Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is entitled the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. What it should really be entitled is the Deficit Increase Act of 2006. It reminds me of the old joke of Monseigneur O'Malley, who goes up into the pulpit on Sunday and says, ``On Wednesday night in the church hall, Father Murphy will lecture on the evils of gambling. On Thursday night in the church hall, bingo.''

Here tonight we are being lectured by the Republicans on the need to reduce the deficit. How? Well, we are going to cut Medicare for the poorest in our country. We are going to cut Medicaid for the poorest in our country. We are going to cut education programs for the kids who need it the most across our country. And they are going to cut out $41 billion from the poor and the working class in our country who need it the most right before the holidays. And then their plan is to come back here in January with a $56 billion tax break for millionaires, dividend cuts all across the board for the wealthiest in our country.

So what we are going to have here is a lecture tonight on the need to cut and to ensure that the poorest sacrifice, and then in January, bingo, $56 billion in cuts for the wealthiest in our country, increasing, if you can do the math here, I am not sure the Republicans can do math, $41 billion in cuts, $56 billion in tax breaks, mostly for the wealthiest, means you have spent $15 billion more and dug the hole even deeper.

The Republicans do not understand that they are in violation of the first law of holes, which is when you are in one stop digging. And so what they do is in order to cover for a tax break for the wealthiest, they cut the poorest and they simultaneously increase the deficit for subsequent generations all at the same time. And when do they do it? At quarter to 3 in the morning, when the people who are going to be hurt the most are suffering. And when are they going to tell the people who are going to benefit? Next year around campaign time when they, once again, remind them that if you want to get tax breaks for the wealthiest in America, then vote yourself a Republican in Congress, because that is what tonight is all about: a hypocrisy coefficient at historic highs. And tonight, if you want to ensure that we protect those most in need in our country, vote ``no''

on this hypocritical Republican attempt to increase the deficit in our country while calling it the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, throughout his distinguished career, our former colleague, Senator Paul Tsongas, worked tirelessly to ensure that our environment and our nation's natural treasures would be preserved for future generations of Americans. He was particularly proud of his leadership in the Senate that led to the original designation of approximately 18 million acres of land in Alaska, including the Arctic Coastal Plain, as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Nothing better demonstrates the importance of the idea of generational responsibility for which he fought so stridently than the statement below from his three daughters--Ashley, Katina and Molly. Senator Tsongas understood that he had a duty to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for his daughters, and this Congress must understand that it has a charge to continue to preserve this unspoiled wilderness for future generations.

Since its establishment 25 years ago, the threat to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has never been greater, but so is the support of American families for keeping drilling away from this magnificent pristine ecological gem. This statement of the Tsongas family is eloquent testimony to the fact that the wilderness values of our wildlife refuge system are eternal, whereas the energy value of a few oil wells will always be fleeting.

Letter to Congress from the daughters of former Senator Paul Tsongas:

Dear Member of Congress: We are writing to express our hope

that you will vote to keep any authority for oil and gas

drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge out of the

budget reconciliation bill. Our father, Sen. Paul Tsongas,

believed the most valuable opportunity afforded to any member

of Congress is the opportunity to make this country and this

world a better place for future generations. The principle of

generational responsibility was both grand and personal--he

fought for America's children and for us, his three daughters

and his future grandchildren and great-grandchildren. For

this reason, he cosponsored the legislation to establish the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with the expectation that it

would not only be his enduring gift to us but also Congress's

legacy to America's future generations. In doing so, he

entrusted us with the responsibility to ensure that this

unique natural resource remains protected, not just for a few

decades, but for generations to come.

In the years after he left the Senate, our father would

cite the creation of this magnificent wild arctic sanctuary

as one of the accomplishments he was most proud of in his

life. We know that he would be fighting for its preservation

today. As his daughters and as Americans, we treasure the

gift he gave us and the responsibility it carries. We take

this responsibility very seriously and hope that you do as

well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called pension ``reform'' bill today on the House Floor.

The bill before us today fails to address fundamental problems that have robbed millions of hard-working Americans of the retirement benefits they have earned. This Republican bill will not prevent companies from dumping their pension plans onto the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), which already is burdened with a $23 billion deficit and may have to be bailed out by taxpayers. This bill does nothing to protect older workers when their pension plan is converted to a ``cash-balance'' plan that could short-change them of the benefits they have accrued. This bill also contains provisions that increase the costs and regulations for companies to maintain pension plans to the point that many companies will freeze or abandon their plans, accelerating the growing pension crisis.

Democrats were not permitted to offer amendments to improve this bill. While I cannot support this flawed, misguided Republican bill, I support the Democratic Substitute offered by Representative Miller, Representative Rangel and Representative Cardin. The Democratic Substitute would stabilize existing pension plans by extending for 2 years the corporate-bond-rate used to determine PBGC liabilities, encourage employers to maintain defined benefit plans without cuts in workers' pension benefits, and protect older workers during cash- balance conversions.

As the pensions of workers remain at risk, I am concerned about conflicts-of-interest, hidden financial arrangements and unlawful activities that may be causing or contributing to the poor financial health of pension plans at companies across the country. In May 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a report, ``Examinations of Select Pension Consultants'', that revealed significant conflict-of-interest and non-disclosure issues within the pension plan consultant industry. Specifically, the SEC found, among other conclusions, that:

[P]ension consultants may steer clients to hire certain

money managers and other vendors based on the pension

consultant's (or affiliate's) other business relationships

and receipt of fees from these firms, rather than because the

money manager is best-suited to the client's needs. Such a

conflict can compromise the fiduciary duty that investment

advisers owe their clients.

The findings included in the Commission's report are particularly disturbing for pension plan beneficiaries, whose benefit payments are dependent upon their plan management's diligent performance of its fiduciary duties, and for the Federal Government, which is faced with an enormous deficit at the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) as a result of a series of massive corporate bankruptcies that have resulted in PBGC assumption of severely underfunded pension plans terminated when the corporations entered bankruptcy.

Representative Miller and I have requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigate whether the Federal Government is aggressively regulating and enforcing statutes intended to protect pension plans and their beneficiaries from conflicts-of-interest and similar undisclosed relationships that can impair pension fund returns. We have urged GAO to examine whether any of the 3,500 terminated pension plans that are now the responsibility of the PBGC may have been adversely affected--prior to PBGC assumption ofthe plans' liabilities-- by the types of conflicts and hidden financial arrangements uncovered by the SEC.

I am hopeful that the pension legislation considered today by the House will be greatly improved during the conference with the Senate, so that we can have a vote on pension reform legislation that actually addresses the real problems that exist in the current system. Additionally, I look forward to GAO's work in the important area of pension fund consultants. The ongoing crisis in the pension fund marketplace requires a thorough, independent review to identify problems with government regulation and enforcement and recommend improvements. American workers have relied on the pension promises of their employers. It is unconscionable to abandon these workers.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this Republican pension bill, and a ``yes'' vote on the Democratic Substitute.

Mr. Chairman, rise in strong opposition to this bill, which fails to provide the strengthened border security our nation needs to deter terrorists while also leaving many of our internal immigration problems unresolved. This bill claims to address the problem of illegal immigration, but it offers an enforcement-only solution, where a comprehensive strategy is needed. I planned to offer two amendments to improve this bill, Mr. Speaker, but the Republican- controlled Rules Committee refused to permit them to be debated and voted on today on the House Floor. Many of my colleagues also were blocked from offering important amendments.

Shutting out more than 100 amendments certainly represents serious ``sins of omission'' by this Republican Congress. There are also many ``sins of commission'' tucked into this bill. For example, the bill:

Subjects members of churches and other humanitarian organizations to criminal penalties of up to 5 years in prison if they provide food, shelter, or health care to undocumented immigrants, even if they are in desperate or life-threatening circumstances; and the bill

Reclassifies 11 million undocumented immigrants--including children-- as aggravated felons who could be arrested and imprisoned for more than a year if they are caught.

These provisions do not make us safer. Mr. Chairman, and they do not reflect the values of our nation.

The first amendment I planned to offer today would have tightened security on the millions of cargo containers that enter our country from overseas, from Mexico and from Canada. Seven million cargo containers arrive at U.S. ports every year. These containers represent an important component of our economy, providing consumers with an enormous array of choices. In Massachusetts, the port of Boston--which became an international cargo port in 1630 and is the oldest continually active major port in the Western Hemisphere--handles 1.3 million tons of general cargo and 12.8 million tons of bulk fuel cargos every year. Clearly, such global commerce is critical to the economic health of our country.

At the same, however, cargo containers represent tempting targets for terrorists. Arms control expert Graham Allison has said that ``more likely than not'', there will be terrorist attack using a nuclear bomb in our country. He has described the detonation of a nuclear explosive device in a cargo container in one of our ports as a nightmare scenario for our country. Steven Flynn, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former officer in the Coast Guard, wrote in his book

America the Vulnerable about ``catastrophic consequences of terror in a box'' delivered by a cargo ship to one of our ports. [Page 84].

To balance the need to participate in the global economy and the security concerns associated with the millions of cargo containers entering our ports every year, the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Security division developed the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). Under C-TPAT, shippers commit to improving the security of their cargo shipments, and in return, they receive a range of benefits from our government.

Specifically, if shippers provide information about their operations to Customs and Border Protection, their goods are less likely to be inspected at the border. They basically receive an ``E-Z Pass'' from our government, sort of like drivers who speed right through toll booths without having to stop.

The problem is that Customs and Border Protection grants these special benefits without verifying that the security information provided by the shippers--is reliable, accurate and effective. According to the GAO, Customs and Border Protection has conducted validations at the facilities of only 11 percent of all the C-TPAT members. [''Key Cargo Security Programs Can be Improved,'' May 26, 2005]

Basically, the C-TPAT program really is a ``STAND PAT'' program. It takes a complacent posture towards port security by giving companies the benefit of speedy approval at the border without checking to make sure that promised security measures actually are in place at their facilities.

Customs and Border Program also has a related program, called ``FAST'', which stands for Free and Secure Trade program. The FAST program requires that trucking companies subject their drivers to background checks and participate in the C-TPAT program. Again, the problem is that the truckers get waved through the FAST lane, but the trucking companies' facilities are rarely, if ever, inspected to validate that the security policies they've promised to implement are fact or fiction.

This makes the FAST program, really the ``FAST ONE'' program, since truckers are pulling a fast one on our country by getting benefits without having to demonstrate the promised security policies.

My amendment would have required Customs and Border Protection to verify the security measures at the facilities of each member of the C- TPAT and FAST programs within one year of the enactment of this bill and twice a year thereafter. Moreover, the amendment would require Customs and Border Protection to establish policies if members do not live up to their obligations under the C-TPAT and FAST programs.

Now, some of my colleagues may argue that we simply do not have the resources to conduct these validations. Or real validations would bring global commerce to a grinding halt.

The numbers simply do not support this assertion. Customs and Border Protection has approximately 100 inspectors to conduct validations, and there are approximately 11,000 ``STAND PAT'' and ``FAST ONE'' members.

If each inspector performed only about 2 validations per week, all the facilities could be validated in less than a year--within 45 weeks or so.

When it comes to these two programs, we should follow the Reagan Doctrine of cargo inspection and Trust and Verify that the shippers are performing as promised.

The second amendment I would have offered today, if the Republican- controlled Rules Committee it in order, deals with the issue of torture of detainees. Mr. Chairman, this issue has received considerable attention recently--and for good reason--but we cannot have a full and open debate today on the House Floor because the Republican majority has shut out my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides that if an alien is apprehended at or between a port of entry or along the interational land or maritime borders of the United States, and is then detained pursuant to the new authorities set forth in Section 301 of the bill, than that alien shall not be transferred or rendered to any country if there are substantial grounds to believe that the alien would be in danger of being tortured, or of being subjected to cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment or punishment.

The Convention Against Torture already bars the practice of torture, or of rendering persons to countries where they are likely to face torture or other forms of cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment. This treaty was signed by the United States during the Reagan Administration, and ratified by the Senate in 1994.

Despite our commitments under this treaty and the statements made by the Administration emphasizing that the U.S. is emphatically and unambiguously against the use of torture, reports keep growing of the U.S. sending detainees to countries where they are likely to face torture, including to countries notorious for human rights violations. This practice known as ``Extraordinary Rendition,'' and amounts to nothing more than Outsourcing Torture.

Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture explicitly requires parties to refrain from sending persons to countries where they are likely be tortured.

In order to be able to argue that it is meeting this obligation under the Convention, the Bush Administration has been engaging in a piece of legalistic fiction. The Administration obtains ``diplomatic assurances'' that the transferred detainee will not be tortured, and then based on these assurances, it argues that our obligation under the Convention has been satisfied because there is no longer a substantial likelihood that the person we are sending to one of these known torturing countries will, in fact, be tortured.

In other words, our government is relying on ``diplomatic assurances'' or promises from countries like Egypt or Syria that they will not torture transferred detainees. Based on the word of Syria or Libya, our government is arguing that our obligations under the Convention Against Torture are satisfied. Apparently, the Bush Administration's motto here is ``In Syria We Trust''.

This is outrageous. Is there any Member who thinks that we should accept the word of Syria and Libya--longtime human rights violators?

Here is how the State Department's annual human rights report describes typical Syrian methods of interrogation:

``administering electrical shocks, pulling out fingernails, forcing objects into the rectum, . . .''

My amendment reaffirmed our commitment to the Convention Against Torture. It said that we should not transfer aliens who have tried to enter this country to other countries where they are likely to face torture. It said that we should not rely on ``diplomatic assurances'' from torturers that they will refrain from engaging in torture. Torture mocks the core values on which our nation was founded. And it endangers our men and women in uniform who we send abroad to fight for our freedom.

We should not be sending aliens who have sought entry into this country, and who have been apprehended and detained by the U.S., to other countries where they are likely to be tortured and then pretend to stand against torture. This is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, the Rules Committee made in order only 15 of the more than 120 amendments submitted to the Committee. These amendments could have substantially improved the bill on the Floor today. Without these perfecting amendments, I cannot support this flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``No.''

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report on the USA PATRIOT reauthorization Act.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee since its creation almost 3 years ago, I understand the importance of providing our Nation's counter-terror and law enforcement officers with the capabilities to act aggressively to detect and deter terrorist attacks. As Co-Chairman of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, I remain concerned about government encroachments into the private lives of innocent Americans, which can undermine the principles of liberty, freedom of association and protection from unjust searches and seizures that have been embedded in our Constitution and culture.

Clearly, the interests of security and privacy must be balanced. Unfortunately, this conference report does not strike the appropriate balance, and I cannot support it.

The conference report fails to include essential privacy protections that had been included in the Senate version of this legislation. Specifically, the Senate-passed bill contained key safeguards not included in the conference report regarding the PATRIOT Act's use of so-called ``National Security Letters'' and ``business and library records''.

Madam Speaker, as you know, National Security Letters are, in effect, a form of secret administrative subpoena. They are issued by Federal authorities, most often the FBI, without any court supervision, and recipients are prohibited from telling anyone that they have been served. These letters represent a counter-terror tool that must be carefully and judiciously used, provided their secretive nature outside the traditional judicial process. Unlike the Senate-passed bill, however, the conference report does not provide meaningful judicial review of a National Security Letter's gag order. The conference report requires a court to accept as conclusive the government's assertion that a gag order should not be lifted, unless the court determines the government is acting in bad faith. Despite strong opposition to this provision, House Republicans refused to strip it out of the conference report. House Republicans also refused, as an alternative, to impose a sunset on National Security Letter authorities. Such a sunset provision would have ensured closer oversight of, and public accountability for, the use of National Security Letters.

The conference report eliminated key protections in the Senate-passed bill regarding the ``business and library records'' provisions. Under the conference report, the government can compel the production of business and library records merely upon the showing that the records are ``relevant'' to a terrorism investigation. By contrast, the Senate- passed bill required the government to show that the records have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. This is a commonsense protection that would not restrict government capabilities, but would prevent government overreaching and fishing expeditions.

The House-Senate conference committee had an opportunity to adjust the PATRIOT Act's expiring provisions to protect the rights and liberties of all Americans more effectively. Regrettably, this opportunity was lost and the conference report we are considering today does not contain key privacy protections that had been included in the Senate-passed bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report and support the Democratic substitute offered by Ranking Member Conyers, which strikes the proper balance between security and privacy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the second FY 2006 Labor, Health Human Services and Education Conference Report.

I opposed the first conference report last month because it inadequately funded virtually every area of need and slashed $1.5 billion from our country's critical health, human services, education and labor programs. This new, but definitely not improved conference report slashes $1.6 billion from these programs actually increasing the total cuts to these agencies by $90 million.

While I was pleased to see increases in the Title VII programs and other important health programs, this bill did not provide new funds for these programs, it simply robbed Peter to pay Paul. In this case, the Republican leadership has apparently decided that its more important to provide federal funding for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs than it is to fully prepare ourselves for the threat of a pandemic flu, such as the Asian bird flu.

The new conference report eliminates $120 million for pandemic flu preparedness in order to fund these increases with the promise that they will make up for it in other bills. However, you can't cram for a pandemic. We need to have the funds in place to prepare our public health system for the threat of pandemic influenza now.

Further, the Republicans have been considering making an additional 1 percent cut to all of the programs funded by this bill. If they do that, it will double the cuts in the bill, bringing the total cuts to $3 billion. That is $3 billion less for critical education, job training, health, and energy assistance programs. When you combine these cuts with the Republican spending cuts bill that they passed as a part of Reconciliation, programs that help the poor, the sick, the elderly and other Americans who need our help the most will be cut by $48 billion over the next 5 years.

When you compare these massive cuts for the most vulnerable to the incredible $56 billion Republican tax cut giveaway for millionaires that Republicans passed last week, there is no question where the Republicans priorities are.

When in the span of 2 weeks, the Republicans give the top 1 percent of Americans

who are millionaires an extra $32,000 a year and cut unemployment insurance and employment service offices to help the unemployed by $229 million and cut Head Start by $11.2 million and cut Community College training grants by 50 percent and cut the international assistance grants to eradicate child labor by $20 million it is clear what the Republican priorities are.

While the Bush administration has never fully funded the No Child Left Behind Act, this bill goes a step further by actually cutting total federal education funding for the first time in a decade--cutting No Child Left Behind so that it is now $14 billion below the authorized level, slashing special education, safe and drug free schools, education technology grants and freezing the maximum Pell grant award for the fourth year in a row despite rising tuition costs.

At a time when we are trying to prepare our country for the aging of the baby boomers and threat of pandemic flu, this bill cuts funding for healthcare. It cuts the CDC's budget by $249 million and provides the smallest percentage increase to NIH in three decades. And if the Republicans make a 1 percent cut to all of the programs, NIH will get a real cut.

The bill before us today would also freeze funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, LIHEAP, at $2.18 billion, counting both basic formula grants and emergency grants--the FY 2005 level. LIHEAP serves about 5 million households, the majority of which have at least one member who is elderly, disabled, or a child under age 5. The conference report is freezing LIHEAP even though consumers are expected to pay 52 percent more for natural gas, 30 percent more for home heating oil, and 11 percent more for electricity this winter.

The Republicans won't fully fund LIHEAP because they have other priorities. Their budget makes that quite clear. Tax cuts for millionaires, tax cuts for the giant oil companies, weakening environmental regulations for their business cronies. Those are the priorities for the Republican-controlled Congress. Funding for education, health care and low-income home energy assistance so that seniors on fixed incomes, and poor families can heat their homes this winter, are not their priorities.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Last month, 64 Members of this body joined with me in signing a letter urging the Appropriations Committee to say ``no'' to torture and ``yes'' to the McCain and Markey amendments as part of the Defense Appropriations Conference.

The McCain amendment, which is the subject of this motion, will prevent the use of inhuman interrogation practices.

The Markey amendment will prevent the use of funds in contravention of the UN Convention Against Torture.

We need to send a signal to the administration and the rest of the world that we will not dodge our treaty obligations to our international allies under the U.N. Convention Against Torture.

We do not support the use of torture as an interrogation method. Torture is morally wrong. Always. And without exception.

Not only is torture wrong, confessions obtained from torture are useless. A prisoner will say anything to stop their own suffering.

If we do not approve both the McCain and Markey amendments, we will set a precedent that torture is okay for all and open up our own troops to face torture at the hands of our enemies. Our troops already face enough risks. Shouldn't we protect them any way we can?

Furthermore, if we reduce ourselves to use the methods that we condemn terrorists for using, we lose our moral high ground. We have always been a beacon to the rest of the world on human rights and the rule of law. Should we change hundreds of years of history for this administration?

Reports of ``black sites'' where detainees in US custody are rendered without a trace come on top of reports of prisoner abuse and even death from the use of torture in U.S.-run prisons such as Abu Ghraib.

We criticize countries like Syria and Uzbekistan even as our CIA secretly sends detainees to be interrogated by the secret police of these very same human rights violators.

It seems obvious, that as a civilized nation, we should not fund torture, use torture as an interrogation tool, or ask other countries to torture for us, yet, for reasons beyond my imagination, we are still discussing this arcane, abhorrent practice today.

The adoption of the McCain and Markey amendments is an important step towards both restoring our nation's reputation for respecting human rights and preventing shameful abuses similar to those that occurred in Abu Ghraib.

We can not tolerate torture by any U.S. official. It is blood on all of our hands, on our countries good name. I support the McCain and Markey amendments and urge the conferees to do so as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2892, the Reverse Mortgages to Help America's Seniors Act.

While this bill is helpful and necessary for allowing seniors to unlock their personal equity gained through homeownership, it also points to a disturbing, new reality facing millions of senior citizens throughout our country. The practice of reverse mortgages allows elder homeowners to borrow against the equity of their homes and H.R. 2892 allows for more seniors to participate in this practice. The increased demand in reverse mortgages suggests seniors are now facing difficult spending priorities. As home heating bills are rising to all-time highs, gasoline prices reaching record levels, municipalities raising local taxes to compensate for lost federal funds, grandkids' college financial aid decreasing, the current pension crises growing, and efforts continuing to jeopardize the future of the Social Security program, seniors have been left high and dry to fend for themselves in the face of these new fiscal obstacles. If the ``Ownership Society'' envisioned by the President is, in reality, a ``Forced Borrowing Society,'' perhaps we need to pay more attention to what is actually happening to people and less to rhetorical flourishes masquerading as public policy.

While H.R. 2892 is not a solution to the financial problems facing seniors, it does allow them to pay for unexpected medical expenses, home repairs, and a more comfortable retirement. But as my Republican colleagues prepare to approve billions of dollars in tax cuts for the highest income earners and arbitrary across-the-board program funding cuts in social services, seniors are having the rug pulled from under their feet by the federal government. I urge the passage of H.R. 2892, because seniors need all available resources to face the broken promises from the federal government, but let's not forget that there is a reason why more and more seniors are seeking out these reverse mortgage loans.

Mr. Speaker, we must prevent Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Goss from carving out a special exemption for the CIA to the McCain amendment barring torture, a Bush-Cheney-Goss EZ pass around the law. But we should also realize that even if we ban torture by U.S. Government agencies, the CIA is likely to increase the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition, where they seize or kidnap suspects and send them to countries like Syria or Uzbekistan which are likely to subject the prisoners to torture.

The Secretary of State just flew around Europe trying to explain why the United States is continuing to snatch citizens off the streets of Italy and Germany and fly them on CIA planes to secret prisons where they may be tortured. Earlier this year, I attached an amendment to the defense authorization bill to stop this practice. If we want to shut down the fast lane for torturers, we need to adopt both the McCain amendment on torture and the Markey amendment barring the outsourcing of torture to countries that do torture around the world in the name of the United States of America and the CIA.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for from Michigan for holding this Special Order, this well-deserved Special Order.

I have had the privilege of serving on the Energy and Commerce Committee for 30 years with Mr. Dingell, and I have seen him through three energy crises, two Clean Air Acts, a complete rewrite of the 1934 Communications Act, the creation of Super Fund, on and on and on and on. And he is, without question, going to go down as one of the great congressmen who have ever served in the history of this institution.

And I am not going to go through the entire litany, but what I am going to do is, because I had a front-row seat all those years, and these years continue, and what I am about to describe to the Members continues even this week in the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am just going to take the Members back through time and give them some idea of what happens on our committee on a regular basis because, before John Dingell was elected to Congress, he was an assistant District Attorney in the State of Michigan where he learned many skills, including the art of inducing recalcitrant witnesses into cooperating. Some of my most memorable moments as his colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee have occurred as an observer of this talent, judiciously but forcefully applied, to those who over the years have accepted invitations to give testimony on one subject or another before the Energy and Commerce Committee. I have kept a little list of some of the more effective rhetorical gambits, verbal jabs, crosses and haymakers that tend to leave the witness to whom they are directed a little stunned just as he or she is being called upon to respond.

I have culled the list to bring some of the best, which I humbly share with the Members tonight as we celebrate a public life whose tenure in service is as long as its beneficial impact on America is wide and deep.

Mr. Speaker, I give you the top ten John Dingell hearing questions that mean you are in real trouble.

Number ten: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Number nine: Would the gentleman yield for a few questions, as I am trying to better understand where the witness is going, what the witness is saying?

Number eight: Does the very distinguished gentleman know how much affection and respect that I have for him?

Number seven: Perhaps if I direct a few questions to the distinguished majority counsel, we might be able to shed a little light on the gentleman's proposal.

Number six: Is the witness at all familiar with the Tucker Act?

Number five: I hear what you are saying, but what are you telling me?

Number four: That is an excellent answer but not to the question that I asked.

Number three: I am just a poor Polish lawyer. Perhaps you could help explain a few things to me?

Number two: Did you happen to know that my father wrote that law?

And the number one John Dingell hearing question that means that you are in real trouble: Did you know that I wrote that law?

Mr. Speaker, one of the great congressmen of all time is being honored on his 50th but not by far his last year in this institution. May he stay here forever.

I thank all here for honoring this gentleman tonight. And I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for holding this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this $56 billion tax break, mostly for millionaires in our country. Forty-five percent of this tax break goes to the ultra rich in our country, the top 1 percent average getting $32,000 apiece in tax breaks out of this bill. So how do they get the money? Well, last month, the Republicans lectured us on the need to have fiscal discipline. They had to cut Medicaid for the poorest seniors and kids. They had to cut student loans for children across our country. They had to cut the food stamp program for kids. But guess what? The amount of money that they were cutting on food stamps and Medicaid and health care services and student loans is exactly equal to the amount of money they are giving in tax breaks to millionaires. In other words, every dollar that is cut out of the Medicaid program is going to be put over here into tax breaks for millionaires. $50 billion. $50 billion cut in Medicaid and student loans, $50 billion in tax cuts for the rich. For health care programs, as they cut the health care programs, it goes over here today on a tax cut for millionaires.

When they cut student loans the money comes from kids and it is going over here to millionaires. And by the way, they are $6 billion short, so they are just going to increase the deficit. Why? So they can give more tax breaks over here to millionaires. More tax breaks for millionaires. Cut poor people, cut children, cut Medicaid benefits, cut the money that we are going to be giving to seniors, to keep them in nursing homes with Alzheimer's and with Parkinson's disease, just keep cutting it. Give more tax breaks to the millionaires. Something is going to have to be cut.

They cut the poorest. They cut the most vulnerable. They cut the youngest. And where does the money go? The money goes to millionaires. That is what this whole thing is about. It is one big scam. You know, there is an old joke. The priest goes up into the pulpit on Sunday and he says, on Wednesday, Father O'Brien will lecture on the evils of gambling in the church hall. On Thursday in the church hall, bingo.

Last month the Republicans lectured us on the need for them to cut poor people to do something about the deficit. Today, bingo. Tax cuts for the millionaires. Every millionaire is a winner in America under the Republicans' plan. But the money is all coming from the poorest people in our country and it is going over into the hands of those who need it least. Vote no on this Republican atrocity in our country at a time when the poor need it the most and the rich need it the least.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) was a hero in Vietnam. The gentleman is a hero today.

We know that the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about nuclear weapons in Iraq, about al Qaeda in Iraq. And now out here on the House floor, in a continuation of their deliberate misleading of the American public, they are refusing to have a debate on the Murtha resolution.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has called for a debate on the redeployment of troops consistent with protecting their security and the security of our country and maintaining over the horizon forces to protect our country, to promote democracy and diplomacy that will protect our country.

What this group of Republicans, what the Bush-Cheney White House is doing today is a continuation of the perpetuation of the fraud on the American public. This is not the debate on the Murtha resolution. This is an attempt to undermine the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), to continue their attempt to undermine any critic of their administration rather than having a real debate on the war in Iraq that serves the American people, the American fighting men and women, and every single person in the world.

I have known Jack Murtha for nearly 30 years and I have enormous respect for his patriotism and his expertise on military matters.

I've heard Jack Murtha speak about what is going on in Iraq and about the adverse effect that this war is having on our troops and our Nation's security. I agree with him that it is time for us to start bringing our troops home, and I support his proposal to do so.

This is a war that was based on false and misleading intelligence from the Bush Administration about Iraqi nuclear weapons, and which has been bungled at almost every stage by incompetence and mismanagement on the part of the White House and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon. Our brave troops deserve better than to be asked to continue risking their lives for a mistake. At this point it has become clear that our troop presence in Iraq is making the situation over there worse, not better. The Iraqi people need to know that the U.S. is going to end its occupation of their country, and that they need to assume responsibility for their own security.

We should get our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, consistent with ensuring their safety. Instead of continuing this diversion, which has only harmed America's international reputation, we should refocus our nation's energies on capturing Osama bin Laden and disrupting and destroying the Al Qaeda terrorist organization that was responsible for the September 11th attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Conference Report.

This bill inadequately funds virtually every area of need. It slashes $1.5 billion from our country's critical health, human services, education and labor programs.

While the Bush administration has never fully funded the No Child Left Behind Act, this bill goes a step further by actually cutting total Federal education funding for the first time in a decade--cutting No Child Left Behind by $14 billion below the authorized level, slashing special education, safe and drug free schools, education technology grants and freezing the maximum Pell grant award for the fourth year in a row despite rising tuition costs.

While people are trying to get re-trained because their jobs have been outsourced overseas, this bill cuts adult job training by $31 million and youth job training by $36 million.

At a time when we are trying to prepare our country for the aging of the baby boomers and threat of pandemic flu, this bill cuts funding for healthcare. It cuts the CDC's budget by $249 million and provides the smallest percentage increase to NIH--less than 1 percent--since 1970. It doesn't provide any money for pandemic flu preparedness and eliminates 10 critical health care programs, including trauma care and the health community access program and cuts the health professions training grants by 69 percent making it even harder to recruit qualified health professionals.

The bill before us today would also freeze funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, LIHEAP, at $2.18 billion, counting both basic formula grants and emergency grants--the FY 2005 level.

LIHEAP serves about 5 million households, the majority of which have at least one member who is elderly, disabled, or a child under age five.

LIHEAP appropriations have failed to keep up with rapid increases in energy costs over the past several years.

The conference report is freezing LIHEAP even though consumers are expected to pay 52 percent more for natural gas, 30 percent more for home heating oil, and 11 percent more for electricity this winter.

Back in August, the Republican majority heralded the passage of their massive energy bill, a bill that contained $14 billion in tax breaks-- most of them for wealthy oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries. At the time, they argued that their bill was ``balanced'' because, among other things, it provided $5.1 billion in annual authorizations for the LIHEAP program.

But now, in this bill, we see that Republicans are not willing to fully fund LIHEAP. Under this bill, the Republicans would freeze LIHEAP funding at last year's level, despite the skyrocketing prices consumers will be paying for natural gas and home heating oil this winter.

Later today, the Republicans will be bringing up their Reconciliation bill, a bill that provides an additional $1 billion for LIHEAP. But in the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Republicans voted against an amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, and myself to increase LIHEAP funding up to the full $5.1 billion level. The Republican leadership isn't even going to allow Democrats to offer an amendment to increase LIHEAP funding up to that level.

The Republicans won't fully fund LIHEAP because they have other priorities. Their budget makes that quite clear. Tax cuts for millionaires, tax cuts for the giant oil companies, weakening environmental regulations for their business cronies. Those are the priorities for the Republican-controlled Congress. Funding for education, health care and low-income home energy assistance so that seniors on fixed incomes, and poor families can heat their homes this winter, are not their priorities.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, what we have going on here tonight is a huge con game. That is what the Republicans are playing on the American public. A re-con-ciliation game. What they do, these Republicans, is they cut the money from Medicaid. Sixty percent of all seniors are on Medicaid in nursing homes. One third of all babies born in the United States are born on Medicaid. They are cutting student loans. They are cutting money from food stamps for poor people.

They tell us they want to reduce the deficit. But, no, their money goes over to the ``ways and means'' Republicans who are giving a $50 billion tax break to the wealthiest Americans. Fifty-three percent of the dividends of the capital gains breaks go to the fat cat Republicans. And then because they are not happy with that, they borrow another $7 billion for more tax breaks, increasing the deficit, which will bring them back here next year with crocodile tears about how much they care about the deficit, which will bring them back to the poor people, seniors in nursing homes, one third of all babies, student loans, for more tax breaks to give away to the wealthiest in America.

It is a re-con-ciliation game they are playing. They do not care about the deficit. They only care about these Republican fat-cat millionaires who are getting this money after all of the programs for the poorest seniors and children and students in America are cut as they increase the deficit, a con game where they increase the deficit while taking the money from the poorest in our country.

Vote ``no'' on this re-con-ciliation con game where the crocodile tears will be shed for the rest of the night about how much they care about the deficits when all it is, is a way to transfer money to every millionaire in America. Vote ``no'' on this con game.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Wayne Jaquith upon the occasion of his impending retirement.

Over the last two decades, Wayne Jaquith has worked tirelessly to advance the cause of peace, security and disarmament.

Since June of 1999, he has coordinated the Peace and Security Funders Group, an organization which works with various philanthropic organizations interested in peace and disarmament issues. From December 1997 through May 1999, Wayne founded and ran the Peace Philanthropy Project, which sought to cultivate new philanthropy on peace and security issues. In 2002, Wayne also co-founded the Iraq Peace Fund, and served on its distribution committee. He also has been a consultant to W. Alton Jones Foundation, Ploughshares Fund and Turner Foundation.

Until July 1997, Wayne was president and founder of National Security News Service, Natural Resources News Service and Public Education Center. From 1989 through 1992, he served first as vice president and then as president of Council for a Livable World Education Fund, and as Boston director of Council for a Livable World. From 1978 through 1988, Wayne served successively as executive director of Nantucket Land Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Control and Ploughshares Fund. He was co-founder of many coalitions including Professionals Coalition for Nuclear Arms Control, Coalition for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers and the Arms Transfer Working Group.

Wayne has been an invaluable asset to the peace and disarmament community for many years. He will be missed. I wish him all the best in his retirement.