Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution commending the outstanding efforts by members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development in response to the earthquake and tsunami of December 26, 2004.

When I toured the tsunami-affected countries in early January, I was struck by how impressive the relief effort by American military and civilian personnel was. Their actions went above and beyond the call of duty and they deserve our deepest gratitude.

Madam Speaker, I, like most of my colleagues on the floor, was horrified that our soldiers in Iraq had to scavenge junk yards of former Iraqi military equipment for metal and sheet armor to improve their own vehicles. My constituents in the Oregon National Guard were doing this and supplementing it with plywood and sandbags.

We were promised ``up-armoring'' by the administration, but this is still woefully inadequate. The additional weight puts increased stress on the suspension and drive-train of the vehicles, hampering their operational efficiency and making them slower. But, even worse, the fact that the floor is not protected means that the insurgents are now targeting these up-armored vehicles. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had one of my constituents lose a foot because of such an attack.

Two years later, and after over $200 billion that Congress has given the administration for the war in Iraq, we should not approve another supplemental budget request without adequate guarantees that, finally, the needs of our soldiers will be met.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with this bill's intent to prevent the legal system from being ``gamed'' by attorneys who lump thousands of speculative claims into a single class action lawsuit and then seek out a sympathetic State court. Any abusive or frivolous class action is a drain on the system and forces innocent defendants to settle cases rather than play judicial roulette with the risk of a huge unjustified settlement.

Unfortunately, instead of narrowly focusing on such abuses, Senate bill 5 completely reconfigures the judicial system, resulting in diminished corporate accountability and fundamental legal rights of individuals. While this bill makes some improvements to limit frivolous lawsuits, it does so at a price that will make it harder for average Americans to successfully pursue real claims against interests that violate their States' consumer health, civil rights, and environmental protection laws. This is an unnecessary tradeoff. I voted for a Democratic substitute motion which would have minimized some of these abuses. Sadly, it was defeated and, as a result, I voted against final passage.

I will continue to be open to changes that make our judicial system work better, but not at the expense of the people I represent. It is essential that we hold accountable the forces that have so much impact on the lives of every American.

Mr. Speaker, today, Congressman Mark Foley and I are introducing legislation to extend commuter benefits to bicyclists. This important legislation includes bicycles in the definition of transportation covered by the qualified transportation fringe benefit.

Currently, employers may offer a Transportation Fringe Benefit to their employees for commuting to work. Employees who take advantage of this program may receive a tax exemption benefit totaling $200 for participating in qualified parking plans or $105 for transit or van- pool expenses. Employees may also opt to take cash compensation instead, which is subject to employment taxes. The Bike Commuter Act would extend these same Transportation Fringe Benefits to employees who choose to commute by bicycle, eliminating the disincentive for this alternative mode of transportation.

It's time to level the playing field for bicycle commuters. Bicycling is one of the cleanest, healthiest, most energy-efficient and environmentally friendly modes of transportation that exist today. Nearly 500,000 Americans already ride their bicycles to work on a daily basis, and 52 percent of Americans want to bike more than they do. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, bicycles are second only to cars as a preferred mode of transportation, demonstrating their significant potential for commuter use. Many Americans own one or more bicycles, but limit their use to recreational purposes. At a time when communities across the country are seeking to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, increase the safety of their neighborhoods, and decrease petroleum dependence, bicycles offer a wonderful alternative to driving for the more than 50 percent of the working population who commute five miles or less to work. In addition, since the adoption of ISTEA in 1991, Federal spending on bicycle facilities and infrastructure has increased dramatically, contributing to a significant improvement in the bicycling environment in a variety of communities.

This legislation is an important step in making the Federal Government a better partner for more livable communities. The Federal Government should further support these goals by providing transportation benefits to people who choose to commute in a healthy, environmental, efficient and neighborhood-friendly fashion.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to nobody my concern that this bill has regarding the environment, but that is not the point. We have already had our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Duncan), talk about how we passed specific legislation signed by President Clinton that suspended the Endangered Species Act. What we are talking about here is far beyond this. It is talking about suspending all laws, health, safety, immigration, payment for private property. All laws, not the environment.

My colleagues would be creating not a couple of miles of exception to finish a fence, but you would be creating a zone 7,514 miles long under the terms of this bill, 5,500 in Canada, almost 2,000 with the border of Mexico, where all laws are suspended in the vicinity of the barrier. My colleagues have no idea how much land they are exempting from compensation.

Mr. Chairman, there are only 11,751 people who have been privileged to serve in this Chamber. I do not think any of them have ever been asked to vote on anything more irresponsible. It is a terrible precedent, unnecessary, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. Chairman, today's bill would not be nearly as flawed or controversial if it had the benefit of going through the committee process. Unfortunately, we are faced with costly legislation that overturns States rights and does little to address the problems of our immigration system or to protect Americans from another terrorist attack.

Instead, this bill places enormous regulatory and financial burdens on State governments and makes Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) employees de facto immigration officers. This policy promises to be ineffective as there are approximately 70 different kinds of immigration related documents issued by the Federal Government. This bill will not deter illegal immigration; it will probably mean illegal immigrants will drive without licenses.

In addition, in order to complete three miles of a border fence near San Diego, Section 102 of this bill suspends all laws, from public health and labor to the environment and property compensation. In fact, all barriers and roads along 7,514 miles of U.S. borders would be exempt from all laws. One person in the Department of Homeland Security would be above the law without any judicial appeal or remedy. This is unprecedented. Some of the environmental laws waived would include the Noise Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the Farmland Protection Policy Act, and the Bald Eagle Act. In addition to being bad public policy, this exemption is unnecessary, as most of these laws have security exemptions already written into them.

This legislation will not make us safer or reduce illegal immigration. In the end, it is hard to imagine a more dangerous precedent.

Madam Speaker, I have long admired the services of the many Boy Scout volunteers and have benefited from the organization myself. It is sad that their good works have been clouded by a policy that governs who can participate in the organization. Until the organization changes that policy, I do not feel comfortable voting for resolutions such as this.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, and I agree with her very strongly. Make no mistake, our side of the aisle is supportive of this legislation. We want to work with the State and local authorities first to do it right. These are the people who feel these concerns every bit as strongly as Members of Congress. In fact, they are on the line every day providing for the safety and security of our constituents in a much more immediate sense than we are. Do not be afraid to work with them.

But with all due respect to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, I have one other provision that deeply offends me as a former elected official, as a Member of this body and somebody who believes in checks and balances.

I look at section 102. I wish that it were buried in the legislation, but it is not. It is right here in the beginning. If this provision, the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards, using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review.

Now, bear in mind you are giving this authority to the head of Homeland Security, hardly a paragon of sensitivity and efficiency. Anybody who stands in those lines week after week or watches the bizarre color-coded warning system knows that that is hardly the exemplar.

Security at the borders is important; and if somebody has a problem with building a security fence, by all means, Congress should deal with it. But as far as I know, no committee has been called upon to do that yet. There are important waiver provisions that are available. But waiving all laws for construction is an inappropriate decision. And with all due respect, it is a dangerous precedent that anybody on either side of the aisle should be deeply offended by.

Mr. Speaker, as the cochair of the Congressional Public Broadcasting Caucus, I am introducing a bipartisan resolution to recognize the achievements of the National Captioning Institute, NCI, in providing closed-captioning services and other media access technologies to Americans who are disabled by hearing loss and/or vision loss, or who are limited by their inability to read or master English as a second language. Given that communication delivery systems such as television and, more recently, the Internet, play an absolutely essential role in American society, this resolution salutes NCI's quarter-century of progressive development in bringing media-access technologies to the American people.

The National Captioning Institute was founded in 1979 as a nonprofit corporation with the mission of ensuring that deaf and hard-of-hearing people have access to television through the technology of closed captioning. Prior to this time, captioned television was offered on an extremely limited basis, and the captions were ``open,'' resembling subtitles, an obtrusive system roundly rejected by broadcasters and audiences alike. NCI pioneered the closed-caption technology in which captions could be accessed through special decoder units. This revolutionary solution made it possible for both hearing and hearing- impaired audiences to enjoy television programming at the same time, and made the goal of accessible television a reality. NCI pioneered the way for the first, nationally broadcast closed captioned television programs 25 years ago--an event so momentous that it was announced from the Rose Garden of the White House and made international headlines.

It is estimated that more than 100 million Americans benefit from captioned programming. These audiences include 28 million people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing; children and adults learning to read; and those learning English as a second language. Hearing and nonhearing audiences are most likely to use closed captioning in their homes, although the system is embedded throughout today's society in public spaces such as bars, gyms and airports. As part of NCI's commitment to providing media access to everyone, NCI is making great advances in the development and application of described video technology, a service that provides an audio description of the visual elements of video programming for people who are blind or have low vision, which is an audience of more than 14 million people.

The span of NCI's perseverance and dedication extends far beyond technology for our televisions. NCI established the Nation's only free consumer help desk for communications access issues where citizens may pose questions on topics such as the availability of captioned programming, how to resolve problems with displaying captions, accessibility of closed captions with digital cable and high definition television, and the availability of closed captions in Spanish and on DVDs and home videos.

In addition to its technologic achievements, NCI recently took the lead on auditing how the entire captioning industry is performing. It commissioned the field's first study to evaluate the quality, availability, and use of the Nation's use of captioning services in order to improve performance throughout the entire captioning industry.

In light of all of the above achievements, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this resolution and demonstrate our support for the National Captioning Institute's dedication to improving media access to millions of our fellow Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to view the devastation in Southeast Asia as a result of the tsunami. As appalled as I was by what I saw, I must confess that occasionally my thoughts drifted back to the United States. What would have happened if last September, Hurricane Ivan had veered 40 miles to the west, devastating the city of New Orleans? One likely scenario would have had a tsunami-like 30-foot wall of water hitting the city, causing thousands of deaths and $100 billion in damage.

The city has always been at risk because of its low-lying location, but that risk has been increased because of rising sea levels, groundwater pumping and the erosion of coastal Louisiana. Twenty-four square miles of wetland disappear every year, since the 1930s an area one and a half times the size of Rhode Island washed away.

Considering the reaction of the American public to the loss of a dozen people in the recent mud slides in California, it is hard to imagine what would happen if a disaster of that magnitude hit the United States.

The experience of Southeast Asia should convince us all of the urgent need for congressional action to prevent wide-scale loss of life and economic destruction at home and abroad. Prevention and planning will pay off. Maybe the devastation will encourage us to act before disaster strikes.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following vote on Thursday, January 6, 2005, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall Vote 7: I would have voted ``Nay'' on agreeing to the objection to the certification of the Ohio electoral votes. While I do not protest the outcome of the Ohio electoral votes, irregularities in the 2000 and 2004 elections, especially in Florida and Ohio, make it clear that we need to do a lot more to give voters confidence that every vote is accurately counted. The 2004 State of Washington gubernatorial race shows how narrow the outcome of a race can be even with millions of votes cast. The 109th Congress must act to ensure that no future elections are mired in controversy and that the United States provides a clear and strong example of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, it is a relief to finally pass this important legislation to make America safer. The bill moves our national security and intelligence coordination efforts forward and paves the way for future counterterrorism measures.

I am concerned by some of the limits placed on the powers of the National Intelligence Director and would like to have seen stronger safeguards for individual civil liberties. I am pleased to see that the most egregious immigration provisions were removed by the Conference Committee.

While it is unfortunate that it took two months to pass this bill, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill two

months ago that had the support of the 9/11 Commission, families of the 9/11 victims, and President Bush. That legislation could have been passed immediately. Instead, we almost didn't get a bill at all.

The challenge now will be to focus our efforts on the greatest threat to America today: terrorism. My commitment is to work to make the new structure a success and to not allow the quagmire in Iraq to divert us from the essential task dealing with terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following votes on Saturday, November 20, 2004, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote 538: I would have voted ``nay'' on waiving the House rule to allow for the same day consideration of legislation. Congress should follow the House rules and have adequate time to review legislation before casting its votes.

Rollcall vote 539: I would have voted ``yea'' on the resolution recognizing the Boy Scouts of America for the public service the organization performs for neighborhoods and communities across the United States.

Rollcall vote 540: I would have voted ``nay'' on the resolution waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the fiscal 2005 omnibus appropriations bill.

Rollcall vote 541: I would have voted ``yea'' on passage of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act. While this legislation only allows the Federal Aviation Administration to regulate technologies that ``have resulted in a serious or fatal injury,'' this will be an interesting test for safety regulations of a very narrow group of consumers who are aware of the risks they face.

Rollcall vote 542: I would have voted ``yea'' on passage of the fiscal 2005 omnibus appropriations bill. The uproar caused by the last- minute insertion of a provision opening up tax returns to the Appropriations Committee is not a surprise based on the manner in which the bill came to the floor under a ``Martial Law'' rule. Congress deserves the opportunity to have the time to thoroughly review bills before being asked to vote on them. While I disapprove of the manner in which the omnibus bill was brought to the floor, funding for the 15 governmental agencies receiving funding from this bill are indispensable to my district and the country.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the Native American Youth Association (NAYA) for thirty years of diligent work in serving the Native community in the Portland Metropolitan area. Aiding Native American youth and families, NAYA Family Center has answered an important call to reach the urban Indian population in Portland, estimated to be 31,000 people strong.

As Native American high school students experience a dropout rate 13.3 percent higher than the national average, the need for youth intervention is clear. NAYA Family Center has tirelessly pursued these issues with a focus on providing the cultural, educational, family, economic, spiritual, and leadership resources necessary to deliver service to this important population.

NAYA worked as a volunteer-based service provider for 20 years, incorporating as an official 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in 1994. Now, in 2004, thirty years from the beginning, it is my honor to recognize the organization's first ``Celebrating Native American Month'' development dinner.

Mr. Speaker, the Reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act conference report is an improvement on the current program. I have been committed to fulfilling the Federal Government's promise of funding at least 40 percent of the IDEA program like it was intended during its enactment in 1975. Even though this bill does not immediately do that, it will by 2011. I am glad Congress was able to work in a bipartisan manner for our children's future. I hope we all keep faith with the spirit of this legislation.

This legislation contains new opportunities to make the program work better for students, parents, teachers, and schools. It provides opportunities for parents and schools to address concerns before the need for due process hearings and fosters parental involvement in an Individual Education Plan. The conference report also provides quality service and instruction at all stages, from early childhood through high school.

Now it is up to the future Congresses to live up to the promises of this legislation and provide the funding to fulfill these programs.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time, and I applaud the sponsors, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for bringing this forward.

In a sense, it is bittersweet that we have to do this because of the continuing crisis in Sudan, but the fact is that this Congress has been moving forward and shining the spotlight. This is another step towards making a difference, helping provide safe haven for hundreds of thousands of innocent people. As the world proceeds with words of concern, the people of Darfur continue to suffer at the hands of the Sudanese government and their militia allies because good words are not a sufficient substitute for appropriate action.

I appreciate the commitment we have here in Congress to do something, to take action. I view this resolution as the next step in moving us along that path.

It authorizes desperately needed humanitarian aid for over 1.5 million people forced from their homes. It includes both a carrot and a stick. It gives aide to Sudan if the government finishes the north- south peace process, begins to protect civilians and disarm the militia, and provides for sanction against senior government officials if they do not. Time will tell whether or not we have hit the right balance.

I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) talking about the role of the United Nations and the work we need to do there. It is an important issue for us as Members of Congress, because this is one of the areas, frankly, that I felt even in the fall when there was a lot of partisan passions, there were legitimate disagreements on areas of policy from Members, but this is an area where our shared values as Americans were more important than any partisan differences.

I remember the evening of our last resolution where Members came together in this Chamber, and it made me feel that maybe we would be able to take that step forward. I appreciate this resolution as being a part of the process, but I would offer the question for my colleagues if maybe we might take another small step. I have been in consultation with some of my colleagues like the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and others, about whether or not we might resolve as a Congress that in the next

session we would make a priority to take one small step, that each Member in the 109th Congress be able to visit the Sudan, to be able to spend a night on the ground in Darfur, and as we leave that country to stop off in Khartoum and let the government of Sudan know that their behavior is reprehensible and the spotlight of the world is trained upon them.

If we as Members go to our leadership in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that this resolution has been authored, with the leadership of our International Relations Committee, and ask that the leadership, the Speaker, the minority leader, the majority leader, join with us in making sure that there are a series of CODELs over the next 2 years, I would respectfully suggest that there is no man or woman that serves in this Chamber that cannot find 4 days out of their lives in the next 2 years that could result in the saving of tens of thousands of lives.

I have received feedback from people in the NGO community that are doing outstanding work; they say if every Member of Congress would go to the Sudan over the next 2 years, that it would have a transformational effect, even if we had only 50 or 60 of our colleagues. So by all means, approve this resolution, stand, speak out, move forward; but I would ask that my colleagues join me in making a visit on the ground to be a priority for us all. This small gesture can save tens of thousands of lives.