Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the third time in 3 years to speak out against what I consider the wrong approach to media indecency, and that is increasing FCC fines.

S. 193, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, represents a weak attempt at improving our media, an uncreative policy that will harm our creative community.

Mr. Speaker, we all believe in the need to reduce indecency in media. Parents should not have to worry about what they might encounter with their children when they sit down together to watch TV. But indecency fines will not solve this problem because they do not address its root cause: media concentration and a lack of competition.

When big media gets bigger, conglomerates move further away from quality programming and the principles of diversity, localism and competition, crucial for the service of public interest. Will monetary penalties encourage return to these principles? I sincerely doubt it.

Instead, we need a competitive media environment that provides viewers and listeners with real choices in their entertainment. We need programming that respects the public and performers rather than catering to the lowest common denominator and dumbing down our culture. A consolidated media market controlled by a profit-driven conglomerate is bound to offer cheaply made, shocking entertainment for the sake of increasing viewership and making a spectacle of itself.

Our artists need to be able to work in an environment where creativity is honored. This will never happen under a system of censorship. Creators cannot read the FCC's minds on their definition of indecency. We must work with our creative community to encourage quality media content, not simply offer vague guidelines with high consequences.

That is why I have supported making the fulfillment of public interest obligations an element of the broadcast licensees' renewal requirement and the restoration of the fairness doctrine. It is why I encourage the FCC to think about the impact that media consolidation has on media content and our national character as they begin rewriting their ownership rules, rules that upset millions of Americans and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, the indecent media culture we witness today will not be modified by simply increasing fines. It must be transformed through less media consolidation and greater requirements to serve the public interest.

I am sorely disappointed that both Houses have chosen the easy route of increasing fines rather than making a serious attempt to curb indecency by addressing the major problems in our media.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and let's try over again.

Madam Speaker, once again the administration has put our Nation's veterans at risk. First it was underfunding the Veterans Administration services in fiscal year 2006, and now it is a security breach of 27 million veterans' personal information.

The administration has jeopardized tens of millions of veterans' financial futures because they have failed to implement safeguards and adequate security measures at the request of the VA Inspector General. This information was known for 19 days before we found it out.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the 42,000 veterans that I represent, I call upon the President to act immediately to safeguard these brave veterans from identity fraud. We must protect our veterans who have protected us. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, the danger of a nuclear Iran may be the biggest security challenge facing America and the world, and now it appears that the Iranian regime might finally be willing to talk about ending their nuclear weapons programs.

This opportunity raises many questions. Can we depend on Iran to negotiate in good faith? Is Iran truly ready to renounce terrorism? And what will be the cost to the people of Iran if we engage a regime that oppresses its own people?

We must confront all these questions and scour our conscience for the answers. But these questions are dwarfed by a more immediate one: Do we have the courage, the foresight and the strength of will to seize this opportunity? Will we be brave enough to talk with Iran and risk a diplomatic failure? Or will we be so afraid to talk that we would risk war?

I ask the President to confront his fears, justified as they may be, and choose the courageous path of reaching out to engage Iran on a diplomatic formula to end the Iranian nuclear program.

Mr. Speaker, in the months following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA sent notices to survivors indicating that they would receive up to 1 year of assistance. FEMA has recently announced that 55,000 families of Katrina survivors currently receiving housing emergency shelter assistance will have their housing assistance terminated or reduced significantly as of this May 31.

Survivors are supposed to apply for assistance under section 408 and, if the application is accepted, they can reasonably expect further assistance up to 18 months from the date of the hurricane. Some reports indicate, however, that the rate of rejection has been as high as 80 percent or four out of five household applicants. Also, section 408 individualized rental assistance required reapplication every 3 months.

Now, how many landlords offer 3-month leases? It has been a sham and a shame, Mr. Speaker. FEMA and this country has to do better to its evacuees.

Mr. Speaker, in the months following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA sent notices to survivors indicating that they would receive up to one year of assistance. FEMA has recently announced that 55,000 families of Katrina survivors currently receiving housing ``emergency shelter'' assistance under Section 403 (Stafford Act) will have their housing assistance terminated or reduced significantly as of May 31, 2006.

Survivors are supposed to apply for assistance under Section 408, and if the application is accepted they can reasonably expect further assistance up to 18 months from the date of the hurricane. Some reports indicate, however, that the rate of rejection has been as high as 80% or 4 out of 5 household applicants. Households who are rejected but are still in distress must rely on the good will of local and state governments, even though they may not be actual constituents in those jurisdictions. Section 408 individualized rental assistance required re-application every 3 months. How many landlords offer 3 month leases? According to FEMA numbers, the reapplication rate is only 30 per cent. These facts raise very serious concerns regarding low income, elderly, disabled and other vulnerable persons among the displaced will find themselves with inadequate assistance, and there are reports of widespread despair, anxiety and lack of faith in the government.

Under FEMA regulations, only one head of household may apply for assistance. But this rule discriminates against low income African- American families from New Orleans, among whom multiple families living in one dwelling unit is common. Additionally, FEMA is telling many survivors whose applications have been refused that the basis for refusal is because their home has been deemed habitable, even when their homes are located in neighborhoods where no public services are available and where widespread destruction and environmental contamination remain. These inaccurate assessments of eligibility should be investigated and re-evaluated.

Section 408 Individualized assistance does not cover utilities. However, section 2501 of the Supplemental Bill now in Conference Committee grants FEMA the authority to provide funds to a state or local entity to pay for utility costs associated with the thousands of leases currently in place. It is essential that the Conference Committee leave this language in place, because without it many Katrina survivor households will be in further jeopardy of being unable to retain current housing leases.

FEMA has failed to submit its plan for permanent and transitional housing to Congress, which was due in January of 2006. Thus FEMA continues to operate without an overall plan, instituting more rolling deadlines and bureaucratic bungling which has brought additional hardship to survivors and their families.

FEMA has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on mobile homes that have never been relocated to a place where survivors can use them, and on trailers that cost as much as $120,000 per unit after transport costs are paid, sometimes exceeding the cost of producing the unit. With FEMA set to receive $9 billion or more from the Supplemental Bill now in Conference Committee, FEMA could use the housing envelope to simply purchase apartment buildings at a unit cost that would be less than trailers. This would allow for permanent, not temporary housing and would avert the jeopardy of returning residents being caught in trailers during hurricane season, which is only weeks away.

The President has the authority to institute alternative, comprehensive provisions for all Katrina survivors under the Stafford Act, and thus to ensure that no survivor is left homeless as a result of the disaster and subsequent evacuation.

Mr. Chairman, this fits a well-worn routine: another year, another Republican budget awash in red ink, a reflection of the same failed priorities that have caused the Federal debt to balloon by $3.5 trillion since President Bush took office.

Mr. Chairman, we often talk about the national debt and budget deficit as though they were abstract value-neutral terms. In fact, they are very real threats to the security, prosperity, and health of our Nation. The national debt is money borrowed from our children and grandchildren's future.

Furthermore, this budget slashes funding for the priorities critical to American families. Community health funding is cut by $99 million. Renewable energy programs are cut to protect billions in tax giveaways to oil companies. And hundreds of thousands of veterans will face new health care fees.

Budgets are statements of what we value here in Congress, and this budget's lack of value should shame us all.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I learned of the passing of Earl Woods, the father of golfing legend Tiger Woods, of cancer.

Earl Woods was a father, coach, and mentor to Tiger Woods. There is no doubt that the world would not now have the opportunity to witness the genius of Tiger Woods on a golf course without the input from Earl Woods. Theirs was a father-son match made in heaven.

Earl Woods was the driving force in the development of Tiger Woods as not only a golf player but human being. Almost before Tiger could walk, his father had acclimated him to the game of golf. According to one account, Earl would hit golf balls in the garage on a makeshift range with Tiger watching him from his high chair. Earl later recounted that Tiger, at the tender age of 9 months, first demonstrated to him his incredible potential as a golf player.

Mr. Speaker, Earl Woods is a model of fatherhood. He supported, nurtured, and literally raised Tiger Woods to the heights of the golfing world. I am particularly struck by the close relationship Earl Woods had with his son.

When you hear so many professional athletes thanking or saying hello to their mothers after a television interview, it was refreshing to hear Tiger mention both his father and mother.

Mr. Speaker, we must stand up for America's seniors. As this calendar shows, House Republicans have less than 1 week, only 5 days left to join Democrats in extending the period seniors have to sign up for private prescription drug plans. If this Congress refuses to act, millions of American seniors who have yet to choose a plan will be penalized with the Bush prescription drug tax that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. The Bush administration is trying to force American seniors to make a decision that will impact both their checkbooks and their health in the next 5 days.

Five million seniors have still not chosen a drug plan. But the Bush administration wants to scare all of these seniors into choosing a plan before May 15, regardless of whether or not they are comfortable or ready to sign up for a plan.

Mr. Speaker, it is time House Republicans declare independence from the White House. As we mark off another day, House Republicans must join us in taking action this week.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. I want to congratulate my good friend and colleague, Mr. Honda, for arranging this special order so that we can celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and acknowledge the important contributions of Asian

Americans. This year's theme, ``Dreams and Challenges of Asian Pacific Americans,'' reflects the Asian and Pacific Islander American community's commitment to fairness and equality.

I represent California's 33rd congressional district. It is one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse congressional districts in the U.S. It is emblematic of the emerging ``majority minority'' demographic of the state of California.

California is home to the largest Korean-American population in the country. More people of Korean heritage live and work in Los Angeles than in any place in the world outside Korea; and more Korean-Americans live and work in the 33rd congressional district than in any other congressional district in California.

I want to comment briefly on the recent and, in many ways, historic visit of Super Bowl MVP Hines Ward to Korea last month. His visit, I believe, embodies this year's theme of fairness and equality. The NFL hero, who is of mixed Korean and African-American ancestry, traveled to his native country to express pride in his Korean roots even though he shunned that side of his heritage after he faced prejudice as a child. His Korean mother accompanied him.

By all accounts, South Korea warmly embraced Hines Ward and received him as a hero. The government made him an honorary citizen. Moreover, his visit not only galvanized the Korean community but also brought attention to the plight of Koreans of mixed ancestry.

Korea has 35,000 people of mixed race, and many are subjected to discrimination. 22 percent are unemployed, and only 2 percent have administrative jobs. The rest are laborers. Statistics suggest that 9.8 percent of mixed-race Koreans leave primary school and 17.5 percent middle school. The average drop-out rate for Korean middle school students is 1.1 percent. The Pearl Buck Foundation notes that international marriages between Koreans and non-Koreans are on the rise and that the mixed-race population in Korea is estimated to grow to 2 million by 2020.

My home state of California is a leader in the growth of mixed-race populations in the U.S. In the 2000 Census, 7 million people self- identified themselves as multiracial. Historically, the West has always been very multiracial due to high immigration levels, the rich mix of different ethnic groups, and the historical absence of legal barriers to interracial marriage. Much work, however, remains to be done as mixed-race children in the U.S. and their counterparts overseas suffer from sleights and discrimination.

Hines Ward's visit to Korea has made a positive difference. The government and the ruling Uri Party recently agreed to grant for the first time legal status to people having mixed-race backgrounds and their families. The Ministry of Justice is now reviewing a plan to grant citizenship or residency status to those who marry Koreans. All acknowledge the impact and importance of Hines Ward's visit.

I want to congratulate Mr. Ward on his triumphal return to his homeland. He has used his celebrity status to bring attention to an issue of mutual importance to both the U.S. and Korea. I also want to congratulate the Korean government for taking positive steps to address an issue that until now has been largely ignored.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Asian Pacific Heritage Month, let us not overlook those Asian-Americans of mixed race who have also made significant contributions to our nation.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are fed up with us in Congress. They finally see the House Republican majority for what it is, nothing but a rubber stamp for President Bush and his special interest friends. House Republicans simply have no agenda for helping everyday Americans. Perhaps that is the reason we have only been in session for 26 days so far this year.

If House Republicans were really interested in helping the American people, they would join us in tracking and tackling our Nation's energy crisis. House Republicans failed to address skyrocketing gas prices in their energy bill last year. Instead, they chose to follow the President in supporting a bill that gave the oil and gas companies $20 billion in special interest gifts while doing absolutely nothing to ease the sticker shock consumers face every time they fill up at the pump.

Democrats have a plan that works for all Americans, not just big oil and gas CEOs. Our plan not only cracks down on price gouging but also calls for an increase in production of alternative fuels.

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Republican-controlled House returned from a second spring break recess. Today is the 116th day of 2006. Remember, you set the House schedule.

Would you believe, Madam Speaker, that this is only the 22nd day we have had votes here in the House this year? That is 22 days out of a total of 116. We indeed are a do-nothing Congress.

House Republicans simply have not focused on the concerns of average Americans. Today, Americans face record prices at the gas pump. In some areas, gas prices are hovering around $4 a gallon. Since President Bush took office in 2001, gas prices have doubled, and yet for 5 years now, House Republicans have done absolutely nothing to address the problem. They passed an energy bill last year, but the Bush administration's own Energy Department admitted that it would not do anything to reduce gas prices.

Madam Speaker, it is time for House Republicans to stop sending us home for breaks. The American people were rightfully demanding a solution to the energy crisis. It is time for the do-nothing Congress to do something.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Mr. Faleomavaega for sponsoring H. Res. 692, which commends the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands for the contributions and sacrifices they made to the United States nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands 60 years ago.

When I served as the Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia, I had the opportunity to visit the Marshall Islands on several occasions and to get to know the people, their land, and their history.

During the period of June 20, 1946 to August 18, 1958, the United States conducted 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands. The vast majority of the tests were atmospheric. The most powerful of these tests was the ``Bravo'' shot, a 15 megaton device detonated on March 1, 1954, at Bikini atoll. The test was equivalent to 1,000 Hiroshima bombs.

While the Bravo test is the probably the best known, it should also be acknowledged that 17 other tests in the Marshall islands were in the megaton range with a combined yield estimated to be 174 megatons. Approximately 137 megatons of the that total was detonated in the atmosphere. This represents nearly 80 percent of the atmospheric nuclear tests detonated by the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, we must also acknowledge that the people of the Marshall Islands paid a steep price for the nuclear testing program. Many Marshalese who lived through the period of nuclear testing have been relocated to other areas and have been waiting for decades to return to their homes. Residents of the Rongelop Atoll, the island closest to ground zero, still remain in exile. Other Marshalese, including their offspring, have suffered from medical conditions associated with increased levels of radioactivity.

Despite the hardships endured by the people of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands has an exemplary record of working with the United States and supporting U.S. security concerns, including efforts to stamp out terrorism around the world.

H. Res. 692 acknowledges the debt that all Americans owe for the sacrifice as well as loyalty of the people of the Marshall Islands.

Mr. Speaker, gulf coast residents continue to pay the price for the Bush administration's incompetence, cronyism and failed leadership. Yet, House Republicans refuse to ask the tough questions of an administration that showed no competence during Hurricane Katrina.

The House Republican Davis report on the Katrina response is woefully incomplete. The White House was allowed to ignore congressional subpoenas, and Michael Brown's e-mails were excluded. How is that a proper investigation? Worse yet, Republicans hold no one in the Bush administration accountable.

Americans cannot afford to gamble their security on the same Bush administration team that mismanaged Katrina. The American people deserve a bipartisan independent Katrina commission, like the 9/11 Commission, to get all the answers we need to better prepare for future natural and terrorist disasters.

Hurricane Katrina should have served as a wake-up call to House Republicans about the critical need for congressional oversight. Unfortunately, they refuse to ask the tough questions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for allowing me to join in this discussion on women and the budget.

This budget, as you have heard, would hurt working women and their families. It does not alleviate the real health disparities that exist throughout the Nation, and it does not do much to help young girls realize their potential, whether in the classroom or in the community.

I would like to use my 33rd District in Los Angeles, California, as an example to show what women want and the impact of the President's budget on my sisters.

Women want an environment where they and their families can live, work and play. They want to eliminate the community health disparities that leave some people with different standards of care, and they want to redirect youth away from violence and lives of crime and into a life of productive citizenship.

Women are integral to uncovering the solutions to these issues, yet this budget severely undermines women and the roles they play.

For example, the President's budget hurts working women and their families by freezing funding for child care in the Child Care and Development Block Grant, early childhood education in the Head Start programs, and necessary social services in the Social Services Block Grant.

The legislation we passed tells low-income women they have to work if they wish to qualify for aid from the government, but how can women work if they cannot afford a decent place to leave their children during the day? They have to have confidence that their children are getting the proper care. The President's budget does not provide an answer to that question.

Women need more assistance with their health care needs, not the same as last year, and certainly not less.

The budget reduces funding for title X family planning programs, the Maternal and Child Health Block Grants, and the Public Health Service's Office of Women's Health. The goals of these programs are to improve the health and the well-being of women and girls, and by reducing their funding, we show women and girls that their health care is less important.

This budget has failed economic policies and has contributed to the 1.2 million more Americans slipping into poverty. Communities of color are disproportionately living at risk. Approximately 25 percent of African Americans and 22 percent of Latinos are living in poverty. We should be doing more, not less, to help all Americans trying to make ends meet.

The President's budget cuts spending on food stamps by more than $650 million over the next 5 years by making it more difficult for low- income families receiving welfare to qualify for food stamps. Approximately 225,000 people will lose eligibility for food stamps. 40,000 of those are children who will also lose access to free school lunches, and subsequently, spending on child nutrition will be cut by $50 million over the next 5 years.

These cuts will hurt the low-income women who rely on the food stamps; and what is so tragic about this is that it is the women who shop for children's foods, and when we think of it, children will be going to school with empty stomachs, hungry. How can they concentrate on their classwork when they are hungry? Of the 21 million people who receive food stamps, nearly 70 percent are women.

The President's cuts will also affect Latinos across the country who are struggling to put food on their tables. We must end the irresponsible cuts to the food stamp program that pays for tax cuts for the wealthy, and we must oppose this President's budget.

The President's budget also eliminates the Commodity Supplemental Food Program which provides nutritious food packages, primarily to low-

income seniors. Over 420,000 seniors are served by the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, as well as 50,000 mothers and children. Our seniors deserve better treatment than to cut these programs.

Over two-thirds of low-income elderly are women who also receive disproportionately less in other government benefits, and the programs are Social Security and others.

And these are people who have paid in to the Social Security System who deserve to have a dignified retirement. In February, 59,000 of these recipients were eliminated from this program and are no longer able to obtain their monthly supply of groceries. Shame on us.

Simply transferring these individuals to the Women, Infant, and Children Food Assistance program, known as WIC, or food stamps is not a workable solution for many elderly individuals. Cuts in the budget to food stamps will make it more difficult for seniors who will be transferred from this commodity supplemental food program if the President's budget is implemented. In addition, many elderly shifted to food stamps will not qualify for the same amount of groceries they currently receive from the commodity supplemental food program. Again, shame, shame on us.

The commodity supplemental food program is also a very unique program that helps seniors because the food is delivered where they live and eat, and it is important that we preserve this program for our distinguished seniors, all of whom are distinguished because they have lived long and worked most of their lives.

The President's budget also calls for cuts to WIC in the coming years. While the budget includes $5.2 billion for 2007 for the WIC program, funding declines to $5.0 billion in 2011. That is a 13.3 percent cut from the amount that would be necessary to maintain purchasing power at the current level. The President's cap on administrative costs in the budget will likely lead to reduced WIC clinic hours and other service cuts, making it more difficult for families to receive services such as nutrition education.

So the President's assault on the safety net services for the poor in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy has to come to a stop, and it is up to us here in Congress to say no to his ridiculous requests that put thousands of women, children and the elderly at risk. We must honor our old, and we must do for our children what America stands for.

Women need more assistance with their health care needs. Seniors need better assistance with their health care needs, and the budget reduces funding for many of these programs. Shame, shame on us if we allow such a detrimental budget to go forward.

So I would say, my colleague, my distinguished colleague, that our speaking tonight, I hope, will convince our colleagues that this is a detrimental budget that doesn't help. It only harms America's women and elderly and America's children.

Madam Speaker, how low do the President's poll numbers have to go until he finally realizes that it is time to make some changes in his administration? Either he is to blame for all of the incompetence that we have seen out of the White House over the last couple of years, or he finds it a perfectly acceptable attribute in his key advisors.

With the ever-increasing violence in Iraq, it simply defies logic why Defense Secretary Rumsfeld still has a job. How many mistakes does Rumsfeld have to make before President Bush says enough is enough?

Then there is Secretary Chertoff. The White House can blame Michael Brown all they want for a tragically slow and

inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina, but a lot of the blame should be pointed right at the man in charge, Secretary Chertoff, who as of yesterday put a lot of the evacuees out on the street. And he still remains on the job.

Then there are the Under Secretaries who signed off on a deal that handed over operations of six U.S. ports to a foreign nation. Imagine that, outsourcing our homeland security to another nation. It is time for changes, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great American and my constituent, Mr. Arthur Winston. This year Mr. Winston will mark over three quarters of a century as an employee of the transportation agencies that have made Los Angeles County's buses and trains move millions of people a year. In fact, since Mr. Winston began his employment with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency's (Metro) predecessor agencies in 1924, millions of people have been safely delivered on billions of trips across Los Angeles County. Arthur can and should be proud to have been an important part of the historic growth of mass transit in California's 22nd Congressional District, which I proudly represent, and throughout the rest of Los Angeles County.

Arthur Winston was born in Okemie, Oklahoma on March 22, 1906 before Oklahoma was officially recognized as a state. He and his family moved to Los Angeles in 1918, when Arthur was 12. His father found work in the maintenance department for one of Metro's predecessors, the Pacific Electric Railway Company. Arthur attended Jefferson High School in Southern California, graduating in 1922.

Arthur Winston was 28 years old when he started his remarkable 72 years of continuous work at Metro. If you account for the years he spent, beginning at age 15, helping his father at the Pacific Electric Railway Company, Arthur has worked a remarkable 76 years for Los Angeles transit agencies. Mr. Winston was first employed by Metro's predecessor agency in December 1924 and worked until mid-1928. He resumed his employment with the agency in January of 1934. Amazingly, Arthur has missed only one day of work in 76 years, having taken a day off on the day of his wife's death in 1988.

In 1996, Arthur Winston received a Congressional Citation from President Clinton as ``Employee of the Century.'' In his more than seven decades of Metro employment, Arthur has received many honors for his work ethic and longevity on the job. In 1997 Metro's Board of Directors named the agency's bus operating division in South Central Los Angeles (Chesterfield Square) after him. He has also appeared on the Oprah Winfrey television show and has appropriately been honored by a large number of community and civic organizations in Los Angeles County.

At the Arthur Winston Division, Arthur is a service attendant leader, directing a crew of 11 employees who clean, maintain, and refuel 240 Metro buses before they go out onto city streets. Remarking about his longevity at Metro, Arthur had this to say, ``I stayed with Metro through all these years because I felt comfortable here. After a certain age I decided to stay on the job until I'm 100 years old.''

Arthur Winston turns 100 on March 22, 2006 and has announced his retirement from Metro, quite fittingly, on his birthday. In the meantime, Arthur will spend his remaining days on the job waking up at his usual time, 4 a.m., and driving his 1994 Toyota sedan to work.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Los Angeles Metro in saluting Arthur Winston and his unparalleled work ethic. May Arthur Winston's long record of public service serve to inspire Americans, young and old, to dedicate their energy and intellect for the benefit of the general public.