Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman speaks from the East Coast, I would like to add support for the gentleman's remarks from the West Coast. And thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender- McDonald) for her leadership on this amendment.

I represent San Diego, California--a large Navy port. I used to say we are the biggest Navy port in the world, but the gentleman says it is in Virginia, so we will have to fight over that later.

We have three nuclear reactor aircraft carriers sitting in our harbor and a nuclear submarine base right there. I think it is generally acknowledged that port security is the weakest link

that we have in our system right now and where the lowest amount of resources relative to need has been put. We simply have got to do a better job.

The gentleman from New York was talking about containers, and the chairman of the subcommittee said we are talking about port security. I would note that in most of the ports of the United States there are millions of empty containers sitting around and we have no idea what is really in them. We call them empties because they supposedly have been unloaded, but according to the experts on this, and that is the dock workers and the longshoremen of America, the potential for these containers to be security risks are very great. It seems to me that we should incorporate the inspection of these into our notion of port security and give the power to do this to our Coast Guard or other port security officials.

I understand what the chairman is saying. I would argue with great respect that the so-called empty containers lying around the ports are part of our port weakness. Container security is port security. Longshoremen have shown that the way that we inspect, for example, ``an empty container'' is through an optical system that leaves almost one-third of the container completely invisible to the so-called inspection. In addition, most of the inspection techniques do not allow us to really know what is inside.

I was going to do a press conference that would show, after an inspection of an empty container, a longshoreman jumping out with an Uzi and showing that we can actually bring in weapons of mass destruction in these seemingly empty, innocent things.

So we have got to do a better job. The amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) ought to be supported, and I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, although this amendment is not in order, and I recognize that, I would just like to tell the chairman that I have proposed it out of frustration with what is going on at the border between California and Mexico.

I represent that total border, and I would say that in our rush after September 11 to secure the border and protect the homeland, we have made very many important steps, many necessary steps; but we also made some wrong decisions, decisions which in fact harm our national security, harm our close relationships with Mexico, and in fact set us back in our attempt to be secure.

I refer specifically today to the practice that has been abolished at the border of giving discretion to port directors to allow children for either medical or humanitarian or cultural reasons to cross the border on a 1-day visa; to grant a waiver to the normal visa requirements, a waiver of normal requirements where we are beyond the reach of many poor people in Mexico.

They cross the border for important reasons. For example, in my district in the city of Calexico, there is a clinic called the Valley Orthopedic Clinic. For over 40 years it has treated poor children for deformities and birth defects, which gives them a future; and, in fact, they have treated over 125,000 low-income children from Mexico.

The practice had been for decades to allow the port director the discretion to grant this 1-day visa, a 1-day humanitarian waiver to allow that child to get treatment, to correct a cleft palate or a clubbed foot or a pinky that was not there at birth, to give children who could not afford it in their homeland an opportunity for a future.

After September 11, that authority, discretionary authority for humanitarian waivers, was taken away from the port director. And so children in need of medical help, school children who would march with their counterparts in America on Christmas parades, visit the world famous San Diego Zoo, go to other cultural events with American counterparts, that was taken away. That has not helped the security of our Nation.

These children are not terrorists. These children are, in fact, engaging in diplomatic relationships that strengthen our two countries' relationships, strengthen our border and give us more security; and yet we have denied now that authority to the port director under the name of homeland security.

So all my amendment would do, and I am sorry we cannot talk about it today, would have said the port directors at the seven or eight ports of entry in my district, others in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, would have the authority to grant these humanitarian waivers. The amendment would not make it easier for terrorists that come to the country. The amendment would not affect the number of legal or illegal immigrants living in our country. The amendment would not force immigration officials to offer waivers.

So I hope as we go through our appropriations and our authorization process for homeland security we take a rational approach, we do not go overboard in taking away discretionary authority from our border officials in the name of homeland security, which actually sets us back.

So I hope that this body will take that issue up in the future. I thank the body for giving me a few minutes to talk about what is going on at the border, and I hope that we can do things that really strengthen our security and not weaken it in the future.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 248, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 249, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered By Ms. Hooley of Oregon

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 250, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 251, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Rahall

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 252, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 2 Offered By Mr. Chabot

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 253, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 254, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 255, I was unavoidably detained, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation in this House that recognizes and honors the service and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces throughout the history of our great Nation.

The first bill is H.R. 4425, called the Honor Our Fallen Prisoners of War Act. Currently, prisoners of war who die during their imprisonment of wounds inflicted in war are eligible for a posthumous Purple Heart recognition. However, those who die of starvation, for example, or beatings or freezing to death are causes which are not eligible for the Purple Heart.

Can this be right? There should be no false distinction indicating more courage or more sacrifice by some who died and less by others. All POWs who died in service to our Nation should be eligible for this Purple Heart recognition, and H.R. 4425 will allow all members of our armed forces who die while a prisoner of war, regardless of the cause of death, to be awarded this honor. This will apply to all wars, past and present.

I am indebted to Rick and Brenda Morgan Tavares of Campo, California, and to Wilbert ``Shorty'' Estabrook of Murrieta, California, who brought this issue to my attention. Shorty survived the Tiger Camp death march during the Korean War and was imprisoned for over 3 years. Brenda's uncle, Corporal Melvin Morgan, died of starvation and beatings he suffered in 1950 at the age of 20 in Korea. Surely Corporal Morgan is deserving of a Purple Heart.

I am also introducing H. Con. Res. 434, a resolution to commend all persons who were inducted for service in the United States Armed Forces during World War II. I repeat, inducted into service. This is a particularly fitting time for such recognition. We all witnessed last Saturday the World War II Memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC, being dedicated as a lasting symbol of our Nation's appreciation of these veterans. We are also approaching the 60th anniversary of D-Day on June 6, 2004, when tens of thousands of inductees, or draftees as they are usually called, were among the Allied Forces invaded Normandy, France.

To provide a bit of history, the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 was enacted 1 year after Germany invaded Poland, and the number of men to be inducted into the Armed Forces was increased 5 days after the United States entered World War II in December of 1941. Of the over 16 million uniformed personnel serving during World War II, 10 million were draftees. They distinguished themselves in war and peace, as we know, and Tom Brokaw has called them ``America's Greatest Generation.''

The Blinded Veterans Association of San Diego, California, and its President William Montgomery have asked for my help in gaining national recognition for the draftees in our Armed Forces, and I am honored to do so today. H. Con. Res. 434 commends the millions who were inducted during World War II and who served with great courage to advance the cause of freedom throughout this world.

Taken together, these two pieces of legislation remind us of the gift of freedom that we have been given through the service and sacrifice of men and women who came before us. I urge my colleagues to support both H.R. 4425 and H. Con. Res. 434.

Mr. Chairman, today, our nation is at war--a war that should never have been started, a war without an exit strategy, a war without allies, and a war I will continue to oppose. Congress ought to be debating these issues--now! But what is not debatable is the fact that all of us in Congress support our dedicated men and women serving in harm's way.

This bill is not perfect--and includes many very bad provisions. This hulking bill, authorizing well over half of our nation's spending every year, has often been the culprit in funding dangerous cost overruns and government spending waste.

Just like last year's Defense Authorization bill, this bill authorizes previously prohibited research on low-yield nuclear weapons. The bill also authorizes $28 million to study the feasibility of developing a high-yield, earth penetrating nuclear weapon to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets.

Another troubling provision is the approval of the administration's request of $10.2 billion for ballistic missile defense programs--$1.1 billion, or 13 percent more than the current level. The total includes funding for the initial deployment of a national missile defense system based in Alaska and California. In today's world of terrorist cells scattered around the globe, this $10.2 billion expenditure is a wasteful boondoggle left over from another time.

There were many good provisions that the Republican Leadership would not even allow the People's House to debate and vote on. These Democratic amendments related to the war in Iraq, and dealt with important issues, such as why money is going to the Iraqi National Congress despite repeatedly bad intelligence from them, affirmations of the Geneva Convention and training requirements, support for Reserves and National Guard, and the need for greater international military support. Shutting out a full debate on these issues is a great failing of this bill.

Possibly most troubling is the lack of oversight Congress is exercising in this bill. Since the spring of 2003, Congress has appropriated more than $166 billion for the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the last supplemental measure, the administration had been claiming additional funds would not be needed until next year. Unbelievably, the President's FY 2005 defense authorization request, in fact, contained no money for Iraq operations.

However, the worsening situation in Iraq forced the White House last week to ask for an additional $25 billion for operations there this year--and the Armed Services Committee authorized the funding with little discussion on the floor.

In essence, the President of the United States hasn't been honest with either the Congress or the American people about what this war is costing, and what funding he needs in the months, and potentially years, to come. The Congress missed a golden opportunity to discuss and debate the substance of the nation's deepening descent into Iraqmire.

Despite these shortcomings, the bill contains many important provisions that are essential to our soldier's serving in combat. I strongly support the 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise, special pay and bonuses for reservists and active duty personnel, and improved housing provisions. The bill also includes an authorization for additional body armor and armored Humvees, which have been, tragically, in short supply over the last year in Iraq.

I am very happy that after many of us have struggled for years to end the Survivor Benefit Penalty, the Republican Leadership has finally relented in this bill. Democrats have worked with veterans' and military officers' organizations to press for the elimination of the social security offset under the SBP by increasing the annuities paid to survivors of military retirees who are 62 or older from 35 percent of retired pay to 55 percent. This is a major victory for our nation's military retirees and their spouses.

In addition, this bill contains a 2-year delay of the Base Realignment and Closure process (BRAG), which I strongly support. This delay in the BRAC process is important to all of us in San Diego, and we all need to stand up to the President's desire to complete the next round of base closings as soon as possible. I hope the final bill stands up to the Presidential blustering threats of veto.

Mr. Chairman, I am supporting this bill because it keeps faith with our men and women in uniform, serving in combat halfway around the world.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is not healthy unless everyone is. I rise in strong opposition to the Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments.

It is true that hospitals in San Diego, Imperial County and throughout the border region need Federal assistance to pay for the uncompensated care they provide. Instead of debating H.R. 3722, however, I would prefer to debate and vote on my Pay Up! Act, H.R. 2848, aimed at offering full Federal reimbursement to hospitals for the service they provide to undocumented patents. My bill would not force nurses and doctors and other medical professionals to suddenly become de facto immigration officials.

Unfortunately, the dangerous legislation that we are considering today would do exactly that: it would deny Federal reimbursement to emergency health service providers unless they agree to also serve as immigration agents.

As California's Border Congressman, I can tell you this legislation would be a disaster for border communities. It would put an extra burden on our already overworked health care professionals, as they scramble to find the resources to collect and process patients' immigration information, biometric identifiers and financial data. This legislation will lead to fear and confusion among both documented and undocumented immigrant families, discouraging them from getting necessary medical attention for children, pregnant women, the elderly and others. In fact, this legislation could put everyone's health at risk. The University of California at San Diego Medical Center has warned that this bill ``could undermine public health by deterring those with contagious diseases from seeking care.''

This bill puts the lives of immigrants at risk. It puts our health care services at risk. It puts our public health at risk.

On behalf of California's border communities, I urge my colleagues to not force doctors to spend their time figuring out which patients are in good standing with our complex immigration laws. I urge my colleagues to not force immigrant families to skip treatment for life- threatening medical problems because they fear deportation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 169, I was attending to official business in my congressional district, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 170, I was attending to official business in my congressional district, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 171, I was attending to official business in my Congressional District, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 172, I was attending to official business in my Congressional District, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 173, I was attending to official business in my Congressional District, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 174, I was attending to official business in my Congressional District, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 175, I was attending to official business in my Congressional District, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 176, I was attending to official business in my Congressional District, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for his leadership on this and join with my colleagues in calling for this resolution, which commemorates the 60th anniversary of the GI Bill of Rights.

As the speakers before said, this is a perfect example of responsible and progressive government, and it was truly an economic stimulus package of far-reaching impact. Many authorities indicate that passage of this GI Bill of Rights paid for itself many times over and largely contributed to the post-World War II economic recovery.

Millions of veterans were helped in their transition from soldier to citizen through unemployment compensation, education benefits, and down payment on houses.

The chairman of the committee referred to the creation of the modern middle class. I can well remember after my father volunteered in World War II, the working-class family that I was a part of had to move in with relatives and was renting a very small apartment.

After he came home, I remember 55 years later the incredible feeling of being able to move into our own home for the first time in our lives. With a few thousand dollars down payment, and with the new homes that were constructed by Levitt in New York, the American dream was made possible for working-class families, such as my own, with the help of the GI Bill of Rights. I will tell you that having a sense of your own home was incredibly beneficial to my own family.

So it is appropriate as we approach the 60th anniversary of the bill's enactment that we look back and celebrate the accomplishments of the greatest generation. I would hope also that as we think about this GI bill, we look forward as well. We must honor the sacrifices of the men and women who make up the greatest generation, I think, by investing in the current generation of servicemen and women and provide them the necessary resources so they can succeed and continue the legacy of this greatest generation.

There are a lot of ways to do that. The chairman of the committee, the ranking member of the committee, have bills, for example, to make mandatory the funding of our health care system rather than rely on the appropriations process each year, where we fall behind, further and further, on the adequate health treatment of our veterans. We must get this on to a mandatory funding kind of scheme so we can give our veterans the health care they deserve.

The education provided for in the GI bill that we are celebrating today must be improved upon. We have tried to take steps forward, but right now it pays only $985 a month to veterans who are attending college. And that does not go too far. There is legislation, such as H.R. 1713, the Montgomery GI Bill Improvements Act, that returns the GI bill to its original intent that we are celebrating today by providing full tuition to a public institution of higher learning, and books, fees, and a living stipend for veterans who are students.

Interestingly enough, did my colleagues know there is one group in World War II who were denied their rights under this GI bill that we are celebrating today? The Merchant Marines. The Merchant Mariners of World War II did not come under this bill we are celebrating. They suffered the highest casualty rate of any of the branches of service, and we might say have become the forgotten service. No legislation was passed by this Congress to address their needs until 1988, when they too were granted a watered-down version of the GI Bill of Rights.

I have legislation, H.R. 3721, it is called The Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II, which will grant them compensation to partially, because we can never really make up for it, the 40 years they went without benefits that we are celebrating today, benefits that could have

provided them, too, with an education and a home loan and a small business loan.

Other steps that we can take. We have a discharge petition number 8 sitting beside me that would help widows of veterans to achieve some measure of dignity in their old age. Those widows of servicemen and servicewomen who paid years into the Survivors Benefit Program will only get 35 percent of the retirement pension when they reach age 62. This is not sufficient for people to live on. This is not a sufficient thank-you for those who have been part of a family that have contributed to our Armed Forces and to our Nation's security.

So let us think as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the GI Bill of Rights and celebrate that wonderful act, let us rededicate ourselves to the task that we have today. Let us honor past veterans by truly honoring present and future veterans in the best way possible by living up to the promises made by a grateful Nation.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Do the rules of the House allow personal reference to a candidate running for the presidency of the United States?

The candidate was personally attacked on this floor, and I ask for his words to be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I am still not sure where that line is. If I were to say that the Republican candidate for President misled us into this war, is that crossing the line?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

I am not going to challenge the ruling of the Chair; but if the candidate of the Democratic Party is accused of condemning our troops, I find that crossing the line, inappropriate and wrong. We are allowed, the candidate is allowed at Senate hearings to make his voice known about the war in Vietnam. He did not condemn the troops. I am upset with the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says we do not support our troops. The gentleman says we want to cut and run. The gentleman says we have let our troops down.

I will tell Members who have let our troops down: the administration that misled us into this war and did not tell us the truth, an administration that is incompetent, that does not provide the body armor for our troops, nor the armored cars. We have been told 25 percent of the casualties would have been prevented if this administration had been competent.

I will tell Members who has let our troops down: those who did not instruct prison guards in the Geneva Convention and who led young people, brave young men and women, to the abuse of prisoners and led to our embarrassment worldwide. That is who is letting our troops down: an administration that has no plan for the peace. We have no idea what we are doing there or how to get out. That is who is letting our troops down. That is who is not supporting our troops. I yield the balance of responsibility to this administration.