman, I want to thank you again for your voice and for maintaining the 70-plus members of the Out of Iraq Caucus. This is a civil war. It is an occupation which should end, and the best way that we support our troops is to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his bold and consistent leadership to raise the minimum wage. This is an important ethical and moral issue that speaks directly to our values as Americans. It is a shame and disgrace that in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, 37 million people live in poverty. Raising the minimum wage is one major step to reduce poverty, and we must do this.

As a former small business owner, I can tell you that small businesses are more profitable when workers are treated fairly. Thirteen million Americans, many of whom are women and people of color, will benefit from this increase.

Let us live up to our moral responsibility and help the least of these who struggle each and every day just to make ends meet. They deserve this increase, and they have earned it. Let us do the right thing and pass H.R. 2 in the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose birthday we celebrate on Monday, who died, who gave his life seeking justice for sanitation workers.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night President Bush will go on prime time television to present to the Nation the results of, quite frankly, what I call his listening tour on what to do about Iraq.

After 4 years since the war began, the President has suddenly taken an interest in listening. But he certainly is not hearing the American people.

Nearly 4 years ago, this unnecessary war in Iraq began, and it has cost our Nation so much. Over 3,000 brave American men and women have given their lives. We have spent close to $400 billion on this war, and the President is poised to ask for another $100 billion in the fiscal 2006 supplemental next month.

And this war has greatly undermined our standing in the world and our national security.

Each additional day that our troops remain on the ground in Iraq, the

longer the target remains on their backs. Instead of doing something immediately to remove these targets from our troops, the President is expected to propose escalating the number of our troops in Iraq by 20,000.

Now, regardless of how you spin this, either as a surge or a bump, it amounts to an escalation of the war at precisely the time we should be seeking to bring the Iraq war to an end. It is like the man who finds himself in a hole and decides that the best way out is to keep digging.

An escalation in troops won't change a thing on the ground. Iraq is still in a civil war, and we are still occupiers.

As reported yesterday, nearly 23,000 Iraqis died in 2006. This is just in 1 year. And even worse, over 17,000 of these deaths came in the second half of the year.

In escalating the number of troops, the President fails to address exactly how U.S. troops will referee this civil war. Are we to pick sides and support ethnic cleansing of one group over another? Adding more U.S. troops to this mess will prove not only ineffective, it is just plain foolish.

But this tactic is nothing new. The President has added troops in the past. There have been escalations during the Iraqi elections in 2005 and 2006 to shore up Baghdad security. The violence may have quelled for a moment but only to return with a vengeance, as we have seen.

Finally, the President's plan is futile. Some of the President's own advisors and experts have questioned the utility of a troop escalation. Their reasons range from the Iraqi government's inability to capitalize on new troops to the sheer folly of adding more troops to an already incendiary situation.

No such luck. In fact, a senior military official was quoted last month as saying adding more troops would be like adding kerosene to a fire.

General Abizaid, the top military commander in Iraq, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in November 2006. He posed the question of his commanders and generals. He said, If we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? General Abizaid reported that they all said no.

Mr. Speaker, the President's own press secretary, Tony Snow, said yesterday that the President still wants to hear what Members of Congress have to say. Well, I tell you, we have listened to the American people. Over 60 percent oppose the idea of increased troop levels. We have listened to the President's own commanders. Escalating the number of troops won't change the facts on the ground. I think it is time for the President to listen.

Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, bring our troops home and make sure that we have no permanent military bases in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and work of Sister Mable Williams, a longtime resident of Oakland, California. Sister Mable is a role model to us all, and has demonstrated her leadership through her commitment to members of her church as well as the community at large. On Sunday, December 31, 2006, Sister Mable's friends, family and congregation will come together to celebrate her many contributions.

Sister Mable was born on January 25, 1931 in Picayune, Mississippi. She lived there until the age of 13, when she and her family moved to Alameda, California. She attended Alameda High School and Merritt Business School.

In 1953, Sister Mable married Thomas Williams, and in 1955 they moved to Oakland, California. Mable and her family have lived in Brookfield Village in East Oakland since that time, providing spiritual support to family, friends and neighbors. She also served as an employee of the United States Post Office for over 30 outstanding years, retiring in 1989.

Sister Mable joined Bethel Missionary Baptist Church in 1944 and immediately committed herself to serving in many aspects. For example, she served as a Charter Member of the church, and also as a secretary for the pastor, Reverend Herbert Guice. Furthermore, she served as a Charter Member of the Bethel Bible Class, and as a Sunday School Teacher of the Young Adult class.

One of Sister Mable's most outstanding accomplishments is having served as the Director of the Junior Church of the Bethel Missionary Baptist Church for 50 years. Under her leadership, countless young people have had opportunities to serve and to brighten their communities. Her dedication has earned her the nickname ``Able Mable,'' because she is never too busy or too tired to give of herself.

On Sunday, December 31, 2006, the friends, family and colleagues of Sister Mable Williams will come together to celebrate her tireless work and commitment to our community. On this very special day, I join all of them in thanking and saluting Sister Mable for her invaluable service, and for the profoundly positive impact her work has had on countless lives here in California's 9th U.S. Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and also for his very clear presentation tonight as to why this is such a bad bill and bad conference report.

First of all, let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I had the privilege to visit India a few years ago with my distinguished colleague from New York (Mr. Crowley) and our distinguished colleague from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I witnessed firsthand the brilliance and the spirit and the commitment to democracy of the Indian people, and like many of my colleagues, I strongly believe that it is in our country's interests to strengthen our relationship with India economically, politically and culturally.

But to suggest that we can do so only at the expense of the international nonproliferation standards, as this conference report for the India nuclear deal before us would, is really both dishonest and it is dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, there is no country, and I mean no country, for which it should be acceptable to sacrifice our international standards.

The problem with this deal as it is currently written is that it will do lasting harm to more than 30 years of international efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. This deal creates a double standard which undermines our efforts to stop countries like Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.

This deal creates incentives for withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Why have countries like Brazil and South Korea spend all these years playing by the rules and not building nuclear weapons in exchange for civilian technology when India gets both?

This deal sets a dangerous precedent. In explaining Beijing's rationale for potentially pursuing a deal with Pakistan, Professor Shen Dingli of China's Fudan University has already argued and said, if the U.S. can violate nuclear rules, then we can violate them also.

We should be fighting to save what is left of the international nonproliferation framework, not discarding it. There is no need to rush through with this conference report on the last day of this 109th Congress. We must go back to the drawing board and make sure this proposed nuclear cooperation agreement maintains international nonproliferation goals, and we can do this when the 110th Congress begins in January.

Ideally, India should formally commit to the goals and restrictions on the international nonproliferation framework and sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Short of that, we must insist on specific nonproliferation safeguards as specified in an amendment if you remember which I offered in this bill when it was considered in July.

This amendment basically would have required India to commit to the basic principles consistent with the NPT. Unfortunately, the amendment was not made in order.

The world is a dangerous place, Mr. Speaker. Nuclear weapons are pointed in all directions. Compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is a basic standard that we should require in all nuclear deals and arrangements. This bill goes in the opposite direction. Without these commitments, we should reject this nuclear deal.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the chairman, Mr. Hyde, for his leadership and his fairness as chair of the International Relations Committee and specifically as it relates to HIV and AIDS and orphans and moms with children and the respect you have shown the minority. I wish you happiness and good luck and good health in this next chapter of your life.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 5th, 2006, the people of Daytona Beach, Florida and the United States suffered a great loss with the passing of Yvonne Scarlett-Golden. Yvonne Scarlett-Golden was a strong leader, a passionate educator, and a devoted public servant. As the first African-American Mayor of Daytona Beach, she was never afraid of controversy; she was a true advocate for peace, racial justice, and social equality.

Born and raised in Daytona Beach, Yvonne grew up amid institutional segregation and discrimination. Despite growing up in a city of divisions, Yvonne would later be known as someone who brought the people of Daytona Beach together.

After High School, Yvonne decided to pursue a career in education. She received her Master's degree in education from Boston University, and began her teaching career in Florida public schools. She later taught in the San Francisco Unified School District, and served as the principal of Alamo Park High School for 20 years. After her long career to education, Yvonne returned to Daytona Beach to begin a career in politics, first as a city commissioner and later as the city's first African-American Mayor.

As Mayor, Yvonne helped unite the racially divided communities of Daytona Beach through determination and perseverance. She brought together the beachside and the mainland, black and white together through a city campaign pushing for respect and equality.

I remember very well attending peace conferences with Yvonne, the late Alameda County Supervisor John George, former Berkeley Mayor Gus Newport, former Berkeley City Councilmember Maudelle Shirek. and the late Carlton Goodlett, publisher of the Sun Reporter Newspaper, all of whose lives were totally committed to peace and justice.

Yvonne was a friend to me and an inspiration to many. Yvonne left us a legacy of fighting oppression and hatred with compassion and mutual respect. Her fight for justice and equality should not, can not, and will not be forgotten.

On behalf of the many friends of our beloved Yvonne from Northern California including her close friend, 95 year old former Vice Mayor of Berkeley Maudelle Shirek, we salute Yvonne Golden's life. We will keep her in our memories and we will honor her life by continuing her work for a better world. Her spirit will live on in the lives of those she touched in so many magnificent ways.

My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of a great woman, a brilliant human being who will be deeply missed, Yvonne Scarlett-Golden.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. Once again the Republican Congress has used this horrendous martial law process to ram a bill through on the last day of session.

It is unclear what exactly is in this bill because none of us have had a chance to actually read it.

We do know at least that it represents a last ditch attempt by the Republican Congress to sell out to their friends in the oil and gas industry. This time they want to open up the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico to new drilling--supposedly so they can help the Gulf Coast rebuild.

Are we really so cynical as to tie assistance for the gulf coast areas ravaged by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma to new oil and gas drilling? Are we really going to equate the welfare of Big Oil companies to the needs of hurricane survivors?

It seems like every time we open the newspaper or turn on the news these days, the oil industry is announcing another record profit. Yet here they are again, hat in hand begging for another giveaway. Do they really need our help?

I firmly believe that we have a moral responsibility to help the gulf coast rebuild, but we should not condition any assistance on the future revenues of Big Oil.

If we really wanted to help the gulf coast, we should've been debating and passing H.R. 4197, the Hurricane Katrina Recovery, Reclamation, Restoration, Reconstruction and Reunion Act of 2005, introduced by the Congressional Black Caucus last year.

If we really wanted to stop our addiction to oil and produce a real national energy strategy we wouldn't be debating this sham idea to open the gulf to new drilling.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, with the holiday season in full swing, many American families are feeling the strain on their family finances. This is especially true for the millions of Americans who work full time for minimum wage and only earn about $10,700 a year. The minimum wage in this Nation is currently at its lowest level in 50 years when adjusted for inflation.

Yet Republicans have continually refused to raise the pay of these full-time workers who struggle to make ends meet while facing a rapidly rising cost of living. An hourly wage of $5.15 an hour is simply not a fair living wage for anyone. Democrats have fought for years to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, a move that would positively benefit 7.3 million Americans. Madam Speaker, last month the American people showed their overwhelming support for this much-needed increase by voting for a Democratic majority in Congress and passing the minimum wage increase ballot initiatives in several States. Within the first 100 hours of the next Congress, Democrats will pass this important and long overdue legislation. Let's raise the minimum wage now.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the outgoing and incoming Chairmen of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Oxley and Mr. Frank, the outgoing DIMP subcommittee Chairwoman, Ms. Pryce, and my colleague from New York, Mrs. Maloney for working together in such a bipartisan way to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

I believe the legislation we have before us today significantly improves the ability of the bank to respond to the needs of small business exporters and particularly minority and women-owned small business exporters.

By creating a new office for socially and disadvantaged small businesses and businesses owned by women, we are responding to a critical and glaring gap in Ex-Im's outreach programs.

The office builds directly from an amendment that I co-authored in 2001, during the last reauthorization which required Ex-Im to annually report on the number and type of transactions it conducts with minority and women-owned businesses.

The inadequate reporting from Ex-Im and their token support for minority outreach has made this new office a necessity. I want to thank my colleagues for making it a priority, and specifically Ms. Velazquez for her work on this.

I also want to express my gratitude to Ms. Pryce and Mr. Frank for agreeing to add language to the manager's amendment which requires the Bank President to consider qualified minority and women applicants when filling positions within this new office.

My amendment will ensure that Ex-Im conducts culturally competent and sensitive outreach by hiring individuals who can relate to the particular challenges faced by minority and women-owned small businesses and who can speak their language.

I am also supportive of the provisions in the bill to increase small business exports, simplify Ex-Im's application process, reaffirm our commitment to expanding exports to Sub-Saharan Africa and expand transparency at the Bank.

I believe that improvements to Ex-Im could still have been made, in particular, to ensure compliance with environmental standards following the completion of a transaction, and to get a better understanding of what Ex-Im's real impact is in creating and retaining American jobs.

However, in the next Congress as we conduct oversight of Ex-Im and its implementation of this bill, I hope that we can continue to examine these remaining issues.

Mr. Speaker, For nearly forty years, Ed Bradley dedicated his life to journalism and uncovered some of history's greatest stories. His legacy, his life's work, is a story for all of us to admire.

Ed was a man of journalistic integrity, he not only set a high standard for his fellow journalists; he also helped to break down barriers in a field that traditionally has not reflected the true diversity of our Nation.

For most of his life, Ed sought the truth in matters that affected the American public. From his initial coverage of the Vietnam War to his award-winning report on AIDS, his contribution to history will not go unnoticed or forgotten.

Throughout his career, Ed took interest in the role of African- Americans in journalism and politics. He always found time to talk to minority youth and helped inspire new generations to enter both of these professions. When we last spoke, he expressed interest in the work of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Ed Bradley was only 65. He had so much left to give, but let us not forget his story, his commitment to enriching American lives, and his belief in a better world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the month-long celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month.

During Hispanic Heritage Month, we pay tribute to the Hispanic community and to the important contributions Hispanics make to America. Today the Hispanic-American community numbers some 43 million, is the fastest growing ethnic group in our country, and plays a vital part in our nation's economy, culture, and politics.

That's why I'm so proud in Congress to be a member of both the Hispanic Working Group organized by Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and of the Tri-Caucus, which is the collection of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and the Asian Pacific American Caucus that advocate for the Latino community.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent a thriving and accomplished Latino community in the 9th Congressional District of California, where the contributions of Latino members of the community are stronger than ever.

For example, throughout the past 37 years, the Spanish Speaking Citizens' Foundation has empowered our community and improved the quality of life for many through an enormous range of services. Each year the foundation assists 12,000 members of the community through providing vital social services as well as enhancing opportunities for leadership development and civic participation.

Jovita Solis, the foundation's Citizenship Coordinator, came to the United States when she was quite young and has made a tremendous difference in our community. Jovita routinely volunteers her time at numerous community events to encourage and assist many permanent residents to become naturalized citizens. Jovita has an indomitable spirit that was tested when her brother was murdered only 3 years ago. Jovita came out of her brother's death with a purpose to make our community safer and to help our youths turn away from violence and crime. Jovita has spearheaded many youth initiatives to help our young people stay in school and encourage their pursuits in the arts and sports.

Another community leader creating a better world is Arnoldo Garcia. Arnoldo is the Enforcement and Justice Program Coordinator at the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR), based in Oakland, California.

The NNIRR is a national organization that serves as a forum to share information and analysis, to educate communities and the general public, and to develop and coordinate plans of action on important immigrant and refugee issues.

Arnoldo works to promote a just immigration and refugee policy in the United States and to defend and expand the rights of all immigrants

and refugees, regardless of immigration status. Arnoldo and the National Network bases their efforts in the principles of equality and justice, and seek the enfranchisement of all immigrant and refugee communities in the United States through organizing and advocating for their full labor, environmental, civil and human rights. Arnoldo recognizes the unparalleled change in global, political and economic structures which has exacerbated regional, national and international patterns of migration, and emphasizes the need to build international support and cooperation to strengthen the rights, welfare and safety of migrants and refugees.

Mr. Speaker, Individuals in my district are the motivating force behind the remarkable organizations that promote civic engagement among Latinos in the 9th Congressional District. Leaders like Marta Higuera, a Berkeley Organizing Congregations for Action field representative, helps BOCA fulfill its mission of creating a coalition of interfaith congregations throughout the city of Berkeley. Marta's leadership has been instrumental in having BOCA meet the needs of the Latino community. She persuaded the Berkeley High School English Language Learners program to translate forms and documents into Spanish for parents. In addition, Marta has organized immigration town halls and fundraisers to support our community members who are in most need.

Mr. Speaker, as we honor the achievements of outstanding Hispanic Americans--like Jovita Solis, Arnoldo Garcia, and Marta Higuera--we know that celebrating the Hispanic community for just one month not enough. All Latinos deserve a real opportunity to achieve the American Dream, whether they have been here for generations or just arrived to our shores. Hispanic dreams and values are undoubtedly American dreams and values.

Mr. Speaker, two years after the bipartisan 9/11 Commission gave the Republican led Congress and this Administration failing grades for their efforts to secure our nation, they are still failing the American public.

Take the issue of port security for example.

The Coast Guard has identified over $7.3 billion in port security needs over the next decade, yet since 2002 we have barely provided $900 million.

Four days ago the Homeland Security Department announced its latest round of port security grants and not one single penny was given to the Port of Oakland in my district, even though it is the fourth busiest container port in the country.

Instead of spending money to secure the Port of Oakland and all our nation's ports, we are spending nearly $2 billion a week--over $321 billion so far--to fight this unnecessary war in Iraq.

A war which our intelligence services are now telling us is spawning a whole new generation of terrorists and making us less safe.

Mr. Speaker, we should be spending taxpayer dollars to secure our nation, not to create new terrorists.

While I support the funding in this bill, I believe we need much more.

Democrats have proposed a new direction for America that delivers on our homeland security needs. It's time for a change, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this $533 billion Defense authorization bill.

But, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today does have a very important provision in it: language preventing the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq.

This is an important first step in taking the targets off the backs of our troops in Iraq by showing the world that we have no designs to stay in Iraq permanently.

However, this provision will only apply to funds for FY07. We need to make the policy of the United States not to have permanent military bases in Iraq.

Futhermore, it's unfortunate that this bill is the vehicle for this critical policy.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that our Nation is best defended by funding priorities that make our Nation and world safer.

This bill, I'm sorry to say, does not do that.

Mr. Speaker, what does it say about our priorities when Congress authorizes nearly $70 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without any direction, or exit strategy?

Mr. Speaker, what does it say about our priorities when this bill authorizes a $10.4 billion for a missile defense program that has consistently failed, will never protect us from terrorists?

What it is says, Mr. Speaker is the priorities of the Bush administration are grossly misplaced. When it comes to making our Nation safe, they are spending almost $2 billion a week on a war in Iraq, but can't spare a dime for the security of the Port of Oakland, our Nation's fourth largest container port.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and offer Americans a real bill that protects America and truly reflects our nation's security priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act.

As a member of the Port Security Caucus and as an original co-sponsor of this legislation, I have been consistently fighting for a massive increase in funding and focus to secure our Nation's ports.

But as the 9/11 Commission's failing grades have pointed out, over the last four years, the administration and the Republican Congress have done far too little to secure our Nation's critical infrastructure.

Just earlier this week the Homeland Security Department announced its latest round of port security grants. The Port of Oakland in my district did not get a single penny even though it's the 4th busiest container port in the country and is a gateway to trade with Asia and the Pacific. That is just inexcusable.

By authorizing $400 million in annual port security grants, the SAFE Port Act takes a step in the right direction. Now we have the responsibility to fund it.

We must also fix the gaps that still remain by requiring 100% screening of cargo before it reaches our shores.

At the same time I am disappointed that the Senate language to expand funding to secure our rail and transit systems was not included in this bill.

The London and Mumbai rail and subway bombings happened on our watch. We should not adjourn this session without addressing this critical vulnerability.

Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R. 6143.

As the Co-chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Global AIDS Taskforce, I have consistently fought for more funding for our HIV/AIDS programs.

Along with my colleagues in the CBC, we have helped lead efforts to raise awareness about HIV/AIDS in the African American community, and last year the House passed my resolution supporting Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day.

I have also tried to do my part to encourage wider testing for HIV, introducing several resolutions on the subject, and just yesterday by getting tested with my colleagues in the CBC.

With my colleagues I have also worked to dramatically scale up U.S. foreign assistance on HIV/AIDS, provide the framework for the creation of the Global Fund, and focus assistance on orphans vulnerable to this disease.

Unfortunately today I must stand against this bill because it significantly cuts HIV/AIDS funding in my district in Alameda County. In its current form, this bill will force the consolidation and closure of AIDS service organizations who are on the front lines in fighting this disease.

I do believe there are some strengths to this bill. In particular the inclusion of the Minority AIDS Initiative--an initiative created through the leadership of my colleague Maxine Waters, the CBC, and President Clinton--should be applauded.

But without changes to the current formulas, or increased appropriations to fund these programs, I cannot support this bill in its current form.