Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote down H.R. 739, 740, 741 and 742 in order to ensure the continued health and safety of America's workers.

We are here today to talk about improving the lives of America's workers, but the quartet of bills before us would only serve to further endanger them. Together these bills represent a one-sided rollback of the workplace health and safety standards established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and would lead to increases in workplace injury, illness and quite possibly death.

For our nation's workers, this is a matter of life and death--by the end of today, 15 workers will have died and 12,000 will have sustained an injury or illness because of workplace incidents. Congress should be making law to improve workplace safety. And while this seems to be the view of the vast majority of the country, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have put forth legislation today that does exactly the opposite.

This legislation will undercut the ability of OSHA to enforce its own rules and actually creates a legal loophole, which will allow businesses to stall and avoid addressing a safety violation. Adding insult to injury, the legislation allows President Bush to stack the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the body responsible for OSHA appeals, with Republican appointees subservient to business interests. Inexplicably, one measure actually punishes OSHA for attempting to enforce its own workplace safety standards.

While the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the bill, it is unable to estimate the cost to America's workers . . . the lives lost or the injuries sustained as a result of this misguided legislation. Republicans argue that this legislation will help all businesses. The small businesses that I know would benefit far more from having safe and healthy workers than from having a law that encourages more dangerous work environments. In fact, Liberty Mutual, the largest workers' compensation insurance company, estimates that the direct cost of occupational injuries and illnesses is $1 billion a week. Considering these massive costs, we should be strengthening workplace safety standards, not undercutting them.

But Congress has a choice today. We actually have the opportunity to do something that would benefit workers. My distinguished colleague, George Miller, the Ranking Member of the Education and Workforce Committee, has offered a bill that rather than attacking OSHA, would instead raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. This would allow workers to better meet the basic challenges they face everyday like paying rent, putting food on the table and getting access to health care.

It is truly a statement of this nation's priorities that an individual who is working at a minimum wage job, lives below the poverty line. Barbara Ehrenreich, a New York Times reporter, tried to do so--moving from Florida to Maine to Minnesota, she worked as a waitress, a hotel maid, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a Wal-Mart sales clerk. What she learned and shared in her book, appropriately titled, ``Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America,'' was that one job is not enough, especially if you want to live inside.

This is the real challenge that Americans are facing and Congress should be seeking to address, but the bills we are considering merely serve to undercut the government's ability to enforce workplace safety guidelines. It is shameful that in the same breath the Republican leadership advocates reducing worker safety and refuses to even permit a vote on raising the minimum wage.

We truly have a choice today--an opportunity to actually improve the lives of America's workers, those who propel our economy forward--we should not overlook this. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question to support real help for America's workers.

The amendment previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 351, the Rule Providing for Consideration

of Four OSHA Bills H.R. 739, H.R. 740, H.R. 741, H.R. 742

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, we have seen repeated appropriation bills moved through the House ignoring the priorities of Americans, including those residing in my hometown of Sacramento. With each bill, we see the

negative impact of the Republican-passed budget resolution on the day- to-day lives of our constituents.

As we take up the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies appropriation bill, also known by some as the Throw the Leftovers Into One Tupperware Catch-all bill, we, yet again, see the bind the budget resolution has placed us in. We see the programs important to all of our constituents and our communities forced to compete against each other for limited funding, and we see these programs being gutted.

As it stands, this bill dismantles Amtrak, slashing funding by over half, threatening its long-term health. With 9.3 million passengers in California, Amtrak is extremely popular, especially in Sacramento. With the line closures and funding cuts, it will be impossible for Amtrak to continue to operate. After severance obligations and debt service pay, nothing would remain to continue running even the lines deemed successful. Further complicating the situation, the bill fails to even fund the minimum maintenance on tracks and trains necessary to keep the thriving lines operational.

I cannot begin to estimate the negative impact this will have. Businesses which rely on the dollars commuters spend in the community and the revitalization of the city, a transformation that is not exclusive to my hometown, will be affected. Because of Amtrak, Sacramentans are rediscovering downtown. And with funding from the Community Development Block Grants, the city is able to make needed improvements to downtown and the entire city, and that is a benefit to businesses and the overall economy of our region and State.

CDBG supports over two dozen projects improving Sacramento, but CDBG is not just throwing money at a city. In addition to improving the overall look of a city, it fosters a sense of community.

Earlier this year, I was home in Sacramento and participated in a program which receives money from CDBG called Rebuilding Together, an effort to rehabilitate homes for those with low and moderate incomes. Hundreds of people came out to give back to their community and neighborhood. And, because of their work, local senior citizens, who would otherwise find it challenging, received assistance to make the enhancements and repairs their homes need.

Because of funding from CDBG, Sacramento has a program to assist first-time home buyers with down payment and closing costs. We all know the benefits of homeownership to the community: improved neighborhoods, increased civic participation, and to the individual, tax benefits, increased wealth, and increased confidence.

Unfortunately, the misguided priorities of the Republican-passed budget mean cuts to funding for worthwhile programs like CDBG and Amtrak.

But this did not have to be the case. I was disappointed that an amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) was not made in order by the Committee on Rules. It would have restored the necessary dollars to fund programs like Amtrak and CDBG by reducing the tax benefits of those with incomes over $1 million. Instead of receiving a tax break of $140,000, they would receive $131,000, a $9,000 reduction.

Because of the need for the Olver amendment and, importantly, the need to continue these defective programs, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule governing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent on Monday, June 27th and missed the rollcall votes ordered. Had I been present, I would have voted as noted below:

Rollcall vote 322: ``yea''; rollcall vote 323: ``yea''.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is on schedule to pass all 10 appropriations bills necessary to fund the Federal Government. But the challenge we face is to do so under the tight constraints dictated by the budget resolution put forth by the Republican majority.

I believe a budget is a moral blueprint for the priorities of the Federal Government. But, sadly, this year's budget fails to address our Nation's most basic priorities and fails to plan for our Nation's future. And now, to the detriment of our appropriations bills and ultimately our country, we have become chained to its misguided priorities.

The long-term health of our Nation is being threatened at a time when we should be investing in it. Within 15 years, America's supply of nurses will fall almost 30 percent below the Nation's needs. Filling the registered nurse pipeline with new recruits requires sustained, aggressive funding over the long term. And I am disappointed to say that level funding in the bill for nursing programs will not do enough to reverse this demographic reality.

If we fail to support the backbone of this Nation's health care industry and ask our nurses to spread themselves even thinner, we risk everything that comes with it, including decreased patient safety and poor quality of care.

And we are failing in this bill to meet the needs of those individuals who most need the access to health care professionals. This bill guts critical funding from title VII programs which encourage health professionals to serve in underrepresented populations. I have seen the positive effects of this funding in my hometown of Sacramento. The UC Davis Medical Center uses title VII funds to train medical students to work through significant language or economic barriers in communities that have a host of otherwise treatable medical conditions.

And medical center fellows trained with these monies conduct cutting- edge research in health care disparities and how to improve cancer screening. Sacramentoans have been well served because of this investment in the health of the community.

But, again, title VII funding is eliminated in this bill without regard for these long-term impacts. And so, again, we see yet one more example of the misguided priorities contained in this year's budget.

Let me close by talking about this commitment to the future in a slightly different way. Growing up, I never doubted that I would have the opportunity to go to college. And never once did I doubt a doctor would be there when I fell ill.

But, Mr. Speaker, not all Americans are lucky enough to have these assurances. The way in which we as a Nation meet the gap between the world we want to raise our children in and the challenges of life speaks directly to the values we hold. This bill absolutely fails in that vision.

Mr. Speaker, I thank 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, we are here to debate the rule governing the debate for the fiscal year 2006 legislative branch appropriations measure. Through this bill, we will fund the operations for our institution and the many supporting bodies that we rely upon, such as the Library of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Budget Office.

While I will ultimately support the underlying bill, I would first like to address a few aspects of the rule about which I have serious concerns, specifically, the committee's addition of legislative language providing for the continuity of Congress. One of the results of September 11, and we all agree, is that we need a mechanism to allow States to replace Members of Congress in the event of a major disaster. However, adding continuity language in the manner we are today is inappropriate.

While I am pleased that the Rules Committee voted to allow debate on the Baird amendment to remove this language from the bill, I am disappointed that this language was included in the bill at all. Legislation that will have a major impact on the representation of the American people, as this language unquestionably will, should be completely and thoroughly debated in an atmosphere conducive to debate. This proposal should be addressed in the same way any other authorizing legislation would be and as it was when the House passed this measure earlier this year in a stand-alone bill.

But the Republican leadership has decided otherwise, and I raise the question that if we are to discuss this weighty issue today, why then would the Rules Committee not allow an amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) which would set up a select committee to look into contracting abuses in the Iraq war? To date, $9 billion is missing or unaccounted for in appropriated funds for the Iraq war. This is an issue of equal significance, especially as we consider the tight budget constraints Congress faces.

Regardless of how one would vote on the amendment itself, this idea deserves the same consideration and debate as the continuity of Congress measure. I am disappointed that this amendment was not made in order as well.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to resuming the debate on the issue of the continuity of Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Baird).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to allow the House to consider the Tierney amendment on the Truman Commission that got defeated in the Committee on Rules last night by a straight party-line vote.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the Tierney amendment will establish a select committee to investigate the awarding and carrying out of war- related contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 1941, with the United States engaged in a major military buildup as part of World War II, Senator Harry Truman, a Democrat from Missouri, became aware of widespread stories of contractor mismanagement in military contracts and created a committee to investigate such spending.

Since 2003, there have been many examples of the misuse of American taxpayer dollars and Iraqi contracting. Nearly $9 billion on money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction. Ensuring vigilant oversight of

taxpayer dollars should not be a partisan issue. The Truman Committee was created while Democrats controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. We owe it to American taxpayers and to our brave soldiers to oversee how the billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. A new Truman Committee would allow us to get the facts on U.S. contracting in both military and reconstruction activities and to fix whatever problems exist.

As always, Members should know that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the legislative branch appropriation bill. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to create a much-needed select committee to investigate government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from establishing this important select committee.

Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, the second Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dag Hammarskjold, commented during his tenure that ``the United Nations was not created to take humanity to heaven but save it from hell.'' A keen observation on the fundamental tensions present in such a massive and massively important institution.

The U.N. was built upon the very highest of ideals: support for human

rights, peaceful resolution of conflict, and respect for international law and conventions. However, the reality of the U.N.'s composition of 191 member states, often with 191 different national interests, has challenged these high ideals. We all know that.

Many are examining how to meet these challenges and improve the weaknesses of the organization: the Secretary-General's report, the U.N. High Level Advisory Panel, the Volcker Commission Investigation, the Mitchell-Gingrich report. And each of them, in addition to the bill we are debating today, is circling around the same group of reforms. But the central debate here on the House floor is not about what the reforms should be. Madam Speaker, the debate here is how you sell them.

There are 191 individual members of the organization that must agree on the reforms, sometimes unanimously, if we are to make the U.N. an even better organization than it already is. And this is where I diverge from some of my colleagues.

I share the views of the eight former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations. I do not believe harsh, automatic penalties hold any chance of garnering support among the many nations needed to enact these reforms. I must note that their experience spans each of the five Presidencies, from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. We should be heeding their sage advice.

For this reason, I support the Lantos-Shays substitute, which authorizes the Secretary of State to withhold a portion of our U.N. dues at his or her discretion instead of the severe automatic penalties.

We should not advocate a policy of withdrawal from the world community on the one hand and ask for it to engage on the other. But H.R. 2745 would stir up exactly that resentment in its current form, resentment that will kill any hope for change.

In closing, Madam Speaker, the United Nations has a genuine opportunity to reform and, with our leadership, the potential for great success. We must add to this momentum by supporting the Lantos-Shays substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, of late there has been much discussion on protecting Americans and what Congress can do to fund programs which prove effective and yield results. Yet here we are today cutting a program that our law enforcement officials rely upon to ensure the safety and security of our communities, the COPS Program. They are our first line of defense, and the COPS programs help States and localities put more police on our streets to keep our families safe.

My hometown of Sacramento has seen the practical benefits of this program. The COPS Program has put an additional 569 law enforcement officers on the streets of Sacramento in the past decade. Without this program, I do not know that this would have been possible.

I realize the cuts to the COPS Program could have been much more sizable. Congress did not go as far as President Bush recommended in downsizing this program. I am pleased at that, but I am truly disappointed that again for the fourth year in a row funding for this much-needed program is on the chopping block.

The men and women in law enforcement make a real difference not only in our cities and towns, but in the bigger effort to safeguard our country from the threat of terrorists. I am frustrated because we had the opportunity to correct this funding cut for a worthwhile program.

The Committee on Rules could have made in order under this rule an amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). It would have kept funding for the COPS programs at the previous year's level; no increase, but certainly no decrease. This would have been a smart amendment to make in order.

I am pleased to note, however, that this bill makes a significant commitment to strengthen research and education through increased NASA funding. Technology developed by NASA has long served as the engine of innovation which has driven our Nation's economic growth. Advances made by this Agency in areas of science and technology have played an integral role in the defense of our Nation. And most importantly, we are educating our Nation's next generation of scientists and engineers. I applaud the committee for their long-term planning in this area.

Although I would like to see a few changes to this bill, particularly a greater increase in law enforcement funding, I do support the underlying measure. I am pleased it was reported out in a bipartisan fashion. I commend the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work under such tough budgetary constraints.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate May Ying Ly, Executive Director of the Hmong Women's Heritage Association in Sacramento, California. Ms. Ly was recently selected from a field nearly 700 nominees to receive one of just 10 Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leadership Program awards. As part of the award, she will receive funding to continue her work helping Hmong refugees from Laos access health care and adapt to life in this country.

Ms. Ly's story is one of courage and dedication to her community. After she and her family escaped the communist regime in Laos, they first lived in poverty in a Thai refugee camp, and later worked to bridge the vast cultural divide that confronts Hmong refugees as they attempt to adjust to life in the United States.

Breaking with the traditional, domestic role assigned to Hmong women, Ms. Ly attended college and then worked as a Human Services Specialist for Sacramento County. Seeking a broader platform to help her community, she founded the Hmong Women's Heritage Association; providing Hmong families with culturally appropriate health and social services--including health plan enrollment assistance. Further through collaboration with several media organizations, Ms. Ly drew attention to the physical and mental health problems affecting traumatized Hmong newcomers.

Given the patriarchal structure of Hmong society, she has often faced stiff resistance to her activities from within her own community. The Hmong traditionally believe that all family problems should be handled within the family and clan; however, most family and clan members lack the appropriate prevention and intervention skills necessary to intervene in some chronic and critical cases.

In order to reach Hmong refugees while still respecting traditional values, Ms. Ly established a ``clan advisory council,'' training its members to understand the mediation principles of this country and merging those with traditional advice and interventions of Hmong elders to assist families with crises.

With the funds from this award, Ms. Ly will continue to provide mental health services, send her staff to college and graduate school, and to expand the activities of her advisory council of Hmong clan leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize May Ying for this award, and commend her for her courage and ingenuity as she helps Hmong refugees and immigrants access the health care they desperately need.

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

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues look around the world today, I have no doubt most would agree that whether the subject is fully engaging our allies on matters of national security and diplomacy, working to protect our shared environment from global warming and other threats or striving to grow our economies in a fashion that is both efficient and humane, the United States should be playing a larger role in the world arena, not withdrawing from it.

Clearly, there are many areas in which the WTO needs reform. However, our continued participation is far too important for walking away to be considered a real option. Simply put, if America were to pull out of the WTO, we would be relegated to the small community of nations who are not members, losing any ability to influence the organization and its negotiations on a wide range of issues.

Ninety-seven percent of all U.S. trade is with other WTO members. No matter where you fall on trade issues these days, it is clear that our economic interests continue to lie with engaging our preeminent trading partners. And we must keep working to ensure that American companies that create jobs here at home by doing business overseas are able to do so in the most transparent, lawful, and predictable business environment possible.

In short, America's long-term economic interests are too important to disengage from this organization, and America is too great a Nation to send yet another signal to the world that we are withdrawing from the community of nations. In recent years we have already done that all too often.

So I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and all of the members of both parties on the Committee on Ways and Means for unanimously reporting this legislation with an adverse recommendation. I am pleased that both parties are prepared to make a strong statement about the importance of this Nation's continued engagement in the world economy.

Trade issues today are stirring a great deal of concern among Members of both parties, and my opponents in this debate are men and women of goodwill with real concerns that the American people's ability to maintain appropriate standards for their communities on issues from food safety to environmental protection will be undermined by the lower standards of other countries. These are worthy and real concerns, concerns that reflect the complexity and seriousness of these issues which have real consequences for our economy and our citizens.

America must be tough and smart and represent the interests of all our people in the trade arena, especially as we negotiate new trade agreements. Many Members of both parties in this Chamber have valid and important questions about whether our trade policymakers are doing that. But withdrawing from the WTO is not the answer.

Americans are right to demand that our negotiators look out for the broader community as the United States engages the world economically, but engage it we must. I am hopeful that today the House is prepared to reject this resolution on a bipartisan basis with a vote that will help preserve our leadership role in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

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

The WTO reflects many years of development resulting in broad and bipartisan support for expanded trade. Participation is vital to America's interest, be it economic, strategic, or as an avenue to strengthen the rule of law in the world. There is certainly a need to improve the WTO, something I believe can be done.

But this will only be the case if we maintain an active presence in the WTO, engage in negotiations to strengthen American interests. In a few weeks, trade issues will again be before us as this Chamber considers the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.

We should not confuse the debate today about the WTO and the upcoming debate on CAFTA. These are both avenues to advance America's interests through trade partnerships. But CAFTA is a very good example of what can happen when the United States is not looking out for the interests of all of our people and the dangers that can pose for standards that previous generations of Americans worked so hard for and that we benefit from today.

CAFTA would undercut existing protections for workers and United States trade law by requiring only that countries enforce their existing labor laws, which in many cases fail to provide the most basic and internationally recognized protections. Our trade policy should benefit workers, not undermine them.

That is another debate for another day. I mention it only to demonstrate that issues related to international trade are complex, serious, and with real consequences for our economy and our people.

Participation in the WTO is vital to America's interest, be it economic, strategic, or to strengthen the rule of law in the world.

I would like to note while this rule provides for 2 hours of debate, that under our House rules, this resolution and other bills we debate under the procedures established by the Trade Act of 1974 are entitled to 20 hours of debate. While in this case, 20 hours is certainly not necessary, many Members of both parties in this Chamber have valid and important questions about whether our trade policymakers are protecting our interests.

I would hope that when other trade agreements come before this body, and they will, that Members will be able to fully debate the issues and not be limited by stringent time constraints.

I intend to vote against the underlying resolution because I believe that the WTO is essential to a strong rules-based trading system. I hope my colleagues would do as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that the last bill we take up before recessing for the Memorial Day District Work Period is the military quality of life appropriations bill, the bill which includes funding for Veterans Affairs. Today, when we pass this

bill and fund veterans' programs, we are reaffirming the promise we made to each veteran when they agreed to serve and protect our Nation. Part of that promise, one of the most important promises, is to provide them with superior medical care.

While I do commend the committee for increasing funding for veterans' health care over the President's request, as the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned, even leading veterans' groups state it does not increase funding enough. The funding does not keep pace with the rising population of veterans or the rising cost of health care.

Yesterday, as the gentleman from Massachusetts also mentioned, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that would have increased funding for veterans' health care to the necessary levels. The Republican majority chose not to. This is truly, truly unfortunate.

Most Members, myself included, have already heard from veterans in their district that they have to wait far too long for medical care. In some instances, veterans face wait times of up to 6 months. Yet the bill before us does not provide the funding necessary to provide prompt access to health services. And with our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of veterans needing medical service will only continue to rise.

I am truly thankful that those men and women honorably serving our Nation in the world's hot spots are likely to return home to their family and friends. With protective armor and the improving quality of medical treatment in the field, more of our servicemembers are surviving combat wounds and returning, though with an increased need for medical service. Many of these men and women are amputees who will need months of rehabilitation to learn to walk and use prosthetic limbs. Because of these injuries, the men and women of our Armed Forces will need continuous care for the rest of their lives.

At a time when American men and women are serving our Nation in hostile environments, we must demonstrate our intent to fulfill our promise and fund veterans' medical services at the highest possible level. We must provide them with the most efficient and highest quality medical care this country can offer.

I hope that on the floor today, we can make in order the gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment increasing our commitment to veterans.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time.

Our men and women in uniform are honorably serving this Nation on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other locations. But because of our commitments, our Armed Forces are relying even more heavily than usual on our National Guard and Reserves.

It is estimated that National Guard forces make up about half of the U.S. force on the ground in Iraq. With this in mind, it is truly disappointing that an excellent amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) was not made in order under this rule.

The Taylor amendment would give our Reserve and National Guard members full access to TRICARE, the health care insurance provided to those in our Armed Forces.

It is simply irresponsible for us to allow the families of 20 percent of Reservists and National Guardsmen to go without health care benefits.

Our National Guard and Reserves know that they can be called up for more than the usual 1 weekend a month, but they never would have expected their 1-year tours of duty to be extended well beyond that time frame. I am concerned that the civilian leadership of the military has forced us to lean so heavily on the Reserve and National Guard personnel.

These men and women serving in the National Guard and Reserves are responding to the unexpected; and now we, their government, need to respond in kind and not with a lot of platitudes. For all that these men and women are doing, we should be able to find the $1 billion necessary to provide them and their families with health care.

Offering every member of the National Guard and Reserves the ability to access health care coverage is a moral issue. Our treatment of our Reserve and Guard members is unacceptable. The Taylor amendment began to address it. I am truly saddened that at a time of great service and dedication on their part, we are quibbling about fully providing for our servicemen and -women.

The line between active and reserve personnel has already been blurred. Our Guard and Reservists need to be focused on fulfilling their missions. They should not have worries in the back of their mind about whether their spouse or their child is getting health care back home.

This provision, passed in full committee, deserves debate on the House floor. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule which will allow this amendment to be made in order. We should honor our servicemembers and give them the health care coverage they not only deserve, but are entitled to.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to today's consideration of H.R. 2419, which reflects much thought and long-term planning on behalf of the Committee on Appropriations. This year's energy and water bill means a great deal to my constituents and to my home in Sacramento.

Sacramento's history has long been intertwined with flood control. When the city endured a near catastrophic flood in 1986, the community quickly realized they did not have nearly the level of flood protection necessary to fully safeguard the region. After the city again faced more floods in 1997, the community set off to achieve 200-year flood protection. However, until that day arrives, flooding remains a very constant and real threat, and continued Federal assistance plays an important role to attaining that goal.

In spite of years of efforts, Sacramento still remains one of the most flood-prone and threatened cities in the country, paling in comparison to the level of protection enjoyed by other river cities. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento's flood risk is among the highest of major urban areas in the country.

Located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers, Sacramento is the hub of a six-county regional economy that provides 800,000 jobs for 1.5 million people. A major flood along the American River would cripple this economy, cause between $7 billion and $16 billion in direct property damages and likely result in significant loss of life. The risk of serious flooding poses an unacceptable threat to the safety and economic well-being of Sacramento and to California's State Capitol.

With the steady support of Congress, Sacramento has already made good progress toward our initial goal of

achieving 100-year flood protection for the region and ultimately moving as quickly as possible towards 200-year flood protection. At the beginning of this year, FEMA revised its flood maps for the majority of Sacramento to reflect 100-year flood protection. But this level of flood protection is still a far cry from the protection afforded other large river cities and at least 100,000 people and 1,500 businesses continue to be at high risk in the south Sacramento area.

Fortunately, as a result of long, bipartisan negotiations, Congress has authorized a suite of projects that will achieve 200-year flood protection. Upon completion of the authorized projects to improve area levees, modify the outlets at Folsom Dam and raise Folsom Dam by 7 feet, Sacramento will attain its long-term flood control goal. I deeply appreciate the Committee on Appropriations's commitment to funding these projects to help give Sacramento the level of flood protection that it both needs and deserves.

I am also quite pleased with the work that the committee has done to ensure Corps projects are executed in an efficient manner with improved financial management. For example, the work necessary to achieve 200- year flood protection will take 15 to 20 years to complete. The committee is asking that the Corps develop a 5-year plan and a vision for water infrastructure in the country. The current year-by-year strategy would not be an efficient manner to plan for the significant financial demands. This would ultimately compromise the ability to implement the region's flood control projects. Efforts to comprehensively interrogate financial planning and project management in the Corps will greatly benefit not only the execution of the projects, but also the local and State partner's ability to plan their budget.

It is certainly understandable that no matter how extensive the planning and preparation for a project, that as it moves forward, it may get off schedule. With that in mind, it is certainly helpful for the Corps to be able to reprogram funding to projects that can keep progressing. But this should only happen if the Corps can return the funding back to the project the funds originally came from. To not do so is a complete disregard of congressional directive. In such tight financial times, the Corps must curb this practice.

I strongly support the committee directive that the Corps specifically identify all of the funding owed to projects as a result of reprogramming. I also believe integrating this funding into the Corps budget will help clear the books and assist the Corps in efficient project execution and financial management.

By working together, the Congress, the administration and the Corps of Engineers will be better prepared to ensure limited Federal resources are spent efficiently, commitments to local sponsors are honored and projects remain on schedule.

I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the committee's work determining funding priorities for the Department of Energy. This year's Energy and Water Appropriations bill highlights the committee's focus on other long-range issues, noticeably their commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.

Sadly, this President's go-it-alone approach has been ineffective in reducing the threat by cooperating and working with our allies and others around the world to bring economic, social and political pressure to bear on any country trying to gain nuclear weapon capabilities.

It is illogical to expect any other nation to listen to Americans speak of nonproliferation when we are developing bunker-busting nuclear weapons. I stand with the committee's position to stop nuclear earth penetrator research. Considering the vast amount of nuclear material that is not secured in the former Soviet Union, I believe it is a much better investment to fund the Sustainable Stockpile Initiative. Through this program, we will be able to increase our Nation's security by keeping their Cold War-era nuclear weapons and materials from falling into the hands of terrorist organizations.

My one disappointment with this rule, Mr. Speaker, is that yesterday afternoon the Committee on Rules refused to make in order a good amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz). Her amendment would provide the Department of Energy an additional $250 million to accelerate energy research, development, demonstration and deployment. This investment will help our Nation harness technology to secure greater independence from foreign sources of energy. As we face rapidly rising prices for crude oil and gasoline at the pump, I believe this issue is very timely and of great relevance to our debate today about the funding priorities for the Department of Energy.

This bill moves our country forward on many levels, from improving local water infrastructure, to bigger-picture Corps of Engineers financial management and efficiency issues, to global issues like nuclear nonproliferation. I strongly support the underlying bill and am pleased it was reported in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

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

I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can consider the Schwartz amendment that was offered in the Committee on Rules last night, but rejected on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Schwartz amendment proposes an important new initiative to help the United States reduce our dependence on imported oil and strengthen our national security. It would provide the Department of Energy with an additional $250 million next year to accelerate the research and deployment of energy technology that will reduce our country's consumption of fossil fuels.

I also want to point out that the cost of this amendment is fully paid for and will not increase the deficit by one penny. The funding for this amendment will come from a small, less than 1 percent reduction in a tax cut for people making over $1 million this year.

A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Schwartz amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from voting on this responsible and aggressive approach to help our Nation out of its dependency on foreign oil.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have an opportunity to vote on the Schwartz amendment.

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

General Leave

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, I rise today in support of H.R. 2520, as well as the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, as both bills are part of today's larger debate on stem cell research and the hope being offered with them.

As Samuel Smiles said, ``Hope is the companion of power and the mother of success; for who so hopes has within him the gift of miracles.''

That is what today's debate is about, because at its core, stem cell research is about the idea of hope and miracles, a hope which has become quite personal for me. As you know, my husband Bob, who worked with all of you for so many years, suffered from a rare bone marrow disorder. I saw what this disease did to him. I saw his life cut short. And it is my hope that by expanding stem cell research, other families will have more than just a hope for a cure for this disease, as well as many, many others.

But to be effective, hope and optimism need to be based on a possibility. This is what we are talking about today, whether or not this country will close the door on hope on the unexplainable, on what is truly a miracle. It is clear that by passing this bill and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act we will not be reading articles in next week's paper that we found the cure for cancer or any other disease, that we hope to be effected. But I feel strongly that the effects of Federal dollars and involvement in stem cell research will make an unquestionable difference.

Our country has been a leader in so many areas of medicine. Now is not the time to cede our role to countries like South Korea, France or Great Britain. By doing so, we will not only diminish the contributions of Americans, but also our ability to shape and impact the ethical debate.

Both bills are an important step in harnessing the power of optimism. I hope we will not ignore this opportunity.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Child Support Reinvestment Act of 2005. This much-needed bill will provide States, including my home State of California, with important penalty relief, allowing more money to flow where it should: to the children of our State awaiting their past-due child support payments.

California is in the process of developing the largest single statewide automated child support collection system

in the country. Although the project initially met with delays, California is now on track to compliance by September 2006.

However, rather than reducing the penalties as California makes progress towards its goal, the Federal penalties actually continue to grow, because the penalties are based on the amount the State invests in child support programs for the previous year. Effectively, we are hurting the very children that the program is trying to help by punishing States for doing their best to get each child the support payments they are owed.

My bill, the Child Support Reinvestment Act, will lower the penalties and allow the money levied in penalty to be used for the benefit of the children instead of the Federal Government's general fund. This is smart regulation for the States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Yom HaAtzmaut, the anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel.

On this day 57 years ago in 1948, the British Mandate over Palestine expired and cleared the path for the State of Israel to be created. Despite her continued struggle for existence, Israel has overcome these difficulties to thrive and prosper. Israelis have become world leaders in agriculture, technology, medicine and science.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Israel for its continued support through the decades. Since its creation, Israel has been one of America's staunchest allies. And as the sole democracy in the Middle East, we as a nation must maintain our support and ensure our ally's continued survival.