Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, flight delays prevented my attendance for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, June 19, 2006. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 5540, the Sgt. Jacob Dan Dones Post Office Designation Act (rollcall No. 289); ``yea'' on H.R. 5504, the Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Building Designation Act (rollcall No. 290); and ``yea'' on H. Res. 826, expressing the sense of Congress that a National Youth Sports Week should be established (rollcall No. 291).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res 861, the global war on terrorism resolution. I am opposed to the resolution because it is terribly flawed, nonbinding, and does not provide a viable plan that protects our soldiers or serves our country.

The general assumption is that the debate on the global war on terrorism, GWOT, will be a full and honest debate. In fact, the process we are engaged in represents nothing more than an exercise in rhetoric. H. Res. 861 is flawed because it does not reflect bipartisanship. Democrats were not allowed to offer our substitute or amend the Republican resolution. Further, I strenuously disagree with the language contained in the resolution.

I want to strongly emphasize that the failed Republican policy in Iraq includes poor planninq that left troops without critical equipment, and provided no plan for success. The war in Iraq exemplifies gross mismanaqement, as evidenced by $9 billion that is either lost or stolen and cannot be accounted for. There has been no oversiqht of spending to date. The Republican controlled Congress has refused to oversee military conduct and the policy that contributed to the war. There has been a complete lack of accountability regarding this war. No investigating committee has ensured taxpayer dollars were legally and well spent. This administration is guilty of entering into no-bid contracts, totaling $17 billion to Halliburton alone.

Let me be clear, Democrats want and demand a new direction in Iraq. We want a responsible redeployment of U.S. troops to take place immediately. We must redeploy and be ready.

I disagree with the resolution premise that the U.S. will prevail in the Global War on Terrorism due to the fact that the ``terrorist adversary'' cannot be identified or quantified. The misguided perpetrators of terrorism consist of disparate and loosely confederated groups, some of whom are religious zealots that justify their terrorist actions based on their Islamic beliefs; others are mercenaries seeking to retaliate against the U.S. for our invasion of Iraq. The terrorists identified as members of AI Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden do not adhere to a traditional command and control military structure, thereby making it impossible for our military forces to engage in traditional battlefield strategies.

H. Res. 861 presents the proposition that Saddam Hussein's regime supported terrorists and posed a threat to global peace. There is no documentation to support this premise. These allegations have been wholly disproved, yet supporters of the war and the architects of the resolution continue to propagate these mistruths. This is why today I reaffirm my steadfast opposition to another in a long list of resolutions that seek to delude Americans into believing that we are debating legislation that provides a clear direction to winning the so- called global war on terrorism. This resolution does not.

I oppose this resolution because it does not address the fact that to date we have spent in excess of $368 billion, mainly in the form of supplemental spending bills that are off-budget and contribute mightily to the Federal deficit. The resolution does not address that our President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Agency, NSA, all provided the American public with undeniably wrong information and allegations contrived to seduce them and Members of Congress to support an act of aggression against Saddam Hussein. We engaged in a war without broad international support. America, through its actions in Iraq, reinforced the perception throughout the Middle East that the global war on terrorism is an attack on the religion of Islam, and in some measure that the interests of the U.S. related more to controlling oil in Iraq than promoting democracy. This war has united our enemies and divided our friends.

I reject this resolution because it does not acknowledge that we hastily entered this war and unnecessarily placed our soldiers in harm's way, resulting in 2,500 deaths.

My ongoing assessments of the situation in Iraq have caused me to conclude that it is critical for the House and our nation to develop a strategy that will ensure the redeployment of our forces from Iraq and return them home. I support my colleague Represenative Murtha and his calls for a reevaluation of our military strategy and a return of our troops as soon as practicable. As our troops redeploy, they will be ready to respond to whatever challenges our Nation may be forced to confront.

Finally, I oppose H. Res. 861 because it will not deliver any tangible solutions to the quagmire that engulfs our soldiers and places them in perpetual danger. H. Res. 861 provides the appearance of substantive and honest debate. In reality, it is merely an exercise designed to appease the emotional and intellectual appetite of Americans seeking to justify what they believe and have been told is a real global war on terrorism. It is not.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H. Res. 861.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 16, 2006, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 861, the resolution on the War in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, today is an important day in the United States Congress. Beginning around noon this afternoon, the House will debate for 10 hours the Iraq war. The question will be should we continue on the course that President Bush and the administration has set or should we have a new plan? We will have 10 hours of debate.

Consider, over 2,500 young men and women killed, over 30,000 amputees, blinded and the like, hundreds of thousands who will have mental health deficiencies when they return. Retired generals have spoken. We need a new direction. The troops should be redeployed. They should be brought home at the most practical time with a plan that we don't now have under this administration.

So, America, listen and look. Should we stay the course, or should we have a plan of redeployment to protect our troops and to protect America?

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Knollenberg for your leadership, sir, Michigander, appreciate working with you. And to our ranking member, Mr. Olver, thank you very much for working together. As I always say, when the chairman and ranking members work together, it certainly makes our subcommittee work better.

I rise in support of our TTHUD bill, that is Transportation, Treasury, HUD, IRS and several other agencies put together in an acronym we call TTHUD, the TTHUD bill, some $67 billion bill for transit agencies, for our roads and bridges, for our housing needs, and Treasury and the like.

I think the bill is a good bill for what we had to work with, but it is far short of the needs that America has to fund its highway system, to fund its transit system, also for community development. I think housing in this bill takes a major hit, and it is so unfortunate. HOPE VI, which is a program for distressed housing in mainly urban America, has been zeroed out. I think that is unfortunate. And I know you can't fund a war at over $350 billion and think we can, at the same time, invest in America. That is why I think we must bring our troops home in the most practical time, and redeploy our troops around the theater area so that America is safe, and that we protect our interests at the same time.

But working with the dollars that we have, the HUD part of this bill has been devastated. The brownfield area has been zeroed out. Together, the EPA, which has money in it for remediation of land that will be developed, there is a small amount of money there. It is only there for remediation. The HOPE VI monies are for building, the actual building of houses, and together with the Community Development Block Grant money will help distressed areas and mainly urban areas of our country be able to put people in affordable housing, to have people live in safe housing, to offer their children hope for the future because a house is the most basic thing they need, one of the most basic things. This bill does not do a good job with that. And I know as we go on, you will hear more amendments trying to put back brownfield money, trying to put back HOPE VI money, and I support that.

I also want to bring up in this bill the section 8 housing choice voucher program. The way that the money is distributed in that program needs to be fixed. They take a snapshot of 3 months of the expenses, rather than a 12-month snapshot of the expenses in those section 8 housing use. Thereby, States like mine, we lose millions of dollars that could be helpful in families needing housing, adequate, safe clean housing. So I would hope that as we go on, we take a look at that. And as I asked the chairman last year to take a look at our State's, not just our State's, but our choice house voucher program, where we are being penalized and losing money that we ought to have because of a flawed formula. This does not look at the 12-month expenses, but only the 3-month expenses. And I might add not the 3 months expenses that have the higher home heating costs.

But overall, the TTHUD bill is one that can be supported. There will be amendments offered. Some of them are some that I will support. Housing development and providing assistance to urban America has to be strengthened.

I look forward to working with the chairman and our ranking member to make sure that we can build back some of these real programs that America needs. This administration has no urban program for development, for our schools, for our health centers; and I contend as we move forward in this process, we must pay attention to adequate, safe, clean housing. This bill falls far short.

Mr. Chairman, to Chairman Kolbe and to my ranking member, Nita Lowey, who has shepherded this bill through the many years that I have been on the committee, through several chairmen and ranking members, I just want to say thank you very much for your leadership and for your cooperation, because it makes it easier for all of the subcommittee members when our Chair and ranking member work together. I want to thank you for that.

To Chairman Kolbe, as you enter your next life, sir, I just want to say thank you for your leadership, your compassion and your working togetherness that you have demonstrated as I have worked with you over these last many years. We are going to miss you in this body. I am sure your next opportunities will also enhance this body. So congratulations and good luck to you.

I stand in support of this bill. It is a bipartisan effort that we have worked together on for several months now. If we had more money, we could have done better. But we did the best with what we had.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy that the HIV account is probably funded higher than it has been ever under Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey's leadership and direction. HIV/AIDS is a pandemic in the world, and the U.S. is certainly doing our part. And I want to thank the administration as well as the Members of this Congress, both House and Senate, for standing by and making available treatment options so that people can have fuller, better lives.

Our Child Survival Account, which is not at the level that I would like to see it, but continues to help with malaria and TB and other kinds of illnesses across this world. We thank you for that. The assistance that this bill gives Liberia, as well as the Sudan, we had the President from Liberia here not long ago, President Sirleaf, who has demonstrated a new wave in Liberia. I am happy that this bill will continue to assist them.

The Darfur debacle that is currently under way in the Sudan, we have got to do more there. We have got to rise up as a Nation and offer the leadership of the United States to bring this decimation of millions of peoples and their lives and children to a rest.

I do not want to really get into it here, but there will be much debate about Egypt. I want to talk about it just a moment. I was able to go to Egypt a couple of weeks ago with our Chair and ranking member; I have been in that region before.

I come from the State of Michigan. Michigan has the largest amount of Arab Americans and Arabs in America in our part of the world through four of the Members of this Congress. Congressman Dingell, Conyers, Knollenberg and myself share that population of Arab Americans in our districts, have been living with them for decades, and they are a part of our family and our population in southeastern Michigan, where two- thirds of the population of our State lives.

Egypt, the leading country in that part of the Middle East, is a friend of America. President Mubarak is the best friend we have in the region. There will be much debate about Egypt as we go forward. I do not want to get into the specifics right now, but I do want to say thank you to the chairman, there is a rescission of $200 million in the budget that was not spent.

So there is some attention paid to what is happening in Egypt. Egypt needs to be our partner, and they need to know that we support them. The rescission that the Chairman offered has now been ratified by the subcommittee and the full committee. It is a step to say that we are watching you, we are working with you.

Democracy in our region of the world is not the same as it is all over the world. I believe President Mubarak and his administration are doing what they can to maintain the stability in the region. So I believe this is a good bill.

And as we go throughout the day to debate the 20-plus amendments, pay particular interest to what is happening in the world. We are a leader. We deserve it. And we look forward to your support.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, Members and the world, this is a very important amendment, and we must pay particular attention to it. The Middle East is in turmoil. We are threatened on every side of the Middle East. Sometimes we do not respect the culture. Sometimes we do not respect the religion. Sometimes we do not respect the people for what has happened to this country and terrorism around the world.

But I want for a minute for you to just take a moment and think how important this amendment would be and the signal it would send to our strongest alley in the Middle East. We have had a wonderful relationship with Egypt over the last 30 years. Over 75 million Egyptians, with some of the other countries, Syria, Jordan, Saudi, some of them 7 million, some 10 million, some 12, this is 75 million Egyptians who live in our country today and who live in the Middle East.

Mr. Chairman, it is the wrong signal to send at a time when the Middle East is in turmoil. Leadership is what they must have. And I contend to you that President Mubarak and his administration is the best friend that we have in the Middle East. I am recently returned from the World Economic Forum in Egypt on the Middle East, where countries from that region came together.

We met with them, a good delegation of us. And we interacted with them for the 2, 3 days of that summit. They want to be good neighbors. And what I am here to tell you is that Egypt, with the President and his administration, is leading the effort to make sure that our relationship with them and theirs with the rest of the Middle East is one that is important, that is stabilized, and that it is secure.

Egypt is a critical partner of the U.S. in the Middle East. Egypt is an honest broker with the Palestinians on its issues and on our issues. Egypt is the main protector of Israel, and we need that communication, we need that cooperation. Egypt supports us in the Gaza and the Egyptian border.

Egypt has sent 800 peacekeepers to the Sudan. Egypt also participates in joint exercises with our military. They buy our U.S. military equipment. This is not the time to punish them. No, they are not a democracy like we have. This is the best country in the world. Our democracy is second to none.

But do we penalize our neighbors, sovereign nations, because they are not like us? President Mubarak in the last 12 months has issued many decrees and is about changing how they believe and what they believe in Egypt.

As a result of that, Egypt has seen three bombings, had not seen any in over 10, 15, 20 years. Because it is hard to change from one way of governing, and then come to another. You have people in Egypt rising up against the president and against us too.

It is not time now. The timing is not good for the U.S. to back away from our relationship with Egypt as we help to stabilize that part of the world and remain partners with our country.

Is it possible that some things might not be right? Yes. I would be the first to say that. Are they working to make it better? Yes, they are. Israel needs a strong Egypt. The U.S. needs a strong Egypt. So I implore my colleagues, and I hate to rise any time against my ranking member. I feel so passionately about this that I implore my colleagues to look at what is happening in the world, look at us as our Nation, we are a great Nation, second to none.

Let us not forfeit our partnership with our friends that will destabilize our own country. There was a great act in the Middle East overnight, when one of the terrorists was captured, not only captured but further than that. Do we throw all of that for naught, or do we try to live in a world community where we can live together as brothers and sisters from different nationalities and ethnicities? I contend that Egypt is key in that and that we must continue.

It is not about the money, I must say as I take my seat. The cost of military assistance is phenomenal. The amount that this will deduct from that, it is not about the money; it is about the good will and the partnership.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent for our own security. I contend that Egypt is a partner with us, and we should maintain that bipartisanship, for it is they and us and nations of good will like us that will determine what kind of world your grandchildren will live in. Vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, official business requires my absence from legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, May 22, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on S. 1235, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2005 (rollcall No. 177) and ``yea'' on H.R. 3858, Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2005 (rollcall No. 178).

Mr. Speaker, at 1 o'clock this morning, the Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a budget that is fiscally irresponsible; increases the national debt; cuts veterans' health care; cuts student loans; and at the same time, President Bush passed a $70 billion tax cut bill for the wealthiest of America.

What is just as bad is that the debt limit for our Nation has been increased five times since 2001 under President Bush and the Republicans. This is more than any Presidents that preceded him.

Is this the kind of America that you want? American people, please speak out. Please speak up. We can do better. This is the best Nation in the world. We must change the way we do business in Congress.

One hundred percent of Democrats voted against that budget at 1 o'clock this morning. It is bad for America. It is bad for our families, and we can do better.

Mr. Chairman, I thank our chairman for yielding to us. The Federal budget is $2.8 trillion. Ways and Means takes two-thirds of that. This budget is some $800-, nearly $900 billion. CBC's budget is within that. We pay as you go. We also invest in families, in health care, in education, in schools, in veterans health.

Mr. Chairman, it is the only budget that will be before you tonight that addresses the families in America. Vote for the CBC budget. It is the budget that will restore and make sure that our families are strong. We have put a lot of time and attention in this. I want to commend Congressman Scott from Virginia and our own Chairman Watt. The CBC budget is sound, it is fiscal, and it strengthens America's families.

A top priority of the CBC is to address the exploding budget deficit. If we do not control the budget today, we will not be able to afford Social Security and Medicare in the future.

The CBC Alternative brings the budget into balance in 5 years and generates a surplus of $2.3 billion by FY 2011.

Improves the deficit by a cumulative total of $313 billion and results in a savings of $10.5 billion in interest on the national debt.

The CBC Budget achieves fiscal balance by aligning our spending and tax policies on a glide path that restores the financial future health of the country.

It establishes PAYGO as a House rule, so we will avoid spending what we do not have. We must be realistic and include revenues and spending in any effort to bring our deficits under control. PAYGO does that. Ignoring PAYGO ignores the successful formula that brought us balanced budgets in the last half of the 1990s.

It reduces funding for Ballistic Missile Defense, so we can increase funding for homeland security, veterans programs, and honor our commitment to our troops and their families.

The CBC Budget reflects American values by investing in the security of our Nation, providing the health care for our veterans and supporting our troops who serve on the front lines.

It increases funding for homeland security needs to provide for port security grants, interoperable communications systems for first responders, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and enhanced aviation security.

It invests in other domestic priorities such as juvenile crime prevention, prisoner re-entry programs, restores cuts the Republican budget proposes in veterans' health care and improves benefits to the survivors of veterans.

For all the President's talk about free trade, the CBC budget help those who are dislocated by our trade policies by providing $80 billion more in education and job training, and $20 million more for health care. It provides satisfactory levels of funding for Amtrak, Hope VI and Section 8 housing programs, and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

My Republican friends are saying that their budget exercises fiscal constraint. Any budget that contains more tax expenditures than cost savings is not an exercise in fiscal responsibility. Last year we enacted $38 billion in spending cuts in one reconciliation bill, but cut taxes by another $70 billion in another reconciliation bill. The Republican budget follows that same formula. That is not the pathway to fiscal sanity.

Support the CBC Budget Alternative.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today for the purposes of explaining my vote on H.R. 5020, which this chamber considered yesterday. I have a high regard for the intelligence officials that serve our country, and I strongly support efforts to make sure that they have the resources to complete their mission competently, professionally, thoroughly and legally. After listening to the debate on this bill, I reached the conclusion that this bill does nothing to rein in this Administration's domestic surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency.

This bill contains some good provisions. It imposes restrictions on the growth of the National Director of intelligence to ensure resources are applied to strengthening the intelligence community's ability to penetrate hard targets, and not just add to the growth in bureaucracy. It fully funds the counter-terrorism program. However, the bill's provisions concerning oversight of domestic counterintelligence activity is tepid at best.

I believe we can conduct domestic intelligence activities in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. There exists a debate in this country if whether the NSA domestic surveillance program is being conducted within the limits of the FISA. During the debate on the bill, I learned several Members sought to offer a bipartisan amendment clarifying that all surveillance of American citizens must follow the law and be consonant with the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The Rules Committee denied us an opportunity to consider that amendment. Any process that denies us the opportunity to protect our constitutional guarantees does not deserve my support, and for that reason, I voted against the passage of H.R. 5020.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to use this opportunity to address this House to explain my vote on H.R. 4939, the Emergency War and Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, which this chamber considered on March 16, 2006.

Despite my misgivings for the direction of our Iraq policy, I do not believe our troops, who are fighting so bravely, should be penalized for the mistakes in judgment of our civilian military leadership in the White House and the Pentagon. I also believe we need to continue our obligation to the people and states who fell victim to Hurricane Katrina. For these reasons, I supported the passage of H.R. 4929, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

The funds in this bill will enable our soldiers and marines on the ground to uparmor their vehicles. There should be more outrage from the American public that they were deployed without adequate equipment from the beginning. But they are there, and it is vital that they have the equipment necessary to protect themselves against attack. Moreover, more money is provided in this bill to help our troops detect and destroy improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Although I disagree with the administration's conduct of the war, I do believe the one way we can bring our troops home sooner is to provide Iraqi security forces with the training and equipment they need to provide for the common defense of their own country and take the fight to the insurgency. Ultimately, the fate of their country will rise and fall on the Iraqis' ability to provide for their own security.

To further help our troops, the money in this bill will take care of the health care needs of their families and cover the projected shortfall in the defense health care account. It also honors the obligation Congress made last year to increase the military death gratuity to $100,000 from $12,000 and subsidized life insurance benefits that were increased to $400,000 for the families of fallen loved ones.

The bill also helps needy families offset the high cost of heating fuel by providing an additional $750 million for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Finally, the bill honors what I feel is our country's obligation to help the Gulf Coast region by appropriating $19.1 billion in disaster relief, community development and levee reconstruction monies.

These programs deserve our support. We cannot turn our backs to protecting

the safety and welfare of troops in harms way or ignore those who have gone homeless as a result of Hurricane Katrina. These people need our help and that is why I voted to support this emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican higher education bill, the College Access and Opportunity Act, H.R. 609, represents a missed opportunity to make college more affordable, boost America's economic competitiveness, and invest in America's future.

At its core, the Higher Education Act, HEA, historically has sought to improve access to a college education for our Nation's most needy students. The current reauthorization bill does little to fulfill this premise and has the potential to greatly detract from that important goal. The goal of Congress and this bill should be to expand higher education opportunities, not restrict them.

Despite Republican leadership's claims, H.R. 609, the ``Missed College Opportunities Act,'' does little to help the students it claims to help. Just a month after cutting student aid by $12 billion, Republicans continue to be out of touch with the needs of American students and families.

H.R. 609 fails to provide a real increase in student aid.

H.R. 609 fails to lower college loan interest rates.

H.R. 609 freezes the authorized level of the maximum Pell Grant scholarship--at just $200 above current levels--through 2013 and it does not include any mandatory increase in Pell.

The Democratic substitute, which was not adopted, would have cut interest rates in half for the borrowers, from a fixed rate of 6.8 percent to a low fixed rate of 3.4 percent. As a result the costs of college would be lowered by $2.4 billion for low- and middle-income students.

In addition to making college more affordable, the Democratic legislation would have boosted college opportunities for minority students by:

Establishing a new Predominantly Black Serving Institutions program to increase college participation rates of low-income black students;

Creating a new Graduate Hispanic Serving Institutions program; and

Creating a pilot program for year round Pell grants.

Traditionally, higher education legislation has enjoyed widespread bipartisan participation and support but today I will vote against this higher education bill. American students and families are struggling to pay for college. Congress should pass legislation to control tuition costs and increase student aid and not miss this opportunity to help American families.

I strongly support the Democratic substitute. I will vote against the underlying bill, H.R. 609, because it does not make college more affordable for American students and families.

Mr. Speaker, personal business requires my presence in the congressional district, and I am unable to be present for legislative business scheduled for today, Tuesday, March 14, 2006. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 354, a resolution expressing the support of Congress for requiring an institution of higher education to provide military recruiters access to the institution's campus and students at least equal in quality and scope to that which is provided to any other employer in order to be eligible for the receipt of certain Federal funds (rollcall No. 39).

Mr. Speaker, personal reasons require my absence from legislative business scheduled for today, Tuesday, February 14, 2006. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 322, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the contribution of the USO to our service men and women of our armed forces (rollcall No. 8) and ``yea'' on S. 1989, the Holly A. Charette Post Office Building Designation Act (rollcall No. 9).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Mrs. Coretta Scott King, the widow of civil rights pioneer and icon Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I join millions in this country and around the world who mourn her passing and celebrate her life. I extend my condolences and prayers to her children and family.

Coretta Scott King was born in Marion, AL, on April 27, 1927. She grew up in segregated Alabama. Mrs. King went on to study music at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH, and later studied at the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston, MA. It was in Boston, where she met Dr. King, who at the time was working on his doctorate in theology at Boston University. They married in 1953 and had four children, Yolanda Denise, Martin Luther III, Dexter Scott, and Bernice Albertine.

Coretta Scott King marched beside her husband in towns across the then segregated south. Mrs. King did not quietly slip out of public life. With dignity and courage, she chose to continue to work for justice, access, and equality. She advanced the message of social justice, peace, and mutual respect.

Mrs. King started the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Non Violence and Social Change out of the family home in Atlanta. The Center now houses the tomb of Dr. King and thousands of documents related to his work. Thousands of people each year visit the center,

which sits in Atlanta's Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site.

Coretta Scott King was active in the fight against apartheid in South Africa and an advocate for human rights. Mrs. King received honorary doctorates from more than 60 colleges and universities and authored three books.

As we enter Black History Month and then Women's History Month in March, I urge Congress and the American people to reflect on the legacy of Mrs. King. She was tireless in her effort to make America a better place for every American. Coretta Scott King will always be remembered for promoting racial and economic equality for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, reluctantly, I rise in opposition to the bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006. Had this bill been limited to providing funding for our Nation's defense and our men and women serving our country, this bill would have my wholehearted support. But there are major sections in this bill that have nothing to do with our Nation's defense. They found their way into this bill because it is ``must have'' legislation. I refuse to play the game of legislative blackmail. These provisions ought to be stripped from this bill. The majority leadership profanes the military by adding these extraneous provisions. For these reasons, I must vote against this defense-funding bill.

One of the major problems with this bill is that it will make an $8 billion across the board cut in all 2006 discretionary spending, excluding veterans. I strongly support our veterans but the $8 billion in cuts include special education, ``No Child Left Behind,'' homeland security, defense spending, low-income heating assistance, job and employment assistance, the Women, Infant, and Children Program, WIC, and many other programs.

The sections authorizing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, should not be in this defense-spending bill. H.R. 2863 also exempts drug companies from liability. Drug company language does not belong in this bill. Drug companies should be liable when their products cause physical harm or death to consumers. I am also opposed to this bill because I do not think that the Republican leadership should use our troops to accomplish political goals that are unpopular with Americans. For these reasons I must vote against this defense bill.