Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, along with all 36 members of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, I have a sign in front of my office that is updated daily to reflect America's national debt. Just 2 weeks ago, I was deeply dismayed to see that the national debt had reached $8 trillion. That is $27,000 for every man, woman and child in America. How did we dig ourselves into such a deep hole? The truth is the Republican leadership has created a credit card Congress that is recklessly selling out the future of America, our children and our grandchildren, and President Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible President in the history of America. On his watch, we have run up record deficits and added nearly $2.5 trillion to our national debt. In just 5 years in office, President Bush has borrowed more money from foreign sources than all 42 previous Presidents combined. Put together, the first 42 American Presidents borrowed a total of $1.01 trillion from other countries. President Bush has now borrowed $1.05 trillion from overseas and he still has 3 years to go.

I know that my Republican colleagues are as ashamed as I am that the United States is forced to borrow over $1 trillion from foreign nations to pay for our national priorities like reconstruction of the gulf coast and the war in Iraq. We owe it to the American people and future generations to roll up our sleeves and dig out of this mess now. So far, the Republican leadership has refused to reach across the aisle to fix this fiscal mess. The Republican reconciliation plan is a sham. It does nothing to fix the broken budget. In fact, it will make matters worse. By all accounts, the current proposal would add billions to the deficit in order to finance more reckless tax cuts for the most privileged Americans.

Who in their right mind, I ask you, could look at an $8 trillion debt and put forward a plan to make it bigger? It is time for a real strategy for fiscal responsibility. The budget process is broken. Anyone can see that. The Blue Dog Coalition has asked the President to convene an emergency bipartisan summit to address America's fiscal crisis. We have put forward a comprehensive 12-step plan to put America back on the path to fiscal responsibility. The Blue Dog 12-step plan is the only serious proposal on the table that would fix our Nation's budget woes and return America to fiscal solvency. Our plan is based on common sense, not party ideology. The Blue Dog 12-step plan includes both Democratic and Republican ideas. When it comes to fixing the budget, the American people deserve cooperation and not partisanship.

Our proposal includes commonsense reforms, such as reinstating the pay-as-you-go rules that we had here a few years ago and implementing discretionary spending caps. We have also urged for the establishment of a rainy day fund to cushion the financial blow of future national emergencies like we saw in the gulf coast recently. You just heard from my Blue Dog colleague, Mr. John Tanner from Tennessee, a leader in the fight for fiscal responsibility in Washington. He outlined for us all how bad the situation is. I strongly urge my colleagues in Congress to embrace real reform and to take immediate action to cure this national tragedy of the debt.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time.

I am put in the unenviable position today, as a lifelong Democrat, to have to stand and oppose the Democratic position on this rule.

As I have sat here and listened to the debate on the rule, I simply do not feel that some of the statements by my colleagues are accurately reflecting what is in the bill as it currently is written. It is simply untrue that this bill allows skyscrapers to be built on the prairie to endanger species. We are not going to be using taxpayer dollars to promote strip clubs or casinos, as one of my colleagues said. It is simply not true.

The reality is that under the Endangered Species Act, most of the provisions of the Act, as it currently stands, will be in place. What we are talking about is compensating farmers if their land is taken away, and if they want to continue to farm and under the Act we have to protect a species, the farmer will be compensated for the right that has been taken away. That is a longstanding right of this country, to be compensated when government takes one's property.

We had a vote recently on this floor of over 400 Members who said exactly that in one of the eminent domain cases that was recently challenged, when the Supreme Court took someone's property.

We have a longstanding tradition here of protecting personal property rights but not when it comes to the Endangered Species Act. In my State, the Fish and Wildlife Service said that 4.7 million acres of California had to be set-aside for the red-legged frog, 1.7 million acres for vernal pools and fairy shrimp. This is not a new entitlement program. This is compensating landowners when their property is taken away.

Those in support of the substitute have been distributing a handout, and in the substitute it says virtually everything that the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and I and others have written and coordinated on. In fact, about 90 percent of this bill was written by Democratic staff. I will say that, frankly, that does not happen in this House very often where there is a bipartisan attempt to come to an agreement.

There is 10 percent disagreement on this bill, and virtually what that 10 percent disagreement is, is whether or not people are going to be compensated when their land is taken and the fact that there has been a new focus, according to some of my colleagues, of putting the onus of this bill mainly on to public lands. Well, the reality is most of the endangered species, in fact, 90 percent of the endangered species, are on private lands. So that provision that is in the substitute simply will not work.

I urge my colleagues to reject the challenge to the rule, to support the rule, and to support the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, when the Endangered Species Act was adopted by Congress in 1973, it was heralded as landmark use of environmental legislation for the protection and conservation of threatened and endangered species. At that time, it was clearly understood that the ultimate goal of the act was to focus Federal resources on listed species so that, in time, they could be returned to a healthy state and be removed from the list.

I fully support the goal of species protection and conservation and believe that recovery and ultimately delisting of species should be the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's top priority under ESA. I am in full support of the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act that we are hearing today because I think it is an innovative and creative approach to ending the long-running conflict between protecting species and enforcing conservation actions on private land.

There seems to be no question that ESA is due for an update since the substitute offered by many of my colleagues eliminates critical habitat in much the same manner as H.R. 3824. For good reason, too. Currently, the system of critical habitat designations is so dysfunctional that it seems to defy logic.

For example, in 2002, the service proposed to designate 1.7 million acres as critical habitat in California and Oregon for vernal pool species. Almost one-third of the entire acreage of Merced County, where I live, would have been designated as critical habitat.

In 2003, the service proposed over 4.1 million acres in California as critical habitat for the red-legged frog. One must wonder, if it can be found on 4 million acres, then is it truly endangered; or, on the flip side, are all 4 million acres truly critical habitat?

The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act will fix the problems associated with critical habitat by replacing it with a recovery plan which will shift the focus from litigation to biology and recovery; provide for greater cooperation between the service and landowners and States; establish new incentives for voluntary cooperation efforts.

Coming up with a thoughtful way to enable recovery of endangered species without costly litigation has been a top priority for me since being elected to the Congress, and I am pleased that this bill does just that. My original bill, H.R. 2933, from the 108th Congress, tied the development of a recovery plan to the designation of critical habitat. The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act takes that idea one step further and elevates the recovery plan system to the primary mechanism to protect species.

I also feel compelled, however, to mention a few things that this bill does not do. This bill does not, and I repeat, does not weaken current law; it does not create a sweeping new entitlement program for landowners; it does not allow for pesticides to be used at random to harm farm workers and at-risk species; and it most definitely would not in any case allow for national treasures like the bald eagle and the grizzly bear to become extinct. That has been reported by a number of my colleagues, and it is simply not true.

In fact, I think many of my colleagues would be interested to know that my office has been inundated by representatives from so-called industry lobbyists requesting that certain provisions that were once included in this bill be put back in.

This bill is in no way a home run for anyone. In my opinion, it is a true balance between the sides, no side getting everything they want; and, when you achieve that, you usually have the best policy.

I think it is unfortunate that the media and some members of the environmental community have chosen to vilify this bipartisan legislation over the past few weeks and provide nothing but a knee-jerk negative analysis because they have already prejudged Chairman Pombo's bill as being the enemy.

Now we are here battling it out on the floor against one another, and another opportunity could be lost for us to move the ball forward together. I am proud of this bill, and I am proud of the work that Chairman Pombo and his staff have done to create a document that is truly a compromise, and it is a real shame we could not agree on these last few things.

Whether some people want to admit it or not, the ESA is not working to the best of its ability to protect the species, and it is our job as Members of Congress to do something about it. We can do better, and better is voting in favor of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is critical for us to make sure we do not change the regulatory landscape on property owners regulated under existing law. These individuals, our constituents, are committed to doing what the Federal Government asked them to do in order to secure authorization to proceed with various activities. We should not require those same landowners to renegotiate what they have already agreed to under the new rules of this bill after it is enacted.

Based on that premise, I believe the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act should include a grandfather clause to cover any ESA permits or approvals issued prior to the date of enactment of this bill, not just habitat conservation plans.

I would inquire, is that the intent of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo)?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to conclude by saying I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for his offering of working on this piece of legislation, and we do so in the spirit of cooperation.

I also have to say, though, that in this Chamber where we have seen lofty rhetoric for a number of years, I personally having witnessed it for 26 since I was first an intern here, I have frankly never seen the rhetoric not coincide with the reality more than in this case oftentimes.

This bill does not eviscerate the Endangered Species Act. This bill does several positive things. It establishes recovery plans based on biology. It establishes recovery habitat based on those recovery plans. It encourages landowners to cooperate with biologists in the Fish and Wildlife Service. It lets landowners get answers to their biological questions, and it compensates landowners whose land is confiscated under the original Endangered Species Act.

I ask Members for their ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the substitute being offered for a number of reasons.

The substitute basically takes the Pombo bill and cuts out everything that is important to my constituents, the small farmers and ranchers of the Central Valley who are being driven out of our valley through arbitrary and capricious regulatory burdens. It is my constituents who are the ones that are begging me to help them reform the Endangered Species Act, and I think this substitute leaves them behind and brings our efforts back to square one.

What I cannot support is the removal of 2 provisions that I find absolutely critical to any reforms to the ESA: mandatory landowner notification, and the conservation compensation plans for effective landowners.

The first issue, the landowner notification is just a no-brainer issue. Landowners deserve to know what they can and cannot do with their property and the service should be responsible for telling them.

Many of the opponents of this provision claim that landowners can simply go to court and get a decision but in reality, they cannot because the court has ruled in previous cases that unless the service tells them no directly they have no standing in court. This provision is crucial, especially to the little guy who does not have millions and millions of dollars to higher lawyers, biologists and surveyors needed to take on the service.

Mr. Chairman, these little guys deserve an answer just like the big guys do. I understand that there is a provision in the substitute that attempts to address this issue with a similar 180 day timeline. Unfortunately, there is no enforcement behind the language other than a report to Congress, and we all know what we do with reports to Congress.

The service is under a number of other time lines under ESA such as a time line for completing political opinions which they also choose to ignore. The substitute provisions would do exactly the same thing and bring us back to square one. The second is the strong private property rights section that are good in H.R. 3824. They did not seem to make the cut in the substitute. It is not a sweeping entitlement program as some would have you believe. It is a program that will fairly compensate landowners and will provide species with conservation mitigation measures that would otherwise go unprotected.

I do have to say that I am pleased that my colleagues chose to include a number of provisions from the underlying bill in the substitute. The fact that the substitute includes the same repeal of critical habit speaks volumes for the overall consensus that this Act needs to be changed and updated to reflect the evolving circumstances on the ground that have impeded the accurate critical habit designations.

But the deleted provisions from H.R. 3824 and the new definition of jeopardy, under which, frankly, I am not sure if I could mow my own lawn, will do nothing to relieve the conflict that currently exists under that ESA.

It will do nothing more than the underlying bill to recovery species, and this will simply put us back to square one.

Mr. Chairman, I have one final comment. I must correct the record. I would ask that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) place back up the slide that he had from the bill which outlines that under the Pombo bill, actually, it is here, under the Pombo bill you can only become compensated for what is an allowable use for what is the current State or local regulation, under the current zoning use.

So a farmer who is plowing his field and trying to grow a crop every day, if he is denied the use of that property, he can only be compensated for the loss of his farming income and he can not claim that it could be a high rise hotel in its place. He only gets compensated for what he was currently doing on the property, and that is just simply an erroneous statement to say anything else.

Mr. Chairman, we need to defeat this substitute. We need to pass the underlying measure.

Mr. Chairman, I rise at this point to make a clarification and to, again, speak to my opposition to the substitute.

The first clarification is that when the Fish and Wildlife Service compensates an owner for a restriction on his property, it is done through a deed restriction or a fee title. So this claim that subsequent owners can make the same claims against the Fish and Wildlife Service is simply inaccurate. When they buy an easement, they buy a perpetual easement unless the Secretary were to make a mistake, and, simply, that is just not the way we do it in law currently.

The second point, and the main objection that I have to the substitute goes to the fundamental fifth amendment protection under the Constitution that says that when we take someone's property, we compensate them for it. And that is what the Pombo bill does, and that is what the substitute does not do.

I would ask my colleagues to cast an ``aye'' vote on the underlying bill and oppose the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today to recognize the grand opening of the 10th campus of the University of California system in Merced, California. UC Merced is the first new University of California campus since 1965 and the first ever in California's sprawling San Joaquin Valley.

Established in 1868, the University of California has become one of the largest and

most highly acclaimed institutions of higher learning in the world. The knowledge and opportunities that the UC institution has cultivated in our students and communities has inspired great minds and encouraged extraordinary technology for generations. It is recognized globally as one of the world's leading public university systems and we are thrilled that it is becoming an integral part of our community in Merced.

I am honored to join the community in the University's opening ceremonies on September 5, 2005. This occasion is particularly special to me, as my commitment to making Merced the home of the 10th UC campus began many years ago. Throughout my career in the California State Legislature, and today as a Member of the United States Congress, UC Merced has remained a priority of mine. Since Merced was chosen by the UC Board of Regents from 85 other cities as the site for its newest campus 10 years ago, the road has been long and arduous. But the vision and drive of countless individuals and numerous elected officials ensured that we would all share in the celebration of this momentous occasion. With the steadfast support and unwavering commitment of our community, we succeeded in making this dream a reality--we brought the first UC campus to be built in nearly 40 years to Merced.

September 6, 2005 marks the first official day of classes whereby UC Merced will ``launch the future'' of its first class of 1,000 students from throughout the San Joaquin Valley and the state of California. The inaugural class is comprised of students from as far north as California's most northern county of Del Norte, as far south as San Diego, as far east as the Sierra Nevada and as far west as the Pacific Coast. Remarkably, approximately half of the students are the first in their families to attend college.

Under the guidance and leadership of Founding Chancellor Carol Tomlinson-Keasey, an exceptional team of talented academic and administrative professionals has assembled to build the nation's first major public research university of the 21st Century. This founding team of professionals share in the Chancellor's dedication to education and commitment toward carrying forward the University of California's historic mission of excellence in teaching, research and public service.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pride and pleasure in announcing the grand opening of the University of California Merced. I ask my colleagues to join me in conveying our best wishes and gratitude to all of those whose vision, dedicated efforts and steadfast support helped establish an institution that promises to challenge and inspire generations of students to come. As a Member of Congress it is an honor to represent UC Merced in the 18th Congressional District of California, and as a member of the community it is a pleasure to welcome UC Merced and its inaugural class to Merced County.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of my friend Jim Brazelton, who recently retired from his position as Stanislaus County District Attorney.

Jim began his career as a military policeman assigned to the White House Security Detail. In 1963, he joined the City of Bakersfield Police Department where he served as a patrolman, motorcycle officer and detective. Five years later, Jim accepted a position with the City of Orange's police department where he worked his way through the ranks of patrolman, detective, watch commander, SWAT Commander and Sergeant. During his time there, he attended Western State University's College of Law in Anaheim, California. Upon graduating in 1974, Jim left the department and practiced law for the next 11 years.

In 1985, Jim came to the Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office where he served in the felony trial division. As Senior Deputy District Attorney, he was responsible for the prosecution of many high-profile homicide cases. In January of 1993, Jim was named Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Felony Superior Court Division. In August of 1995, he was named Chief Deputy District Attorney of Administration.

In March 1996, Jim was appointed by the Stanislaus County Supervisors to fill the unexpired term of the retiring District Attorney. District Attorney Brazelton ran unopposed in the 1998 and 2002 elections.

In addition to his duties as District Attorney, Jim is a member of the local Police Officer's Association, where he has served both on the board and as president, as well as the Stanislaus County Association of Law Enforcement Executives where he served as president in 2000. In 2001, he was appointed by State Attorney General Bill Lockyer to serve on his Blue Ribbon SWAT Team Practices Commission. He has served as a member of the Board of Directors for the California District Attorneys Association, was on their Capital Litigation Committee for several years, and often lectures at their conferences.

For the past several years, Jim has been an active and valued member of several worthwhile community organizations. He was an Executive Board member of Fight Crime-Invest in Kids and is on the board of the Carol Sund/Carrington Memorial Reward Foundation.

District Attorney James Brazelton has been dedicated to public safety and service for more than 40 years. For the past 20 years, he has vigorously and effectively sought to protect the citizens of Stanislaus County and to ensure justice for the victims of crime. I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in thanking Mr. Brazelton for his dedicated service to the public and wish him the very best in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Maria C. Ramos. Ms. Ramos has dedicated her life to educating others and serving her community and country. Maria is retiring after dedicating the past 30 years to serving her community. Maria's efforts to better her community and country will be sorely missed.

Born in Mexico, Ms. Ramos moved to Oakland when she was 14 years old. Since then, she has selflessly devoted much of her life to giving back to the place that has afforded her such an opportunity to succeed.

Maria has, for more than 30 years, worked tirelessly as an educator to ensure that those children would have the same opportunities to succeed as she had. She started working at St. Gertrude's School in 1974, where she served as a bilingual assistant and has since gone on to serve at Marshall Junior High and many other schools in the Stockton Unified School District.

In addition to her longstanding commitment to education, Maria is involved in countless social and political organizations. She serves on numerous boards, including the California State Employees Association, the Democratic Central Committee, the Californians for Justice Committee, the 17th Assembly District Committee, and Comerciantes Unidas, to name just a few.

It is my distinct honor and privilege to call Maria Ramos a friend and to have the opportunity to recognize her longstanding commitment to education and service to her community.

Though her selfless devotion will be missed by all of us in the community, I'm sure her family looks forward to spending more time with her and she certainly deserves some time off.

I am delighted to recognize her service and retirement after 30 years as I wish my very best in the many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose CAFTA, because I believe it is a bad deal for rural and agricultural communities like those in my 18th district of California.

There is no indication that U.S. agriculture will benefit from a poorly negotiated deal that--without adequate safeguards--opens trade with a region that has little capacity to purchase our goods.

This administration's lax enforcement of trade agreements makes CAFTA's prospects even bleaker.

Currently, our agricultural trade deficit with the six countries covered by CAFTA totals 765 million dollars.

If we assume that the projections for CAFTA are as far off the mark as the projected gains turned out to be for NAFTA, this deficit is likely to grow even higher.

By passing this deeply flawed agreement, we would do two things: Reward these Central American countries for their poor records on labor rights--and add to our ballooning agricultural trade deficit with that region.

Like my Democratic colleagues, I believe in fair trade, not flawed trade.

I believe in trade deals that protect American farmers and ranchers and raise living standards in our partner countries. CAFTA fails to meet these basic standards, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my concerns about H.R. 5 and to urge my colleagues to support the Democratic Motion to Recommit.

I think we all agree that skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums are spiraling out of control and demand our immediate attention.

As a former member of the California Legislature, I voted to uphold MICRA on three separate occasions and I think that doctors everywhere deserve the same protection. MICRA is a model for federal reform because it has produced a stable, competitive medical liability insurance market while ensuring prompt and fair payments to those injured and in need.

While I am pleased that H.R. 5 adopts the basic framework of MICRA, I am deeply concerned about other elements of the bill that provide cover to special interests, including liability protection to HMOs, pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical device manufacturers.

Now is not the time to give greater protections to pharmaceutical companies that put unsafe drugs like Vioxx on the market. Such protections have nothing to do with the liability insurance crisis facing doctors and should be stripped from this bill.

I am also concerned that the caps California established in 1975 under MICRA were never indexed to inflation: To provide the same level of compensation in today's dollars, the cap would have to equal $800,000. Put another way, the $250,000 MICRA cap has decreased in value since 1975 to approximately $70,000.

With that in mind, I believe we should adjust the $250,000 cap to reflect its current value. As we all know, health care costs--including hospital charges and medical fees--have risen dramatically since 1975. If we are going to model our national law after the 1975 MICRA model, I suggest that we start by using realistic figures that reflect 2005 dollars.

Despite these concerns, in 2003 and again last year, I voted for H.R. 5 with the expectation that improvements would be made in conference with the Senate.

Unfortunately, that did not happen, and today we are considering a bill under a Rule that blocked a number of reasonable amendments, including a substitute offered by my colleague from Michigan, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

While I plan to support this legislation today, my continued support is predicated on substantial changes as the Senate attempts to align it more closely to California's MICRA law. If this happens, I will support the conference report.

However, I--as well as a number of physicians I know--will oppose a bill that provides inappropriate protection to drug companies, HMOs and medical device makers.

I hope that my colleagues in the House leadership will take these concerns into mind as debate moves forward on this critically important issue.

Mr. Speaker, when are Washington Republicans going to listen to the American people?

At the beginning of this year, President Bush unveiled a general plan that would lead to the privatization of Social Security. When his plan was met with a lukewarm response, President Bush decided that he would travel around the Nation for 60 days trying to sell the American people on the concept of privatizing Social Security.

The American people listened, and they gave President Bush a resounding no. Our constituents paid into Social Security, and they want it paid back to them when they retire. Cutting Social Security benefits that Americans have earned should always be a last resort.

And yet recently there was legislation introduced by the Republicans that would divert payroll contributions from Americans to create private accounts. By taking money away from Social Security, the Republican plan would explode the deficit or force deep cuts in guaranteed benefits our Nation's citizens have already been promised.

It is time to listen to our constituents and realize Americans are not going to back Social Security privatization. Let us strengthen Social Security rather than destroy it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats on the Committee on Resources support the passage of H.R. 1797, which will provide a fair and equitable financial settlement for the Spokane Tribe of Indians. H.R. 1797 will provide the Spokane Tribe of Indians with compensation which will be proportional to the compensation provided to the Colville Tribes through enactment of Public Law 103-436, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Settlement Act.

Our only concern with H.R. 1797 is the included sunset language in section 6 of the bill. As noted in the additional views filed with the committee report on this bill, however, the Spokane Tribe has agreed to the sunset provision in the bill with the understanding that in the future the tribe may seek an amendment to extend or modify the sunset provision or otherwise seek reauthorization of the Bonneville Power Administration's annual payments after the year 2030.

With this understanding, and in the interest of moving the legislation forward and thereby providing long overdue relief to this tribe, we do not object to the inclusion of the sunset provision in the bill, and urge passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the authors of the Congressional Republican Social Security privatization plan are not being straight with the American people. The Republicans claim that the plan that they introduced last month includes a lockbox that prevents the use of Social Security funds for other programs. This could not be further from the truth.

Under their privatization plan, Social Security's surplus cash would continue to go to the government, which would continue to spend it. Instead of a Social Security trust fund, account holders get Treasury bonds.

Even the bill's Republican author, the Social Security Subcommittee chairman, has acknowledged that under their bill the cash can still be used in the way it is now.

Over the last 4 years, the Republicans have raided $670 billion from the Social Security trust fund to help pay for tax breaks. Despite their rhetoric now, the new Republican Social Security privatization scheme proves that they are up to their old tricks.

As we prepare for the 70th anniversary of Social Security next month, the American people deserve a plan that strengthens Social Security for future generations and stops the raid on the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) on the situation facing Assyrians and other Christians in Iraq. I strongly support her amendment which calls for the Bush administration to use its diplomatic leverage to ensure that the new Iraqi government respects the rights of all Iraqis, regardless of sex or religious affiliation.

Additionally, it calls on the administration to allocate USAID funds for the welfare and resettlement of Assyrians and other Christian groups in Iraq. The Eshoo amendment is consistent with my recent work on this issue, including a letter I sent on July 6 to the Bush administration asking that the rights of Assyrians and Christians in Iraq be protected in the new Iraqi Constitution.

Like my colleague, I represent a large Assyrian community in central California, one of the largest concentrations of Assyrian Americans anywhere in the United States.

Since the January 2005 elections, many in the community have expressed their deep concerns over the direction of Iraq's constitutional process. Namely, they are concerned that the new Iraqi Constitution will subject Iraqis of all religious and cultural backgrounds to strict Islamic law.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for yielding me this additional time.

As I was saying, the Iraqi Constitution, unless we intercede, will subject Iraqis of all religious and cultural backgrounds to strict Islamic law.

Additionally, I recently met with His Beatitude Mar Emmanuel III Delly, the Chaldean Assyrian Catholic Patriarch, one of the most widely respected religious and political leaders in the world, who expressed similar concerns. He and I met for over an hour on this topic.

I believe the United States has an obligation to guarantee the rights of all Iraqis, particularly women and Christians, so they are not overlooked in the constitutional process. Throughout history, the Assyrian people have suffered greatly in their attempts to obtain greater freedom and recognition. Despite this oppression, the Assyrians were central partners in the Iraqi opposition movement and paid dearly with the assassination of many of their political leaders under Saddam Hussein's regime.

We must make certain that ethnic and religious groups who suffered and sacrificed under Saddam Hussein's regime are afforded human rights guarantees in the permanent constitution. We must ensure that the political and religious persecution seen under Saddam Hussein's brutal regime are never repeated in that country.

I urge my colleagues to support the Eshoo amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise today, in support of the Baca- Hinojosa amendment to the agriculture appropriation bill to increase funding for Hispanic serving institutions.

This increase would grant additional funding for 193 of our Nation's Hispanic serving colleges and universities who are committed to ensuring greater Hispanic representation in higher education in the

Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today to honor my friend, Dr. Santokh Singh Takhar. Affectionately known by many as Toki, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize his 40 years of dedicated service to our community as a local veterinarian, long-time Democrat, and endearing friend to many.

Born and raised in India, Toki came to the United States as a young man through the efforts of his aunt and uncle, Dr. and Mrs. G. S. Sahi who were residents of Livingston, California. Upon arriving in Merced County, Toki began his pursuit of education as a student at Modesto Junior College. He soon after continued on to California State University--Fresno, and ultimately, University of California--Davis Veterinarian School. After years of hard work and study, Toki began his career as a veterinarian on June 6, 1963.

During a return visit to India in 1969, Toki met his wife of 35 years, Amrit Clare. They married on January 11, 1970 and have since resided in Hilmar, California. In addition to Toki's veterinarian practice, he and Amrit have become successful almond farmers on land that includes the property once owned by Toki's aunt and uncle nearly four decades ago. In addition to maintaining a successful veterinarian office and productive almond orchards, the Takhars have raised two accomplished children. Their son Clare Takhar currently resides in Turlock with his wife Amy and their daughter Sydney Clare Takhar. Clare serves as a Paramedic/Firefighter in Alameda County and Amy is a local school teacher. The Takhar's daughter Simrin Takhar has established her career with the California Association of Health Facilities.

Throughout his life, Toki has remained an active participant and supporter of Democratic politics. His passion for political involvement stems from his admiration of the late President John F. Kennedy. His commitment to his civic duty sets the standard that all Americans should strive to achieve. As he enters this new phase of his life, Toki can certainly be proud of all that he has represented and accomplished. After 40 years of dedicated work, I would like to offer him my sincerest best wishes for many years of fulfillment as he continues in life as a Democrat, a farmer, and devoted husband, father and grandfather.

It is my honor and privilege to join Toki's family and friends in recognizing his lifetime of service to the community of Hilmar and congratulate him on his retirement. Our community benefits greatly from the splendid example that he has set as a local veterinarian and distinguished member of the Hilmar community. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in offering Dr. Santokh Singh Takhar best wishes for continued success and happiness in the years ahead.