Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I support his amendment and I support full funding of IDEA.

While I am pleased that this Congress is tackling the issue of special education today, I am disappointed that this bill does not substantively address several important issues including fully funding IDEA and the misidentification of children with disabilities.

Misidentification is a serious problem in our schools. Many general education teachers are not trained to identify learning disabilities and students are placed in special education when all they need is a little extra assistance. Not only is this detrimental to the student, but it diverts precious funding away from students with serious disabilities.

Full funding of IDEA has been one of my top priorities during my time in Congress. When Congress first addressed this issue in 1975, we made a commitment to provide children with disabilities access to a quality public education. But not once in the past 28 years has Congress lived up to its obligation to fund the services it requires states and school districts to provide, despite a commitment that it would do so.

My home state of Oregon, like so many states around the country, is suffering tremendous budget shortfalls. When the federal government doesn't pay its share, the remaining costs don't just disappear. The state and school districts are forced to pick up the additional costs, putting additional strain on our education funding. Living up to our promise and fully funding IDEA would help all States and all students.

It is high time we renew our commitment to all of our nation's children and pay our share of the cost of IDEA.

I urge my colleagues to support the Wu amendment and support full funding of IDEA.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. We are here tonight to consider one of the most important resolutions that we will take up this year in Congress, the budget. This is the blueprint for everything we do. And we do not even get a chance to read it before we vote on it.

As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I have spent a lot of time addressing the concerns on this budget, and we spent an entire day from early morning until early the next morning on the budget process looking at amendments. We knew what we were voting on. We had a chance to debate it. Yet, tonight when we are voting on final passage of the budget of the United States, members of the Committee on the Budget and Members of the House have not had a chance to see the product they are voting on. This process is wrong.

Members deserve a chance to review this document before voting on it. If leadership is determined to consider this resolution before the approaching recess, that is fine. Give us a day, give us a half a day, give us some time to see what is in this budget. I have a responsibility to my constituents just like everyone does to consider measures carefully, to know what is in that measure before we vote on it. Yet, I cannot thoughtfully consider this legislation because I have not had a chance to review it.

This is an awful process. I urge my colleagues to defeat the martial law rule so we can have adequate time to review this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this budget. This budget severely underfunds education and shortchanges our Nation's children. Here we are 2 years after Members from both sides of the aisle pledged to leave no child behind, and yet we are considering a budget that cuts billions from the No Child Left Behind Act. Instead, this budget produces huge deficits for our children to pay off, yet fails to provide them with the resources they need to drive the economy of tomorrow. This budget is not what our children need. This budget is not what America needs. I urge Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay my respect to a fallen soldier, a hero from my district who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Sergeant Donald Walters grew up in Colorado, Springs, Colorado. His family moved to Salem, Oregon, when he was in middle school. As a teenager, Donald worked at a Salem grocery store. He liked to fish, camp and had a longstanding interest in the military. He wanted to make a difference. A year after graduating from North Salem High School, he joined the Army.

Donald was an aspiring writer of children's books. Donald served in the first Persian Gulf war, then left the military about 2 years ago. As a testament to his undying love of our country, he reenlisted in the Army after September 11. For the weeks that Sergeant Walters was missing in action, his community in Oregon showed their support. Nearly every house on the block was adorned with an American flag, a yellow ribbon, or both. Sergeant Walters leaves behind his wife Stacie, three loving daughters, his parents Arlene and Norman, and his sister Kimberly. To all those who he left behind, my heart and prayers are with you as well as the hearts and prayers of a grateful Nation. We will not forget you, Sergeant Donald Walters.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

I thank my colleague from Maryland for his kind words.

I rise today in appreciation of my colleagues who made bringing this bill to the floor possible.

Standing 6 foot 4 inches tall, Dr. John McLoughlin cast a giant of a shadow on the early development of the Oregon frontier. For 21 years his powerful voice was the only influence of law and order over an empire 2\1/2\ times the size of Texas. He had absolute control, and he maintained it peacefully and profitably with a balance of justice. With an overwhelming sense of compassion and generosity beyond reproach, it is little wonder that he was regarded by native Americans as a ``Great White Eagle.'' John McLoughlin did indeed walk tall and cast the greatest shadow that ever fell so humbly on the changing face of Oregon.

Born in 1784 near Quebec, Canada, McLoughlin began his medical apprenticeship at age 14. In 1803 at the ripe old age of 19, he was granted his license to practice surgery and pharmacy. Soon after, Dr. McLoughlin was appointed medical officer for the North West Company, fierce competitor of Hudson's Bay Company in the fur trade. He continued there until 1821, until his acquisition by Hudson, for whom he continued working.

In 1824 Dr. McLoughlin was sent to Fort George, now Astoria, Oregon, near the mouth of the Columbia River. Charged with establishing administrative headquarters and supply depot for the expanding fur company, he was also tasked with creating a mercantile arm of the British Government with the goal of monopolizing the fur trade and maintaining peace among the numerous Indian tribes.

Upon arrival, he found the existing facility to be run down, the farmland to be poor, and the location that was in general unsuitable for his responsibilities. To remedy these deficiencies, he moved the site northwest and built a new settlement in Belle Vue Point, in what is now Washington State, and named it Fort Vancouver. The new fort was an imposing presence. It contained all the necessities for settlement with a school library, pharmacy, chapel, warehouses, smithy, and the largest manufacturing facility west of the Rockies. To the rear of the fort were fields of grain, vegetables, and an orchard for fresh fruits.

Dr. McLoughlin maintained friendly relationship with the local Indians, and in 1829 when a visiting ship brought a terrible fever that spread like wildfire, he spent countless hours tending the ill, trying to ease their suffering as much as he could. Despite his best efforts, the fever devastated the tribes and killed more than 30,000 people over the next 4 years.

Meanwhile, though, Fort Vancouver flourished under the guidance of Dr. McLoughlin. Even though he had no military forces, he was able to maintain peace and order through his personality and hard work. He was a figure larger than life.

His good relationship with the local Indians kept the peace on that front, and it was not until his departure that any unrest developed from that quarter.

As a reward for his enlightened stewardship, he was knighted by Buckingham Palace by Queen Victoria in 1841. During the 1840s, the British came to the realization that preventing American settlers from homesteading in Oregon was all but impossible, but they tried their best to discourage settlers from beginning the trip. Tall tales of fierce Indians, unproductive land, and terrible weather conditions were spread far and wide.

Though it violated Hudson's Bay company policy, McLoughlin sympathized with the overwhelmed and often unprepared settlers. He extended credit so they could purchase supplies, clothing and seed for planting, offered food to those who were hungry, cared for those who took ill. This personal decision by Dr. McLoughlin and the compassion he showed to these settlers proved critical to establishing American settlers and solidified U.S. claims to the territory.

By 1845, Dr. McLoughlin's disgust for Hudson's policy toward American settlers was so great he was unable to stay with the company. After his resignation, he purchased the company's land claim at Willamette Falls in Oregon City and built a residence for his family, the McLoughlin House, and took up residence in 1846.

McLoughlin remained a public figure through his retirement and became a U.S. citizen in 1849. He donated land for the jail, for a female seminary, and in 1851 was elected mayor of Oregon City. He died in his home 6 years later.

In 1941, the McLoughlin House was designated a national historic site, the first one in the West; and in 1957 Dr. John McLoughlin was named Father of Oregon by the State legislature.

Clearly, Fort Vancouver and the McLoughlin House have a long and storied history together. The intent of my legislation is to see that this history is continued by expanding the boundaries of Fort Vancouver National Historic Site to include the McLoughlin House National Historic Site.

Currently, the McLoughlin House is maintained and managed by a nonprofit group. For nearly 100 years, the association has done admirable work to preserve and maintain this historic treasure. However, over the past several years, the association has been unable to raise the funds required to provide the needed maintenance and upkeep of the property that is now in jeopardy of falling into disrepair.

The McLoughlin House National Historic Act would do what should have been done 60 years ago, include these properties as part of the National Park System, rather than creating a new unit of the National Park System. This legislation simply adds this historic treasure to the existing Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, which is already administered by the park system.

I believe this addition will preserve in perpetuity the cultural, educational, and historical benefits of this historic site for future generations. I am proud of the wide-ranging support for this legislation, from the city, county, the citizens, the congressional delegation. The citizens in Oregon City approved a ballot measure by 80 percent to allow this to go into the National Park System.

Again, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to making this legislation possible, and I feel certain this legislation will move swiftly through the Senate and to President Bush's desk.

Again, I thank all my colleagues for their time and effort.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague for yielding to me.

I think this is a time when we are sending and have sent our young men and women into battle, and what better way to honor them than by honoring our current veterans, and it is important that we restore these cuts.

I mean, I look at our own VA hospital in Portland, Oregon, where we have cut 10 percent of our budget already before this budget. We have something like 6,000 veterans waiting to get an appointment. Even the veterans who have been disabled during war are taking 6 months to be seen, and now we are talking about cutting health care benefits.

This is a promise we made to people when they said they would serve, that we would provide health care to them, and we are still making that promise. I have a young gentleman working in my office who was a recruiter for the service, and he said, I was told when we recruit people to tell them that they would get health care benefits for the rest of their lives.

If we are making that kind of a promise, we need to keep that promise. We cannot keep that promise if we are cutting $28 billion out of the budget; and why, I want to ask my colleague, why are we cutting $28 billion out of the budget? Why is this necessary?

These tax cuts are not for stimulating the economy.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have a situation where they are cutting money out of health care benefits at a time when the population is increasing the need for health care benefits more and at a time that we already have huge waiting lists, at a time that we said we are sending our young men and women into battle and we said we would provide health care to all veterans for the rest of their life.

It is a promise we need to keep. If we can no longer keep that promise, then we need the tell the new people coming in that we cannot keep this promise and give them a different promise or different assumptions.

It is hard to cut waste, fraud and abuse when we are talking about compensation to disabled veterans and when we are talking about health care where there is not enough money and where they are already making cuts and the number of people on the waiting lists grows and grows and grows.

I know my colleague from Texas visited her veterans hospital this week.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, I just want to add that people need to understand that we have made cuts already. We already have these waiting lines for health care, and this will be on top of that. We sometimes forget that there are waiting lines. There are 6,000 people waiting at our hospital. The gentlewoman from Texas had how many?

3,400 waiting at her hospital. I suspect everyone here who has a veteran hospital can talk about the number waiting already before the tax cut.

It seems to me when any soldier comes home, he or she should not have to worry about whether or not they are going to get health care. That is not something they should be worrying about right now.

Mr. Chairman, two years ago, I don't think there would be any doubt that most Americans would have felt a sense of safety, but in today's world that is not the case. Indeed, in today's world of opting to spend an estimated $9 million on security for the Super Bowl, Americans are looking for a greater feeling of safety and security in their daily lives, whether in their homes, on the street, or in their workplace.

While tensions abroad are troubling, we can't overlook or underfund our own homeland security.

There is a bipartisan consensus that protecting the security of our communities requires that we adequately equip and train our first responders, who form our first line of response to any terrorist attacks. These first responders need additional funding to match mandates and goals, particularly to address the need for new communications equipment. Fire fighters need to be able to communicate with police officers, and police officers need to be able to communicate with emergency medical personnel in order to effectively protect our communities.

Recently, a group of over 80 police, fire and emergency response agencies in Oregon came to me requesting funding for a regional communications system that would allow all the agencies to communicate with one another. This proposal cost $59 million and would greatly improve the regional response capability of these first responders. Increasing money for first responders may allow them to build their communications system.

We are in the midst of an extraordinary time, when we and our allies are pursuing a war on terrorism that extends across the globe. Our resources, troops, intelligence agents, and surveillance equipment are currently spread across the world, from Yemen to the Philippines, from Afghanistan to Colombia.

In our own backyards, at the borders with Canada and Mexico, in the hundreds of seaports on our coast, indeed even in our own communities, I will fight to ensure that we have the proper resources or organization to prevent terrorist attacks.

In the midst of this lack of resources and organization, we hear constant reports that new attacks on American soil are being planned. Members of President Bush's administration have publicly stated that they believe another attack on American soil is nearly inevitable.

During a time when our nation seems its most vulnerable and under its greatest threat, we have the responsibility to ensure that everyday Americans are safe and secure. We must protect and defend our cities at home during these troubling times by investing in our new Department of Homeland Security, by providing local law enforcement and first responders with adequate resources to prevent or respond to any future attacks.

I am disappointed that this legislation includes less spending on homeland security than was requested by the President, and I am disappointed that the rule was structured in such a way to prevent amendments increasing homeland security spending.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting when we talk about people saying they are against cutting waste, fraud and abuse. We are all for doing everything we can to cut waste, fraud and abuse, and I would suggest to my colleagues on the other side that possibly we should look at waste, fraud and abuse and use those dollars for tax cuts that we find.

Again, I want to reiterate, the maker of this motion is not talking about tax cuts. What he is talking about is restoring funds to some of those programs that are vital to the United States.

Here we are 2 years after Members from both sides of the aisle pledged to leave no child behind, and yet the House majority has approved budget cuts of over $9 billion from Leave No Child Behind. The budget passed by this House proposes cuts in so many vital education programs I do not even know where to begin.

After-school programs: After-school programs have been one of those programs that have done more to help keep children getting into our juvenile system than anything else. It has cut higher education funding. It cuts teacher quality training. It cuts rural education. This budget cuts money from everywhere in education.

When we passed Leave No Child Behind, we demanded more from teachers and students, but this budget would cut billions that would help teachers and students prepare to meet the new tougher standards imposed by the Federal Government. If we are going to demand more from our education system, we need to provide schools with adequate resources to meet those demands. We fool ourselves and cheat our students when we impose higher standards without providing the money necessary to achieve those standards.

Our schools are in dire straits right now. I do not know about the rest of my colleagues, but I know Oregon schools are. I visited a lot of schools throughout my district and the State, and there are schools that are literally falling down. Teachers are using closets as extra classroom space. Kids are sitting on heaters for lack of room.

At a time when State budget crises are forcing schools to lay off staff, increase class sizes and cut days off the school year, the Federal Government is once again failing to live up to its commitment and fund the laws that we have passed.

I do not understand why Congress would spend a year reforming our education system only to turn around and fail to provide States with the money needed for those reforms. We need to fund the No Child Left Behind Act. We need to fund the Individuals With Disabilities Act. Twenty-eight years ago, we promised we would fund 40 percent of that program; we do not even fund half of that. To my State, it would mean $120 million more a year. That is a lot of money to our State.

We need to fund student financial aid. Instead, this budget cuts school lunches, student loan programs, after-school programs, increases class size and diverts public funds to private schools. This is not what we need to improve the education of our students.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to instruct and in favor of increasing education funding and living up to its commitment and living up to its promises.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, this is a time that budgets should reflect our Nation's priorities. This irresponsible budget fails to do that and certainly fails to reflect the priorities of my district. This budget is opposed by the Farm Bureau and by many veterans groups. Why? Because it cuts money to both farmers and veterans. Why does it make those cuts? In order to give tax cuts to people that make over $300,000 a year.

I do not have any problem with people making over $300,000 a year. The problem is, we are running a huge deficit. This is not the time to make those kinds of tax cuts. This budget fails our children. Not only does it pass on an incredible amount of debt to future generations; it fails to invest in our future through education. Why does it do this? To give tax cuts to the wealthiest.

This is a bad rule which fails to make in order simple amendments designed to improve it. During committee, I attempted to get more money in for our veterans. This is not the time to cut their health care; this is not the time to cut their compensation.

I also went to the Committee on Rules and I said, we need to address a couple of issues in this budget. Actually, we need to address a lot of them, but I addressed one: homeland security. This is not the time to be chintzy about homeland security; this is a time to make sure our communities and our States have the money they need to secure our future.

I said, this budget needs to provide for IDEA. This is a promise we made 28 years ago to our schools. This budget does not do that. Why does it not do that? Because it wanted to give money to the wealthiest.

The Republican budget is irresponsible. Please vote for the Democratic budget, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to thank the gentleman for all of his hard work and his leadership during these very trying times.

Mr. Chairman, when we as a House pass a budget, we are outlining our priorities as a House and a Nation. Sadly, this irresponsible budget fails to accurately reflect the priorities of my constituents or of this Nation.

This is an irresponsible budget that passes on our problems and our deficits to our children and our grandchildren while, at the same time, failing to invest in our children and grandchildren by underfunding education.

Last Congress we were all speaking about the importance of children and education. We said, we do not want to leave a child behind, and yet that is exactly what this budget does. We cannot shortchange this priority; we must invest in our children.

This budget also shortchanges our veterans. Our veterans have made great personal sacrifices, and we have a responsibility to serve our retired military personnel, just as they served our country. At a time when we have sent our men and women into harm's way, what better way to honor their service and to show them how valued they are than by treating their predecessors with respect and dignity. Not one soldier who puts his or her life on the line should have to worry about whether he or she will get health care when he or she returns from battle.

Finally, this is a budget that fails to adequately protect our homeland security. Our first responders, our police, our fire, our emergency personnel should be our priority; but they are not a priority in this budget.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for our children, to stand up for our veterans, and to stand up for the safety of our communities. Show us what your priorities are. Support the Spratt amendment and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the budget we are going to have tomorrow. A budget needs to reflect what our national priorities are. That is what a budget is all about, making choices.

I want to tell the Members, although I made several attempts, as well as many members of our committee, to make changes in the budget, all of those were defeated. I am going to talk just a minute about one of those issues, and that is homeland defense.

This is a time, Mr. Speaker, when more than ever we need to make sure that our counties and cities and States are well-equipped for our national security. This budget fails to adequately provide for our homeland security. The President said we were $2.2 billion short in homeland security. The Secretary said we were short $2.2 billion for homeland security. Yet this budget leaves that shortfall.

Let me just talk a minute about what is happening in our State. Our State has high unemployment. We are laying off our police and our firefighters. Our young men and women who are in law enforcement are being called up for the National Guard and being sent to the Middle East, and many are already in the Middle East. Our local communities frequently do not have equipment that talks to one another, communicates with one another.

What we are trying to do in this budget and what the Republican budget lacks is the money to make sure that our local police and our local fire departments and our local emergency workers, not only that we have adequate personnel, but that we have the equipment so they can respond if there is a terrorist attack in the United States and in our communities.

I cannot believe that we are going to do a budget at a time like this that does not respond to our local communities and our local States for those people that are going to be the first line of defense.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

I thank the gentlewoman for her thoughts today and for advocating a fiscally responsible budget.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) who has been working on budgets since we both got here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, again, the Democratic budget is a fiscally responsible budget that does not cut funds for veterans, that stimulates the economy, that makes sure that our children can go to college, have after-school programs, and the Republican budget does not do that.

Mr. Speaker, on March 22, 2002 I had the distinct pleasure of presenting the Bronze Star Medal to one of my veteran constituents. Today, it is with deep sadness I would like to inform you and my colleagues that Mr. Otho Stone passed away last Friday. Mr. Stone was a WW II veteran who loved his country and served with honor and dignity. He received the honor of the Bronze Star while seeing action against our enemies during WW II.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Stone asked for no special recognition for serving his country but he did ask that our country keep the promises made to all veterans who have served this great nation.

For their service and sacrifices our nation's soldiers and veterans deserve our eternal gratitude.

I know that Mr. Stone would be proud when I say that the men and women who have served our country so honorably know best that freedom is never free, that it is only won and defended with great sacrifices.

And we should honor all our veterans by keeping our promises to them.

Mr. Speaker, as we are poised to go to war and as States like Oregon are drowning in deficits caused by the souring economy, we would think it would be more vital than ever to adopt a responsible budget, one at least that addresses reality.

Unfortunately, the budget produced by the majority this year has huge tax cuts that do not stimulate the economy and would enact across-the- board spending cuts, regardless of the value of the services: Schools, nursing homes, veterans health care, law enforcement, bridges, highways, ports, and that is just to name a few.

While here in Washington these may be just functions in a budget, at home they represent our local economy, national defense, and public good. We should have the courage to face these tough decisions on a case-by-case basis

and not shy away from our responsibility, a budget that addresses the needs of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to address an issue that is of great concern to my home state of Oregon, and to states around the country.

When Congress enacted the predecessor legislation to the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) in 1975, we made a commitment to provide children with disabilities access to a quality public education. The assumption was that education for children with disabilities was, on average, twice as costly as education for nondisabled children. As a result, Congress authorized the federal government to pay up to 40 percent (sometimes termed the IDEA ``full- funding'' amount) of each state's excess cost of educating children with disabilities. Not once in the past 28 years has Congress lived up to its obligation and states have had to shoulder the brunt of this unfunded mandate.

The state and school districts are forced to pick up the additional costs, putting additional strain on our education funding. The FY 2003 appropriation for Part B of IDEA was $8.9 billion or 17.6 percent of the ``excess cost,'' leaving states and local school districts with an unfunded federal mandate of over $10 billion. That is $10 billion that our states and school districts could be spending to alleviate state budget crises, reduce class sizes, build and modernize schools and implement technology into education.

States across the Nation are dealing with an economic crisis, facing large state budget deficits and making deep cuts to services. In my home state of Oregon, the latest round of budget cuts have hit essential services such as education, and Oregon school districts are facing many tough decisions including shutting down early.

Make no mistakes about what this legislation is about: it is about keeping the promise of funding the mandate the federal government has put on the states and relieving the school funding crises that states across the Nation are facing. In Oregon, this legislation would provide about $100 million that the federal government is obligated to fund for education, each and every year. With state's budget crisis, threats of a shortened school year and significant layoffs, this money is very important.

It is high time we renew our commitment to our Nation's children and pay the federal government's share of the cost of IDEA. That is why Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and I are introducing legislation that would appropriate money to bring the federal government's share of IDEA funding to the full 40 percent by FY 2008 and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Greenwood substitute and in opposition to H.R. 534. I join with my colleagues in making one thing perfectly clear: I am opposed to cloning of humans. I do not believe there is any justification in replication of a human being. However, I believe that we in Congress have a responsibility to carefully craft Federal legislation on cloning that will not outlaw legitimate medical research that may save or enhance the lives of many.

Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has stated her support of therapeutic cloning because it offers the best hope for curing Alzheimer's. I am supporting the amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.