Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us makes in order a conference report for the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill. It will be the first conference agreement to pass both Chambers, and it would do so on time. That should be commended.

However, the majority leadership has yet to come to an agreement on much else. As a result, the conferees were forced to include a continuing resolution that will keep the Federal Government open for business through November 17.

Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement itself is a responsible effort to support our troops in the field. Thanks to the effort of Subcommittee Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha, we will continue to invest in modernizing our military. But, just as important, we will fund the training and equipment our troops need to complete their mission, wherever they are stationed.

No one disagrees that the war in Iraq has placed a significant strain on our Armed Forces. An article in yesterday's New York Times describes the situation starkly:

``Other than the 17 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan, only two or three combat brigades in the entire army, perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops, are fully trained and sufficiently equipped to respond quickly to crises, said a senior army general.''

[From the New York Times, Sept. 25, 2006]

Unit Makes Do as Army Strives To Plug Gaps

(By David S. Cloud)

Fort Stewart, GA.--The pressures that the conflict in Iraq

is putting on the Army are apparent amid the towering pine

trees of southeast Georgia, where the Third Infantry Division

is preparing for the likelihood that it will go back to Iraq

for a third tour.

Col. Tom James, who commands the division's Second Brigade,

acknowledged that his unit's equipment levels had fallen so

low that it now had no tanks or other armored vehicles to use

in training and that his soldiers were rated as largely

untrained in attack and defense.

The rest of the division, which helped lead the invasion of

Iraq in 2003 and conducted the first probes into Baghdad, is

moving back to full strength after many months of being a

shell of its former self.

But at a time when Pentagon officials are saying the Army

is stretched so thin that it may be forced to go back on its

pledge to limit National Guard deployment overseas, the

division's situation is symptomatic of how the shortages are

playing out on the ground.

The enormous strains on equipment and personnel, because of

longer-than-expected deployments, have left active Army units

with little combat power in reserve. The Second Brigade, for

example, has only half of the roughly 3,500 soldiers it is

supposed to have. The unit trains on computer simulators,

meant to recreate the experience of firing a tank's main gun

or driving in a convoy under attack.

``It's a good tool before you get the equipment you need,''

Colonel James said. But a few years ago, he said, having a

combat brigade in a mechanized infantry division at such a

low state of readiness would have been ``unheard of.''

Other than the 17 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan, only

two or three combat brigades in the entire Army--perhaps

7,000 to 10,000 troops--are fully trained and sufficiently

equipped to respond quickly to crises, said a senior Army

general.

Most other units of the active-duty Army, which is growing

to 42 brigades, are resting or being refitted at their home

bases. But even that cycle, which is supposed to take two

years, is being compressed to a year or less because of the

need to prepare units quickly to return to Iraq.

After coming from Iraq in 2003, the Third Infantry Division

was sent back in 2005. Then, within weeks of returning home

last January, it was told by the Army that one of its four

brigades had to be ready to go back again, this time in only

11 months. The three other brigades would have to be ready by

mid-2007, Army planners said.

Yet almost all of the division's equipment had been left in

Iraq for their replacements, and thousands of its soldiers

left the Army or were reassigned shortly after coming home,

leaving the division largely hollow. Most senior officers

were replaced in June.

In addition to preparing for Iraq, the Army assigned the

division other missions it had to be ready to execute,

including responding to hurricanes and other natural

disasters and deploying to Korea if conflict broke out there.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, who took command in June, says

officials at Army headquarters ask him every month how ready

his division is to handle a crisis in Korea. The answer,

General Lynch says, is that he is getting there.

Since this summer, 1,000 soldiers a month have been

arriving at Fort Stewart, 400 of them just out of basic

training. As a result, the First and Third Brigades are now

at or near their authorized troop strength, but many of the

soldiers are raw.

The two brigades started receiving tanks and other

equipment to begin training in the field only in the last

month, leaving the division only partly able to respond

immediately if called to Korea, General Lynch said.

``I'm confident two of the four brigade combat teams would

say, `O.K., let's go,' '' General Lynch said in an interview.

``The Second and Fourth Brigades would say, `O.K., boss, but

we've got no equipment. What are we going to use?' So we'd

have to figure out where we're going to draw their

equipment.''

Meanwhile, the division is also preparing for deployment to

Iraq on an abbreviated timeline.

The brief time at home does not sit well with some

soldiers. Specialist George Patterson, who reenlisted after

returning from Iraq in January, said last week that he was

surprised to learn he could end up being home with his wife

and daughter for only a year.

``I knew I would be going back,'' Specialist Patterson

said. ``Did I think I would leave and go back in the same

year? No. It kind of stinks.''

Instead of allowing more than a year to prepare to deploy,

the First Brigade training schedule has been squeezed into

only a few months, so the brigade can be ready to deploy as

ordered by early December. Though the unit has not yet been

formally designated for Iraq, most soldiers say there is

little doubt they are headed there early next year.

Some combat-skills training not likely to be used in Iraq

has been shortened substantially, said Col. John Charlton,

the brigade commander. ``It's about taking all the

requirements and compressing them, which is a challenge,'' he

said.

The timetable also leaves officers and their soldiers less

time to form close relationships that can be vital, several

officers said.

And soldiers have less time to learn their weapons systems.

Many of the major weapons systems, like artillery and even

tanks, are unlikely to be used frequently in a

counterinsurgency fight like Iraq.

The division has only a few dozen fully armored Humvees for

training because most of the vehicles are in use in Iraq. Nor

does it have all the tanks and trucks it is supposed to have

when at full strength.

``There is enough equipment, and I would almost say just

enough equipment,'' said Lt. Col. Sean Morrissey, the

division's logistics officer. ``We're accustomed to, `I need

100 trucks. Where's my hundred trucks?' Well, we're nowhere

near that.''

Last week, in training areas deep in the Fort Stewart

woods, First Brigade soldiers were still learning to use

other systems important in Iraq, like unmanned aerial

vehicles, which are used for conducting surveillance.

Standing at a training airfield with three of the aircraft

nearby, Sgt. Mark Melbourne, the senior noncommissioned

officer for the brigade's unmanned aerial vehicles platoon,

said only 6 of the brigade's 15 operators had qualified so

far in operating the aircraft from a ground station.

All of them are supposed to be qualified by next month, but

the training has been slowed by frequent rain, Sergeant

Melbourne said.

This week, the First Brigade began a full-scale mission

rehearsal for Iraq.

Normally, armored units preparing for Iraq are sent to Fort

Irwin, Calif., for such training, but transporting a

brigade's worth of equipment and soldiers there takes a

month, which the schedule would not permit.

So the trainers and Arabic-speaking role players, who will

simulate conditions the unit is likely to encounter in Iraq,

were brought here to conduct the three-week exercise in a

Georgia pine forest, rather than in the California desert.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the conferees recognize this growing crisis in the military and took steps to mitigate it. Specifically, the conference agreement provides $20 billion in additional funds to ensure that the needs of the Army and the Marine Corps for fiscal year 2007 are fully funded.

This agreement also includes forward-thinking provisions. Ranking Member Murtha included language in the House bill prohibiting permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. I was pleased to join many of my colleagues in supporting that language. I appreciate that conferees preserved and strengthened this policy in the final agreement. Quite simply, intentions matter. And clarity in the United States' intentions is needed more so in Iraq than anywhere else.

There are many other smart provisions included in this agreement. The bill includes a 2.2 percent pay increase for all members of the Armed Forces. It increases mental health and posttraumatic stress syndrome research, and it provides funds for the replacement of National Guard and Reserve equipment lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, finally, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this agreement for the simple fact that it is on time. Conferees worked together over several weeks to produce a very balanced conference agreement. It should be a model for the work Congress still has to do.

With only a few days remaining in this fiscal year, not a single appropriations bill has been signed into law. This is not new. In the last 5 years, only six of the 68 appropriations bills were finished on time. Some may try to shift blame to the other Chamber, but the majority has no one to blame but itself.

Again, I turn to another article in yesterday's New York Times, which summarizes the situation quite clearly:

``While Republicans prefer to blame Democrats for the backlog, intramural fights and sharp differences between House and Senate Republicans have been chief impediments to major legislation.''

[From the International Herald Tribune, Sept. 25, 2006]

Congress Winds Down, With Much Business Unfinished

(By Carl Hulse)

Washington.--A Congress derided as do-nothing has a week to

do something, and the prospects are cloudy.

Procrastination, power struggles and partisanship have left

Congress with substantial work to finish before taking a

break at the end of the week for the midterm elections. The

fast-approaching recess and the Republican focus on national

security legislation make it inevitable that much of the

remainder will fall by the wayside.

At best, it appears that only two of the 11 required

spending bills will pass, and not one has been approved so

far, forcing a stopgap measure to keep the federal government

open. No budget was enacted. A popular package of business

and education tax credits is teetering. A lobbying overhaul,

once a top priority in view of corruption scandals, is dead.

The drive for broad immigration changes has derailed.

An offshore oil drilling bill, painted as an answer to high

gas prices, is stalled. Plans to cut the estate tax and raise

the minimum wage have foundered, and an important nuclear

pact with India sought by the White House is not on track to

clear Congress. New problems surfaced over the weekend for

the annual military authorization bill.

And numerous other initiatives await a planned lame-duck

session in mid-November or a future Congress.

``It is disappointing where we are, and I think Republicans

need to be upfront about this,'' said Representative Jack

Kingston, Republican of Georgia and a member of the House

leadership. ``We have not accomplished what we need to

accomplish.''

Given the practical and political realities, Republicans

have chosen to concentrate on legislation emphasizing their

security credentials, like the bill governing interrogations

and trials of terrorism detainees, a National Security Agency

surveillance program and spending on the Pentagon and the

Department of Homeland Security.

``With obstruction from the Democrats at an all-time high,

we have focused on four security issues in an effort to enact

some solid, substantive accomplishments,'' said Eric Ueland,

chief of staff to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the

majority leader, who is stepping down at the end of this

session.

While Republicans prefer to blame Democrats for the

backlog, intramural fights and sharp differences between

House and Senate Republicans have been chief impediments to

major legislation. The fissures over terrorism detainees and

how far to go in changing immigration law are merely the

latest and most public examples of serious policy differences

among Republicans.

Circumstances have changed in Washington from the days when

Republicans were famous for party discipline. President

George W. Bush, weakened by his sliding popularity, has been

unable to hold sway over Congress.

The Republican leadership in the House and the Senate is in

transition and lacks the muscle of the former House majority

leader, Tom DeLay. Republican lawmakers, many facing their

most serious electoral opposition in years, are fending for

themselves.

``We have no central core of political authority driving

things in Washington,'' said James Thurber, director of the

Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American

University. ``Individuals and expressions of individual will

by committees, and also by strong people like John McCain,

have dominated, and the result is internal fighting.''

Democrats have made no secret of their intention to try to

brand this Congress as worse than lackluster.

``When we say this is the most do-nothing Congress in the

history of our country, this isn't just flippant,'' said

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. ``This

is true.'' Besides denouncing the legislative output,

Democrats are mounting an effort to chastise Republicans as

failing to conduct sufficient oversight of the Iraq war.

Republican leaders dispute the notion that this has been an

unproductive session, pointing to legislation on bankruptcy,

class action, highway spending, energy policy and pensions,

as well as to two Supreme Court confirmations. And they say

they already plan to be back Nov. 13 to finish whatever

remains at the end of the week.

Democrats have been happy throughout the year to stand

almost united in both the House and the Senate against many

of the Republican initiatives, forcing the majority to find

enough votes to pass legislation from its own membership.

That has often forced major concessions from the leadership.

In other cases, Republicans in the House and the Senate have

simply been unable to find common ground.

``In the 26 years I have been here,'' said Representative

Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, ``I don't think I

have ever seen so much tension between the House and the

Senate, and it is all among Republicans.''

The immigration measure was a notable example as House

Republicans refused to entertain the bipartisan Senate bill

that took a comprehensive approach to the flood of illegal

immigrants. A push for a formal budget plan collapsed because

of differences over spending between House and Senate

Republicans.

A House-Senate Republican feud over the handling of a

pension measure, which ultimately passed, left a collection

of tax breaks in limbo despite nearly unanimous support in

Congress. Those tax benefits included a deduction for college

tuition costs and a research and development tax credit for

businesses. The leadership has been reluctant to bring the

benefits to a vote independently because they could be used

to help advance more contentious legislation, like the cut in

the estate tax sought by Republicans.

A new struggle between rank-and-file Republicans and the

leadership threatens to engulf the must-pass spending measure

for domestic security. Lawmakers were insisting that a

provision allowing Americans to bring back cheaper

prescription drugs from Canada be added to the bill even

though House leaders and the pharmaceutical industry oppose

the Plan.

Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress has had fewer voting days than almost any other Congress in history. We have lost precious weeks on politics as we debated bills that would never become

law; and, as a result, Congress will leave Washington this week with many of the American people's priorities unfinished. There will be no lobbying reform, no comprehensive immigration reform. Congress will have ignored the millions of seniors stuck in the prescription drug benefit doughnut hole.

As I said last year when I also managed a prior continuing resolution, this Congress needs new and better priorities. Until then, delays will continue and deadlines will be missed and we will end up here every year with last-minute solutions to keep the Federal Government open for business.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the conference report made in order under this rule affirms our support for the men and women of the United States military. I commend the conferees for their work, especially Subcommittee Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha. They made great progress in a short time by working together. I would challenge the rest of my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I will proceed to closing.

Mr. Speaker, we had a very spirited debate here today, and those in the Chamber here understand that many important things are happening in this world and in this country. We are dealing here also with this conference report, and this conference report made under this rule is a fair and responsible agreement. It does state clearly our support to the troops and our military.

As Congress considers the remaining appropriation bills later this year, I would urge my colleagues to follow this example, Democrats and Republicans working together to craft a responsible bill providing for the national defense. This agreement and this working together is all the evidence we need that national security is not a political issue, it is an American issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, while this bill is entitled the Federal Election Integrity Act, that is highly deceptive. Make no mistake; there is no integrity in trying to deny thousands of legal voters their right to vote.

Voting is a sacred right. A right that, unfortunately, seems to be under attack in this Congress. It was barely two months ago that this body voted on a bipartisan basis to reauthorize crucial provisions of the Voting Rights Act--the nation's most effective mechanism for protecting minority voting rights. But now, as we debate H.R. 4844, that vote seems disingenuous. H.R. 4844 is a misguided approach that would add unnecessary obstacles to the voting process. Congress should not be in the practice of disenfranchising voters under the guise of protecting the right to vote. Unfortunately, that's precisely what this bill would do.

This legislation is quite likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court. As recently as yesterday, state photo ID laws were found to be unconstitutional. This is because photo ID laws disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, people with disabilities, rural voters, students, the homeless, low-income people, and frequent movers.

Many of our constituents would be at risk of not being able to vote because they do not have the time, money or ability to obtain their birth certificates or their passports. And let us not forget the hundreds of thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims, now dispersed across the country, who lost their birth certificates in the muddy waters left by the hurricane.

Since consideration of this bill began, many of our colleagues have shared their own personal stories of not being able to obtain their birth certificates, or being turned away at the voting booth. The same is true for one of my constituents in Sacramento who contacted me because he was experiencing difficulty proving he was an American citizen. Adopted as a child by a member of the Armed Forces, the crux of the problem centered around the fact that his adopted father was born in the south and did not have a birth certificate. If this legislation were in place, my constituent may have been turned away at the polls. That is unforgivable and it is unconstitutional. I am sure this is just one example of many.

What's even more alarming is that we are debating a bill that seeks to rectify a problem that hardly exists. Worse still, there are already laws on the books to address this very issue. Instead of just enforcing those laws, this bill is an attempt to scare voters by inferring that illegal immigrants and others in our country are misrepresenting their identity when they go to vote. The truth is that there is little proof of that.

What we do have proof of are the problems with our voting system. That's what Congress should be working on now. We need to be working on laws that ensure that our voting machines are not susceptible to tampering and that those machines have a paper trail--laws that ensure every vote is counted.

That is what my constituents are writing to me in the hundreds about. They are distrustful of the voting machines and with good reason. Just last week, a professor at Princeton hacked into a Diebold e-voting machine. Clearly our voting machines are vulnerable to malicious attacks and potential voter fraud.

Rather than address these serious concerns before a major election, this Congress has decided to take up a bill that seeks to limit the rights of legal voters. Congress must work on ways to encourage voter participation, not create undue obstacles to vote. I urge Members to vote against this denial of voting rights.

Mr. Speaker, one year after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it is clear that more needs to be done to protect and prepare homeowners from future catastrophic flooding.

Which is why I have introduced the ``Flood Insurance Community Outreach Grant Program Act of 2006.'' The intent of this legislation is to increase the overall participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) while moving the program toward long-term stability and solvency.

My legislation will forge a stronger partnership between the federal government and local floodplain managers. It will: Create a grant program within FEMA to educate property owners about their flood risk and about the importance of flood insurance; and Funds this grant program at $50 million dollars annually over five years.

People at risk of flooding need to know their options and our local floodplain managers are our best partners in this effort. To put it quite simply, with 20,000 participating communities in NFIP--one size does not fit all. Our local partners know the risks, they know the landscape and in many cases they know the people. They know how to reach out to the people in their flood plain.

They can focus on the estimated 20 to 25 percent of property owners who have fallen through the cracks of our flood insurance system. People who are supposed to carry flood insurance, but do not carry it. Or use the money for an educational campaign directed towards people living in areas protected by levees, but not subject to the federal flood insurance requirement. Spreading the message: Levees can fail or overtop in severe weather. So it is common sense to carry flood insurance, even if the federal government no longer requires it.

This program can work.

Last year, with the support of a $162,000 FEMA grant, my local flood protection body, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), conducted just such a flood insurance outreach initiative.

SAFCA reached out to more than 45,000 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policyholders in the American River floodplain. In February 2005, this densely populated region was released from the Federal flood insurance requirement.

SAFCA's efforts yielded impressive results.

More than one year after SAFCA conducted outreach, 74 percent of the 45,000 NFIP policyholders who were removed from the Federal requirement had maintained their flood insurance protection.

Of this group, 43 percent now carry Preferred Risk flood insurance. Preferred Risk Policies provide property owners, who have been released from the federal requirement, but remain at risk of flooding, with full flood insurance protection for about half the price of a Standard flood policy. Because of their lower cost, it is likely that these Preferred Risk Policies will result in a higher level of policy retention over time.

Through this partnership with SAFCA, FEMA was able to retain a high number of flood insurance policies in the Sacramento region--a region that accounts for nearly 1 in 4 of all flood insurance policies in California.

Increasing the number of people who carry and hold on to their flood insurance will only strengthen the National Flood Insurance Program. And as Katrina made painfully clear: We need a strong and functional program to be there for our constituents in times of crisis.

While this grant program would be funded at $50 million annually and authorized for 5 years, I want to emphasize that this grant program has an excellent return on its investment.

For FEMA to recoup its initial grant to SAFCA, 550 Preferred Risk Policies had to be sold to property owners who otherwise would have canceled their flood insurance. SAFCA accomplished this . . . more than 20 times over.

Because of the FEMA and SAFCA partnership, more than 35,000 property owners who did not have to carry flood insurance stayed in the federal flood insurance pool. What is more, nearly 13,000 policyholders in the American River floodplain switched to Preferred Risk Policies.

In short, FEMA got its money's worth. And this says nothing of the Sacramento premiums that will continue to come into the Federal flood insurance pool each year these policyholders maintain their flood insurance.

Again, most of these policyholders no longer have to buy flood insurance. They do so because it is the safe thing to do. Because SAFCA has alerted them to the ongoing flood risk in their community. And because they saw what happened on the Gulf Coast.

If we can have this type of success in Sacramento, I am confident it can be replicated across the country.

These local outreach efforts will augment and benefit FEMA's existing marketing program by targeting property owners who are most likely to leave the NFIP--those who have been or will be released from the Federal flood insurance requirement.

The lesson learned here is that people whose houses, apartments and businesses are vulnerable to flooding are willing to enter and stay in the National Flood Insurance Program when they are informed of the risk they face and the options available to them.

Let me be clear; I speak from experience. When it comes to flood risk, my district of Sacramento is the most at-risk river city in the Nation.

My highest priority is to provide the city of Sacramento, my neighbors and my constituents with the best flood protection possible. We are making strides in strengthening and reinforcing the levees in Sacramento and making improvements to Folsom Dam--but whenever I talk about these efforts, I remind my constituents, ``If you live behind a levee, you should purchase flood insurance.''

Finally, I am encouraged by the efforts we are making as a Nation to develop a comprehensive flood protection agenda.

FEMA is in the process of implementing their Map Modernization Program that will update our Nation's flood maps.

Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a national levee inventory. When completed, this inventory will provide communities with a greater understanding of their flooding vulnerabilities. It will also provide us with a good indication as a country as to what long-term investments need to be made toward our flood protection infrastructure.

Both the FEMA Remapping Initiative and the levee inventory are important to the long-term safety and economic security of our country. The ``Flood Insurance Community Outreach Grant Program Act of 2006'' would be an excellent resource for communities to augment these initiatives.

This bill is a step in the right direction in providing for comprehensive flood protection for property owners and communities. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding real reform of Congress. This bill isn't it.

The second session of the 109th Congress began with Members on both sides of the aisle deeply concerned that the dignity of this great institution had been tarnished. Newspapers across the country ran stories almost every day about the illegal practices of well-connected lobbyists. Stories discussed the ways in which unethical conduct had become the cost of doing business in Congress.

We read about the K Street Project. We read about legislation written in secret by lobbyists and about back-room deals to benefit narrow special interests. Editorial boards from all 50 States called for reform.

In May, the House passed a fundamentally flawed approach to reform. It included some new restrictions on lobbyists, yes, but we showed no willingness to demand reform of ourselves. That sent a terrible message to our constituents.

There is a better approach. I have joined many of my colleagues as a cosponsor of the Honest Leadership Open Government Act. It injects transparency and accountability into Congress itself. There would be no more K Street Project. There would be no more meals or gifts from lobbyists. No more travel on corporate jets. And it would ensure better legislation. Members would be guaranteed 24 hours to read a bill before voting on it. And we would end the common practice of last-minute provisions slipped into conference reports.

The majority is interested in none of this. The legislation was rejected in May along party lines. And since then, the House has not shown any interest in moving ahead with any meaningful reform.

So here we are in the waning days of the 109th Congress debating only a narrow earmark reform resolution full of exceptions and unlikely to pass.

Every Member of this House knows that this bill is not what the American people demanded of us at the beginning of the year. Certainly, this resolution will not restore the integrity of the institution in which we serve.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want real reform. They will not be fooled by fig leaves.

We still have time to act in a unified fashion to restore the dignity of this House. Unfortunately, this resolution falls far short of that necessary effort.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the rule before the House would make in order H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This bill has the support of 203 bipartisan co-sponsors, myself included. Passing this bill will end the cruel and barbaric practice of horse slaughter. It will ensure that horses are treated humanely up until their deaths, which is a goal that both supporters and opponents of the legislation can support. It will also improve conditions for living horses.

In my home State of California, for example, we have experienced no increase in cases of horse abuse or neglect since we banned their slaughter in 1998. Horse theft cases in California have declined by 35 percent since then as well.

Simply put, horses are an integral part of our country's culture and history. They do not deserve to be slaughtered in the brutal conditions which they must currently endure before death. American horses deserve better treatment.

But the American people deserve better treatment as well. Unfortunately, the Republican majority in Congress appears focused exclusively on issues which do little to improve the lives of Americans.

A few days ago, we celebrated Labor Day. Yet it is clear that people who work for a living have very little to celebrate. The minimum wage remains unchanged. Our constituents face ever-rising energy prices. Seniors continue to be burdened with high costs for prescription drugs. College graduates are saddled with debt. Other young people cannot afford to attend college at all. And nearly 5 years to the day after September 11, our Nation is still not secure.

These are some of the pressing and critical problems the American people deal with on a daily basis. Congress could easily devote an entire week to each issue, and yet we find ourselves procrastinating. Instead of addressing these challenges that confront our constituents, real issues that impact real people, the majority has chosen to authorize commemorative coins. This Congress cannot bring itself to allow a clean vote to help hardworking Americans by raising the minimum wage, though not for lack of Democratic proposals to do so. My colleague, Congressman George Miller, has introduced a bill that will raise the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade, and Congressman Hoyer's amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill will do the same.

Unfortunately, these sensible proposals to give working families a boost have either been stalled by the Republican leadership or loaded with poison pills to ensure that Americans go yet another year without a minimum wage increase. We owe it to the hardworking voters who send us to Washington to increase the minimum wage before we adjourn. Instead, the leadership has turned our attention to horses.

The majority also refuses to take action to combat skyrocketing energy costs. Democrats have advocated for an innovative and strategic national energy policy, one which rolls back tax breaks for oil companies and invests the savings in alternative fuel sources. Not only will such action lower energy costs over the long term, but it will also help our Nation break our dependence on foreign oil.

The American people deserve an energy policy that is responsible, innovative, and independent. Dozens of promising proposals for such a policy have been introduced, proposals which could be brought to the floor today. However, the leadership has decided instead to use one of our few remaining legislative days to debate horses.

Even before this energy crisis, the steady rise in health costs threatened to drive many middle-class families out of our health care system altogether. Most of the 3 million people who have lost health coverage since 2002 make over $50,000 per year, and some make over $75,000 per year. This figure is frightening, for it indicates that high insurance costs are affecting more and more Americans. Additionally, seniors have already begun to hit the ``doughnut hole'' in the Medicare prescription drug program, which has forced them to bear thousands of dollars in unexpected costs.

The Democratic plan for the future gives the Federal Government the freedom to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. It also provides millions of American families with urgently needed health insurance. We owe it to our constituents to reform the health care system to make it more affordable before we adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this Congress has done little to help American seniors. Sadly, younger Americans have not fared much better. The Republican leadership has left our Nation's students saddled with ever-growing amounts of student loan debt.

Democrats have offered a new direction for higher education, centered on expanding Pell grants and restoring the $12 billion in cuts to student aid which Republicans passed earlier this year. This will ease the debt burden for recent graduates and put the dream of a college education within reach for more young Americans. We owe it to our students and to the families who support them to increase tuition assistance before we adjourn. However, the leadership has ignored this opportunity to make higher education accessible and affordable. Instead, the majority has decided to take another long weekend, with no votes scheduled on Monday or Friday.

As we can see, the list of misplaced priorities in the 109th Congress is long. However, perhaps none is as disappointing or as dangerous as Congress's refusal to secure our homeland. The majority has refused to fully implement all the recommendations of the September 11 commission. In doing so, it has left unnecessary holes in national security and has failed to fulfill its primary responsibility to ensure America's safety.

Before we adjourn for the year, Congress must secure our borders, and we must do more to protect our ports and airports. Democrats have offered legislation to do so, legislation which will also provide our first responders with the resources they need to respond to a terrorist attack or other national emergency.

These proposals to protect American lives and families are on the table, and Democrats stand ready to pass them with the help of our Republican colleagues. And yet as we return from a month-long break, we have been presented with a paper-thin legislative agenda. This week's schedule illustrates how out of touch this Chamber's leadership is from American families and the problems they face every day.

As a result, on the floor of the House of Representatives this week, we will focus on improving the welfare of America's horses. What we should be doing is improving the welfare of America's people.

My Democratic colleagues and I have offered a new direction, a plan to raise the minimum wage, ease our reliance on foreign energy sources, lower prescription drug prices, make college more affordable, and strengthen our Nation's security to combat terrorists.

We will continue to fight to pass this package of urgent national legislation, and we await the cooperation of Republican colleagues to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Members to support the rule and the underlying bill. Congress should do the right thing for America's horses by ending the cruel practice of horse slaughter.

But, Mr. Speaker, there are a larger set of priorities which must be addressed. The American worker deserves an increase in the minimum wage, and our Nation's seniors deserve lower prescription drug prices. Almost 5 years after September 11, failing to secure America's ports and airports is unconscionable.

Democrats are committed to staying here until these priorities are accomplished. I would urge all my colleagues to join us in this effort.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before we begin this debate, I urge each Member to ask themselves, why did you first seek election to this House? It is my hope that it is similar to my reason: to represent my hometown, to craft laws and policies that will serve the best interests of the families and businesses of that community, and to ensure that the world we leave behind is better than the world you and I inherited. Of late, I think Congress has forgotten that.

When I compare the laundry list of items important to my constituents and the American people to what Congress is doing, a disconnect is apparent. An overwhelming majority of Americans think it is long past due to increase the minimum wage. Over the past 6 years, this Congress has done little, if anything, to help those earning the minimum wage and the families who depend on them.

The buying power of the minimum wage is now at its lowest point in 57 years. At the same time, the cost of key necessities like health care, education, and gas have been rising faster than inflation. Yet during the past 8 years, Members of Congress have raised their own pay seven times by nearly $30,000. In those same years, minimum-wage workers have not gotten a single raise. They continue to earn an average of $10,700 a year.

Raising the minimum wage is a real tangible policy decision to significantly help 7.5 million Americans who this Congress has virtually ignored. We can make this choice only by allowing an up-or- down vote on Congressman Miller's bipartisan bill. This bill would gradually raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour.

Since February, nearly 200 Members have signed the petition that would force and up-or-down vote on this measure, and that is what we should have today.

The only reason we have not had a vote on it is because of the Republican leadership. They resisted the will of the American people and a bipartisan coalition of Members.

And now that the minimum wage increase will finally be debated by the House, it has once again been loaded down with poison pills. If the Republican leadership really cared about raising the minimum wage, they would not have waited until the eleventh hour before the House leaves for recess. This is a transparent election-year ploy. I am confident the American people will see it for what it is.

When a party holds three votes to roll back the estate tax, but refuses to allow a clean vote on the minimum wage, it is clear where its priorities are.

While raising the minimum wage will help millions of Americans, the estate measure will primarily benefit just 7,500 families.

Looking at the majority's record, we should not be surprised.

There is the series of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest among us, the massively flawed Medicare prescription drug benefit and subsidies for oil and gas companies. But for those in the middle class and working families, there is not much to talk about, nothing to help get access to decent health care or build on the promise of stem cell research, or lower the price of gas or make college more affordable. At the end of today, the majority certainly cannot claim to have made a good faith effort to raise the minimum wage.

And that is truly a shame, because you have squandered an opportunity to help the constituents that need your help the most.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress recognizes the importance of health information technology. It holds the potential to save lives by reducing medical errors, and it can make our health care system more efficient by providing better care while keeping costs down.

In short, we could revolutionize the way our health care is delivered. What exactly is the potential? Physicians could have access to every relevant part of a patient's medical history at the precise moment a life-or-death decision needs to be made.

It is the tens of thousands of lives saved because of fewer medical errors. It means the newest ``Physicians Desks Reference'' and the most cutting-edge medical research on a hand-held device that a doctor can have at the patient's bedside.

This is not pie-in-the-sky ambition. Some health care leaders have already begun to adopt these ideas with great success. In the year 2000, the Veterans Administration implemented the most advanced electronic medical records system in the United States.

A recent article in Business Week noted that ``while studies show that 3 to 8 percent of the Nation's prescriptions are filed erroneously, the VA's prescription accuracy rate is greater than 99.99 percent, a level most hospitals only dream about.''

It should not be surprising that while many patients lost their paper medical records in the terrible aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, veterans did not. Veterans living in New Orleans were able to access their medical records at other VA hospitals because of health information technology.

Another example comes from my hometown of Sacramento. The UC Davis Medical Center has a world-renowned telemedicine program which connects patients in 80 rural areas across California to an immense amount of specialty care in Sacramento.

Let me tell you the story of Levi, a child who lives on a ranch in a nine-person town 60 miles north of Sacramento. After accidentally suffering third-degree burns on his leg, his parents took him to the closest hospital. Because of UC Davis's telemedicine program, Levi was treated by one of the few pediatric burn specialists in this country remotely from Sacramento.

Information technology could make this amazing program even better. Widespread adoption of this technology would enhance this expert advice by allowing the rural doctor to send Levi's medical history to the specialists at UC Davis instantly.

UC Davis has begun to implement electronic medical records, but many of these outlying areas cannot afford this technology without seed money.

That is the goal of establishing a national health information infrastructure. But we know such a comprehensive program isn't cheap. It could cost individual hospitals several million dollars and individual physicians $20,000 or $30,000 apiece.

So the issue needs more than Federal guidelines. It needs Federal financial support, seed money in a sense. Unfortunately, the bill we will debate today falls far short. It provides only $40 million in Federal grants. In a $1.3 trillion health care system, this does not even scratch the service.

In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, says the bill, as written, will do almost nothing to encourage health information technology. According to their analysis, it will not significantly influence the rate at which health information technology is adopted, nor will it ensure better quality technology.

Democrats have proposed a more effective proposal, backed by Federal seed money, just like the bipartisan Senate bill does. We would also add new privacy laws to strengthen patient protections. This would prepare us for the health information age.

It would require patients to give their consent before their health information could be shared with other people. It also requires data encryption to protect these health information networks from hackers.

It sides with patients by making sure that everyone, every individual and every health entity, complies with privacy protections.

Unfortunately, late last night the Rules Committee denied the House the opportunity to debate the Democratic alternative on the floor. As a result, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question and defeat this rule.

Mr. Speaker, information technology will bring our Nation's health care system tremendous benefits, but the devil is often in the details. This technology will not install itself. It will spread only with the right kind of Federal leadership. So, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute and support the responsible approach to national health information technology.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, my good friend (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to my good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend this rule and allow the House to consider the Dingell-Rangel substitute. This substitute was offered in the Rules Committee last night, but was blocked on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Dingell-Rangel substitute offers Members a far better choice than the underlying bill.

This substitute is based on the bipartisan bill that was introduced by Senators Frist, Enzi, Kennedy and Clinton and passed unanimously by the Senate last November. This substitute also contains important privacy protections necessary in this new electronic world.

The Democratic substitute requires the Federal Government to take a leading role in the adoption of standards for technology and adopting technology that will permit providers and others to communicate to each other electronically. This substitute will provide $257 million in grants and loans for providers and regional collaboratives to buy and implement health information technology.

This substitute also provides privacy protections beyond those in current law to ensure that patients' health information is secure. It requires that all individuals and entities with access to personal health information must comply with privacy protections to maintain patient confidentiality. The substitute also requires data encryption to prevent security breaches and the notification of patients in case of a security breach. Finally, it allows patients to seek redress when their privacy is breached.

I want Members to be aware that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering H.R. 4157. A ``no'' vote will simply allow the Dingell- Rangel substitute to be considered by this House by an up-or-down vote.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider this important and responsible substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, today we debate another free trade agreement. We all know well-crafted trade policy is capable of spreading benefits to a broad portion of the population while promoting innovation and solidifying partnerships between and among nations.

As a leader in the global economy, the United States has the ability and

the responsibility to use trade agreements to effect positive change here at home and abroad. Unfortunately, the Oman Free Trade Agreement, which we are considering, continues the recent trend toward divisive partnership on trade.

Because of the majority's approach on trade policy, you have a lot of Democrats, who I believe are inclined to vote for free trade agreements, voting against this pact. I am disappointed the administration and the Republican leadership have missed another opportunity to return to a bipartisan consensus on trade. The majority once again cut Democrats out of the negotiations and produced another free trade agreement that fails to protect the basic rights of workers.

Like the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, which I voted against a year ago, the labor provisions of the Oman Free Trade Agreement only require Oman to enforce its own labor laws. At this time Oman's laws do not come close to meeting International Labor Organization standards. This is a threshold that Ways and Means Democrats have set for labor provisions in trade agreements, and it is quite reasonable. The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement does not meet it.

Of utmost concern, Oman's laws do not guarantee the freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. It does not even prohibit human trafficking and forced labor.

In Oman today unions do not exist. There are only labor management committees where management holds over 70 percent of the leadership positions. In no way is this even close to representation the workers here have achieved after decades of struggle.

Ways and Means Committee Democrats tried to work with the Government of Oman to revise its labor laws, and they were very clear about what steps needed to be taken: Specifically, make sure Oman's laws conform to basic labor standards and begin to implement existing laws in a manner that complies with the principles established by the International Labor Organization. These are not radical requests. Yet the majority and Oman have not acceded to them.

Just yesterday Representative Cardin offered a reasonable amendment that would have delayed implementation of this agreement until Oman came into compliance with these standards. That amendment was rejected. The Omani Government attempted to pacify our labor concerns with an 11th-hour royal decree. Unfortunately, it fully addressed only one of the 10 deficiencies outlined by Ways and Means Democrats. So this is not a valid argument.

The situation I just described is quite a contrast to the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement negotiations. Bahrain made commitments to modify its laws to adhere to International Labor Organization standards and took steps to make sure those standards were being adhered to on the ground immediately. Oman has taken no such actions. As a result, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement fails workers in Oman and here in the United States.

This sends a message to the world that the United States does not respect the hardworking men and women that fuel the global economy. That is extraordinarily unwise, particularly considering the challenges we are facing all around the globe today.

I had hoped that the bipartisan opposition to CAFTA might make it clear to the Bush administration that a broad cross-section of this House would not accept trade agreements which fail to ensure fundamental rights for workers. That is apparently not the case because this agreement is another step backwards for workers. Further, it demonstrates this administration's refusal to use trade to better the lives of the broad portion of working families, not a select few.

And yesterday at the Rules Committee, Representative Cardin highlighted a potentially serious concern about port security. The provision imposes a burdensome process should the United States Government choose to protect its citizens from potentially dangerous foreign control over United States port operations. Representative Cardin offered a second amendment yesterday in the Rules Committee that would have addressed this concern. However, like his other commonsense amendment on labor provisions, it was rejected. This scenario is another reason Members should reject this agreement as currently written.

I know these amendments would interrupt the fast-track process. However, I believe the issues raised by Mr. Cardin's amendments warrant rejecting this agreement as currently written. By doing so, we can put together a framework that addresses these very serious concerns on port security and workers' rights.

Congress needs to push the administration to step back and rethink its trade policy. The United States cannot afford to abandon its role as a leader in the global economy nor can we abandon our duty to working families both here and abroad.

We need to embrace the benefits of trade while still respecting the fundamental rights of workers. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work together to achieve such a balance in considering future trade policy.

When we debated CAFTA, I said, ``If we do not get CAFTA right, we risk undercutting support for all future trade agreements.'' Well, we did not get CAFTA right, and now we are doing it again on Oman. The majority is just digging us all into a deeper hole, making it that much more difficult to establish the trust required for balanced trade negotiations.

I hope the scrutiny that this relatively small free trade agreement is receiving leads the majority to reconsider its approach. I hope it makes them ask: Is it worth rushing this agreement to passage with inadequate assurances on labor protections when we might be able to achieve them in a number of weeks? Is it really worth cutting the minority out of the negotiations?

In my opinion, the answers to these questions are obvious. Partisanship tears this House apart every week we are in session. Look at the tone of the debate on the floor this week. It is time for a new direction; and trade, because it is such a critical issue, would be an ideal place to start.

I continue to have hope that we can regain the spirit of cooperation on trade that has served this House so well in the past. It is a goal that is within reach. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to commit to achieving it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make in order a critical amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee yesterday by Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Cardin, but unfortunately was rejected by a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

The Cardin amendment would close a dangerous loophole in the current agreement, a loophole that could jeopardize our Nation's port security. In other words, in its present form, this agreement would allow a foreign company based in Oman to operate U.S. port facilities. The Cardin amendment provides that the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement cannot take effect until the U.S. withdraws its commitment to allow Omani companies to operate landside aspects of U.S. port activities.

Unless we vote on the Cardin amendment today, we could once again be faced with a risk that the management of our vital ports might again be handed over to a foreign entity.

The House must have the chance to weigh in on this matter of national security. It is time for this House to stop giving rubber-stamp approval to this administration at the expense of our national security. The Cardin amendment is the only way to ensure that this free trade agreement doesn't compromise our ports.

Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues may argue that the adoption of this important amendment will shut off the fast-track process in the Senate for this bill. True, perhaps, but we should not allow any process to trump our national security and the duty of this Congress to protect its citizens from harm.

If we have to send this agreement back to the drawing board, so be it. However Members of this House feel about this trade deal, I would hope that they would all realize the danger of leaving this loophole in place. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can protect our ports.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, ethical, embryonic stem cell research is a reality. The federal government has two options. We can engage, by participating in the research and influencing the ethical debate within the global community. Or, we ignore the issue and let others lead.

America is the world leader in medical research and development. We cannot cede this ground.

That is why we must be unyielding in our support for the embryonic stem cell research made possible under H.R. 810. And why I would caution my colleagues against accepting any of the weak alternatives being debated.

Mr. Speaker, one of the great equalizers is disease. It ignores age, income and education level. Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to cure and maybe even prevent many debilitating conditions affecting the old and the young, the rich and the poor. Like Diabetes. Parkinson's disease. Alzheimer's. Spinal cord damage. And maybe even bone marrow failure. Families from all walks of life have first-hand experience with these tragedies.

Make no mistake, these potential breakthroughs lie at the end of a long and difficult road. But the research community is committed to this task. Just last week in my hometown of Sacramento, the UC Davis Medical Center hired a top national expert in regenerative medicine to direct the Center's new stem cell research facility.

But every stem cell researcher agrees that this research must use embryonic stem cells. These are the only cells with the flexibility and the potential to fix spinal cord injuries, or cure diabetes. And using the unused embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics gives us an ethical way to obtain them.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that this is a debate about what science tells about stem cell research. And equally, it is about the ethical constraints our democracy rightly agrees to impose on that science. But there is broad consensus on these two points. That consensus is enshrined in H.R. 810.

So the federal government must decide whether it will lend its tremendous weight to embryonic stem cell research. Or whether it will simply remain on the sidelines, pretending that ethical solutions don't exist.

Earlier today, President Bush chose the sidelines. He chose to ignore the issue and allow others to lead. Worse still, he is stifling the hopes of millions of Americans.

And fundamentally, this is a debate about hope. Hope is the light that keeps us going through a dark and torturous tunnel.

I urge my colleagues to think very hard before denying that hope to millions of people across America by supporting anything less than federally-funded embryonic stem cell research. I hope my colleagues will vote to override the President's veto. It is time to go in a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the idea of one person, one vote, regardless of race, background, or gender, is a fundamental principle of this Nation. The practical application, however, is another matter. American history is a testament to this fact. Despite the 15th amendment to the Constitution, our history is filled with efforts to prevent people from voting. Literacy tests, poll taxes, threats, and even violence, as my colleague and dear friend Congressman John Lewis can attest.

The hundreds of thousands of men and women of the civil rights movement also bear witness to the fact that through effort and sheer determination, we can close the gap between the principle as enshrined in the Constitution and the reality: the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

As President Johnson once said: ``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.''

Now we are here for the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. Democrats and Republicans crafted a bipartisan bill. Supporters were prepared to pass it weeks ago. But the majority leadership was thwarted by opposition within their own party. Regrettably, the Voting Rights Act, despite its storied history, apparently remains controversial among a faction of the majority party.

The members of my caucus support full consideration of issues and amendments. But it is disheartening that to permit a floor debate on the Voting Rights Act reauthorization, a number of my Republican colleagues demanded consideration of extremely inflammatory amendments, ones which would essentially eviscerate the Voting Rights Act.

Most Members of this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans alike, believe the Voting Rights Act long ago proved itself to be a force for good in this country. It is disappointing that some still need convincing.

I am particularly troubled by the amendment on the need for bilingual ballots, especially on the heels of the divisive House and Senate debates over immigration. That is why it is important to focus on one salient fact: three quarters of those who use the language assistance provision are native-born Americans and the rest are legally naturalized citizens. So this amendment aims to restrict the rights of fully law-abiding citizens of the United States.

Since being signed into law four decades ago, this landmark legislation has successfully been used to confront discrimination at the voting booth. But we still need the tools and resources of the Voting Rights Act. It bridges the gap between the principle of one man, one vote and the reality and will relegate that gap to the history books.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia for yielding me the time.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the issue we are debating today may not be glamorous, but I want to emphasize for our constituents its importance. H.R. 2990 will significantly affect the guidance investors receive on the soundness of all kinds of investments.

The type of debt rating that a company or municipality receives is an essential guidepost for investors, and the degree to which that rating is accurate has far reaching consequences. So by reforming the way that firms receive the stamp of legitimacy to offer these ratings, Congress is making a significant change.

As we have seen during the past few years, financial investments can have a huge impact on our constituents. Just ask anyone who held stock in Enron or WorldCom. This is about protecting investors, whether you manage your own portfolio or you rely on a pension for your retirement.

So we need to tread carefully as we consider how we determine which firms should be deemed nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations. Established in the 1970s, only credit agencies that receive this designation have the legitimacy to assess the likelihood of a company or a municipality to default on its debt. In other words, they tell investors whether they are likely to get paid back.

Today, there are only five firms that are nationally recognized by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The purpose of H.R. 2990 is to add to that number, increasing competition in the credit ratings market. This is a worthy goal. I know the Financial Services Committee has been exploring the best way to achieve it. Unfortunately, in its pursuit of quantity, this bill will sacrifice quality. This is a risky proposal that I do not believe the House should accept.

H.R. 2990 would allow virtually any firm to be considered a nationally recognized credit rating agency. The SEC would no longer be able to ensure that such firms are producing reliable and credible ratings. Under this new voluntary regime, any ratings agency that has been around for 3 years and discloses its performance data can become nationally recognized. That is a pretty low bar.

I know the majority will argue that H.R. 2990 would allow market forces to sift the good credit rating agencies from the bad. While Democrats do not object to letting the market play a role in ensuring quality, why not let the experts at the SEC also evaluate the quality of the ratings firms? Congress needs to strike a balance between quantity and quality, but this bill falls short of that goal.

Under this bill anyone can open up shop and 3 years later be nationally recognized. That means we may be allowing firms that will offer an investment grade rating to anyone willing to pay, regardless of whether that rating is based on sound facts. As long as a rating firm continues to provide certain disclosures, it will still be nationally recognized, even if it issues credit ratings of the lowest possible quality.

Additionally, this bill could lead to a series of unintended consequences. Federal, State and local agencies, as well as many private sector entities, rely on the current definition of a nationally recognized credit rating agency. By undermining the credibility of this established benchmark, this bill could impose a significant burden on all of these groups, possibly increasing risks and imposing new costs for a wide swath of Americans.

Certainly, the House can increase competition in a more responsible way. Representative Kanjorski, the ranking member on the Capital Markets Subcommittee, with the support of Ranking Member Frank, has offered a logical substitute. It will ensure quality while moving to increase competition in the credit ratings market. I am pleased that the rule will allow a vote on this commonsense proposal.

The Kanjorski substitute would direct the SEC to expeditiously complete rulemaking on nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations. In doing so, the SEC would, for the first time, publicly define what constitutes a nationally recognized credit rating agency. It would also direct the SEC to design a process to identify new nationally recognized credit rating agencies. These steps would bring an unprecedented level of transparency and scrutiny to the selection process. The result will increase competition in the credit ratings market without the negative consequences associated with H.R. 2990.

The Kanjorski substitute will also encourage the establishment of a voluntary framework for industry self-regulation. This will further protect investors from conflicts of interest and other abusive practices.

To ensure that all of these reforms are effective, the Kanjorski amendment will require annual hearings on this topic for the next 5 years.

So Members have two options today. Both will increase competition in the

credit ratings market. However, only the Kanjorski substitute will ensure that investors continue to receive credible and reliable credit ratings from nationally recognized agencies.

I urge my colleagues to support this wise approach.

Mr. Speaker, another responsible policy that Members will have an opportunity to support today is an increase in the minimum wage. Just as the credit rating bill seeks to safeguard average Americans in the long term, so should Congress protect their immediate financial needs by increasing the minimum wage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, my friend, Mr. Obey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. And since the gentlewoman has no further speakers, I will go to closing.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule and provide this House with an opportunity to vote on legislation to increase the Federal minimum wage, something that has not happened in almost 10 years.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment to the rule provides that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring H.R. 2429 to the House floor for an up-or-down vote. This bill will gradually increase the minimum wage from the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour after about 2 years.

This bill has 136 cosponsors and a discharge petition to bring to the House, the bill to the floor, and has the signatures of 190 Members of the House. This bill is also identical to language as included in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that was blocked by the leadership just last month.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that this Congress has refused to help America's low-income workers and their families by increasing the minimum wage. Somehow there is always time for another tax break for multimillionaires who don't need the money, but nothing to ease the financial struggle that low-income families face each day.

The minimum wage is now at its lowest level in 50 years. A full-time, minimum-wage earner earns just $10,700 a year, an amount that is $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. It takes a full day's pay just to pay for a tank of gas.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can help millions and millions of American workers who would directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time.

The Pacific Ocean is synonymous with California. California's beaches are world renowned tourist destinations. People from my hometown of Sacramento can attest to the beauty of nearby Stinson and Dillon Beaches, of Point Reyes and Capitola near Santa Cruz. But our coasts are more than playgrounds. We Californians consider them to be national treasures, and we certainly wouldn't sell them off to oil developers.

But that is a major element of what this bill before us proposes to do. This legislation tempts States to sell off their natural heritage by presenting a false choice between Federal dollars and their coastlines. Even worse, the closer to shore a cash-strapped State allows drilling, the more money it stands to receive. In other words, the more intrusive the drilling, the larger the payoff.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we simply don't need to expand our drilling capacity. Eighty percent of our Nation's offshore oil and gas reserves are already open for drilling. Energy companies hold over 6,000 unused leases in these waters. There is no reason to overturn a 25-year-old bipartisan drilling moratorium when we haven't even utilized our existing capacity yet.

Providing less expensive energy to our constituents and reducing our dependence on foreign oil should be one of Congress' top priorities, but we cannot drill our way to energy independence as some claim.

Sadly, we should have expected such an idea from a Congress that continues to rely on the same tired and misguided drilling-only approach. This strategy has been the defining element of our failed energy policy for the last 6 years.

America can do better, but today's proposal takes us in the wrong direction. Instead of drilling off our coasts, we should devote resources to encouraging renewable energy use and to perform innovative research on advanced technologies.

Mr. Speaker, on the Science Committee we worked together in a bipartisan way to create a balanced and forward-looking policy. For instance, earlier this week, the committee approved legislation to authorize alternative energy development programs.

Unfortunately, it seems that today's legislation has been narrowly written to benefit oil interests at the expense of States like mine. We should follow the example of the Science Committee, Mr. Speaker, and rely on emerging research and proven scientific fact. Both of these will demonstrate that we do not, we should not, drill off our coasts.

Increasing our energy independence should be the first great policy challenge our country addresses in the 21st century. We would be well advised to consider forward-looking energy proposals. Revisiting old arguments and despoiling national treasures wastes a golden opportunity to put our Nation on a course towards energy independence and responsible environmental stewardship.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this misguided and unnecessary legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time and for her leadership on our committee.

Mr. Speaker, today we debate a resolution with far-reaching implications. It affirms the legal authority for the so-called Terrorist Finance Tracking program. It would also condemn the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Finally, it sets the expectation that news outlets will yield to the government's decision whether or not to publish stories with classified information.

A vote in favor of this resolution would affirm each of these points: Assertions about a classified program that cannot be proved or disproved with the limited information available; assertions that implicitly threaten the freedom of press enshrined in our Constitution.

Because of the closed rule, Members are prevented from correcting its inaccuracies. So if the choice is simply an up-or-down vote, the resolution must be voted down.

Mr. Speaker, it is unclear how the information disclosed by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times and several other newspapers around the country differed from what was already in the public record.

As the Boston Globe documented yesterday, anyone with an Internet connection could have read the President's executive order authorizing increased efforts to track terrorist financing.

Public testimony to Congress has described how the administration is actively utilizing wire transfers and other financial transactions to track terrorists around the globe. As one former U.S. diplomat noted, ``We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing.''

Tracking financial transactions is a general principle of counterterrorism. The question should be the specific ways this administration uses this tool.

The administration's actions have indicated consistently that, in a time of war, it is above the law. This raises the concern over how well we as a Nation strike the balance between security and civil liberty and how we scrutinize the outcome.

This leads to a second, important point. Consultation and oversight by the full House and Senate Intelligence Committees is required to check the potential for abuse of power. It is not clear this happened as the resolution asserts.

Many Members sitting on those panels do not think the limited information given to them meets the required threshold of consultation. Without that, this body cannot judge the program's legal basis, nor ensure a balance is struck between security and civil liberties.

Notwithstanding information already in the public domain, some government officials may have disclosed classified information about this program. As a result, the Director of National Intelligence has begun a classified investigation. Anyone who leaked this information should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Recent history is not encouraging, however. Three years ago next month, classified information was deliberately leaked to the press for political purposes by one or more senior White House officials. The intelligence community expressed outrage over the disclosure of Valerie Plame. A network of U.S. intelligence sources developed over the course of several decades was endangered.

At no time did the House leadership bring a resolution to the floor condemning the leak. Every effort by Democrats to investigate the incident was blocked. While the resolution before us references other past leaks of classified information by name, it remains silent about this particular incident.

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental challenge facing our Nation in the aftermath of 9/11 is how to guarantee the security of our citizens without sacrificing the fundamental principles upon which this great Nation is founded. Guaranteeing security is about the end goal. Guaranteeing those fundamental principles is about how we get there. We cannot allow either principle to erode, and the wisdom of including both in our Nation's founding document indicates that our greatest leaders did not see these ideas as contradictory.

My local newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, has an editorial of their own this morning which speaks to this subject, and I will insert the full text into the record at the end, but it reads in part, ``The first amendment's durability rests not only on its text but on a long- standing unwritten bargain between government and the press that both will do their best to avoid straying over that line.''

I could not agree more. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying resolution.

Editorial: Who's Overreaching?

President Bush has condemned as ``disgraceful'' several

newspapers'' reports about a government program that monitors

international financial transactions. Some congressional

Republicans go further: Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky accused

the New York Times of ``treason'' and Senate Intelligence

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas wants intelligence

agencies to assess the extent of damage to national security.

What's ironic about this is, first, that the news reports,

while they added much detail, merely described a program

that's been no secret to anyone who has followed the

administration's anti-terrorist efforts. And if there's any

investigative tool that most Americans would probably agree

is a proper one, it's tracking suspected terrorist finances.

A major component of that tool has been a Belgium-based

database called SWIFT--Society for Worldwide Interbank

Financial Telecommunication--that tracks millions of

financial' transfers, many of them between this country and

others. SWIFT serves as a clearinghouse for financial

institutions worldwide. The president was infuriated because,

he said, disclosure of the program to tap into SWIFT's

database ``does great harm to . . . America'' by tipping off

suspects.

That's debatable.

Amid the hue and cry from the White House and Capitol Hill,

less fevered voices

tried to put things in perspective. Roger Cressey, a former

U.S. counterterrorism official, said the White House is

``overreaching,'' that the SWIFT program ``has been in the

public domain before.'' And a former U.S. diplomat, Victor

Comras, who was involved at the United Nations in efforts to

combat terrorist financing, told the Boston Globe: ``A lot of

people were aware that this was going on,'' and that ``unless

they [terrorists] were pretty dumb, they had to assume''

their transactions were being monitored.

That makes sense. And so do the frenzied calls to crack

down on the news media, at least in a politically partisan

sense.

Never mind that some members of Congress had been briefed

on the program and that all Americans have known for years

about the Government's efforts to uncover terrorist financial

movements and seize assets.

This issue provides a convenient campaign weapon for

supporters of the Bush administration to use against ``soft-

on-terrorism'' officeholders, especially Democrats, and

against critics in the news media. All of the frothing in

Washington raises the possibility that some in Congress will

seek to muzzle the press with legislation, subpoenas or other

means of intimidation. The long-term effects of such actions

might stifle the free flow of information in a society that

treasures it, but whose current administration not only has

an overdeveloped passion for secrecy but has used that

secrecy to cover an array of abuses, including the abuse of

people in U.S. custody, some of whom turned out to be

innocent.

Such actions have tarnished America's reputation and

subverted its values. They deserve to be held up to the light

of day, no matter how unflattering the result may be to those

now in power.

The line between what's fair to publish and what might hurt

national security is a blurry one. The First Amendment's

durability rests not only on its text, but on a long-standing

unwritten bargain between government and the press that both

will do their best to avoid straying over that line. The

burden is on an administration that has gone much too far in

the name of national security to show that news organizations

have done the same in the name of press freedom. That's not

evident.

Mr. Speaker, I was attending the funeral of a former colleague on Wednesday morning, June 28, 2006, and missed two procedural votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as noted: rollcall vote 331 ``yea''; rollcall vote 332 ``yea.''