Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bachus-Tauscher amendment to clarify the hours of service rule for drivers in the motion picture and television industry.

This industry is vital to California and the Nation, and these new rules inadvertently impact their business model and encourage offshore production. The Teamsters strongly support this amendment because it will save jobs for their members who contribute so much to our economy.

I have tremendous respect for the ranking member of the committee and chairman of the committee, but the facts are that the rulemaking is about long-haul drivers, drivers who are driving many consecutive, consistent hours. This is not the situation here. This industry and the Teamsters have an unblemished record. They have a tremendous safety record. They are not driving for long hours. They are actually driving for less than 100 miles, waiting until the production is done, and then driving back.

We are all for safety, but we also want to keep jobs in this country. This is vital to California. I urge my colleagues to support the Bachus-Tauscher amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Blue Dog Budget offered by my friend Mr. Stenholm.

Not only does it balance the budget by 2012, it also provides funds to sustain the Army as it transforms to meet a wide array of challenges.

The administration's idea that it's okay to pay for predicted, long- term military operations and plans to increase the size of the Army out of a so-called ``emergency supplemental'' that will not even be requested until next January is irresponsible.

This has two negative consequences:

By not funding these crucial activities in the regular budget, we risk undermining military readiness between the period when the Army runs out of money and the next supplemental passes.

And, by not funding regular military expenses in the defense bill, the Pentagon is essentially getting a high interest credit card to avoid making responsible budget choices today.

As you know, the Army is undertaking its most significant transformation in fifty years while simultaneously trying to meet the challenges of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror and new threats to the United States and to our allies.

Because of the Pentagon's incorrect initial assessment of the force size needed to stabilize Iraq, Reservists and Guard Members are on duty more often and for longer periods of time and our active duty force is severely strained.

The Blue Dog budget does the right thing and funds the Army's force increase so that we can win the war without breaking the Army, relieve the Guard and Reserve and let us get back to the business of transforming the nation's military.

I encourage my colleagues to support the Blue Dog budget Resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution claims to honor our troops, but it is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to run a political campaign on taxpayers' time.

We have the best military in the world. I am honored to represent the men and women of Travis Air Force Base in Congress, and I will always be grateful to all of our men and women in uniform for their patriotism, courage, sacrifice, and devotion to our great Nation. As Members of Congress, we must support them in word and deed.

I have been to Iraq and the Persian Gulf twice in the past year to talk to our troops serving there and learned firsthand what they need to get the job done and return home safely. Forty thousand American troops were sent to Iraq without bulletproof vests, and many more still do not have reinforced Humvees to protect them from daily roadside bombs. But this resolution does nothing to get this critical lifesaving equipment to our troops.

I am very disappointed this resolution does not offer condolences to the families of the 564 Americans killed in Iraq thus far, nor mention the 2,500 wounded in action.

It is also hard to believe that these congressional leaders would consider a resolution that categorically reaffirms that the United States and the world are made safe by the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party from power just days after the Spanish people buried more than 200 of their citizens in the worst act of terror in European history, and on a day, today, when a bomb blast killed dozens in Iraq.

Instead of patting ourselves on the back, it is time to ask whether this administration's approach to the war on terror and the war on Iraq have made us safer. Two and one-half years after the September 11 attacks, al Qaeda is more dangerous than ever. The war in Iraq removed a dictator, but has created a new front on the war on terror that did not exist before and has pinned down a large amount of our troops in the Middle East for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support our troops with action, not shameless political ploys, and do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Anne Cisle Murray, whose commitment to helping children at risk is being honored by the Boys Hope Girls Hope organization of Illinois as the 2004 recipient of the Joseph S. Kearney Heart of Gold award.

Boys Hope Girls Hope of Illinois is a privately funded organization that reaches out to children who have shown academic promise, yet live with a family or in a community that has put them at risk. The mission of BHGH is to provide these children with stable home and academic environments and support them in all their endeavors up through college.

Originally from Hamilton, Ohio, Anne Cisle Murray graduated from the University of Notre Dame with a business degree in 1974, a member of the first co-ed graduating class. In 1979 she married Steve Murray with whom she has three children, Tricia, Dan and Mac. Anne's devotion to her family has carried over into her Community through the time and effort she dedicated to the at-risk youth of Illinois. Her accomplishments and hard work as a mother, mentor and organizer in the public service arena will be recognized and commemorated in our nation's capitol today.

Since joining Boys Hope Girls Hope of Illinois, Anne Cisle Murray has served all the executive positions on the organization's Women's Board. In addition to her presence on the Board of Directors and the Marketing Committee, she has also served as President, Vice President, Secretary, Dinner Dance Chairperson and Auction Chairperson.

On a personal level, Anne and her family have been generous to the BHGH organization for many years. Anne reaches out to the community by welcoming young students in the program to her home to facilitate social interaction and familiarity with the other program families. Her general thoughtfulness and care ensure the success of the BHGH program and its participants.

Anne Cisle Murray's determination to enrich the lives of children has made her a priceless member of Boys Hope Girls Hope of Illinois. By investing her time and love of children into this organization, Anne Cisle Murray has helped to make the future brighter for the at-risk children of Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, as co-leader of the Honorary Congressional Girl Scout Troop, I am pleased to congratulate Kathy Cloninger, who has recently been named as Chief Executive Officer of Girl Scouts of the USA. Under Kathy's leadership, Girl Scouts of the USA will truly become the preeminent organization advocating for America's girls.

As a former Girl Scout I know first hand the difference that scouting can make in a girl's life. More than 3 million girls look to Girl Scouts of the USA to help them grow into talented, successful young women.

As a former businesswoman, I also know first hand the difference that the leader of an organization can make. As co-leader of Troop Capitol Hill, I look forward to working closely with Kathy Cloninger. Her vision for Girl Scouting is inspiring.

Under Kathy's leadership, Girl Scouts of the USA will complete their transition from the Girl Scouts that I knew, to the Girl Scouts that is now rising to the challenge of addressing the needs of contemporary girls with contemporary issues. From Girl Scouts Beyond Bars to troops in public housing communities, as I tell my daughter, this is not your mother's Girl Scouts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in congratulating Kathy Cloninger in her new position and wish her the best of luck.

Mr. Speaker, ``I strongly believe that seniors deserve and need a prescription drug benefit that's part of Medicare. I believe we should strengthen Medicare by adding drug coverage that will save seniors money and preserve the choices that matter. I will vote against this bill because it does not get us where we need to be.

``This legislation prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices; gives big drug and insurance companies $82 billion in subsidies just to compete with Medicare; and will privatize Medicare by pushing seniors into HMOs.

``I introduced a bill that would have provided immediate, real drug discounts to all seniors without turning over part of Medicare to HMOs. Unfortunately, it was not brought to a vote.

``There are many serious problems with the bill being debated today that people are trying to sweep under the rug. Up to a quarter of seniors on Medicare would pay more for prescriptions than they do now. Up to seven million seniors would pay higher Medicare premiums unless they join an HMO and give up their choice of doctor. Two to three million retirees would lose the drug coverage provided by their former employers. Millions of seniors would go without drug coverage for parts of every year, even though they would be charged premiums year-around. Seniors would be prohibited from purchasing American-made drugs from Canada at lower prices. After they have spent $1,169 on prescription drugs, seniors will have to pay their full drug costs until they reach $3,600 in drug expenditures.

``I am deeply suspicious that this bill, written almost entirely by Republicans, put the special interests of HMOs and pharmaceutical companies over seniors' interests. It will give $82 billion to private insurance companies so they can compete with Medicare, yet Medicare will be forbidden from negotiating lower drug prices with drug companies and competing in the same way. Even AARP has a financial stake in this bill. The company derives almost 60% of its annual revenue from selling insurance products. If they capture even 10% of the prescription drug market, their profits would be $1.5 billion.

``As a former investment banker, I know risk management. The magic of Medicare is that everyone has always been in the pool--the wealthy and healthy as well as sick and lower-income seniors. This bill will turn that on its head--driving the healthy and wealthy out of Medicare and creating large tidal pools in which sick and lower-income people are left without anything.

``It is a bad bill that will hurt millions of seniors and not really benefit anyone but the drug and insurance companies. I will vote against it, and I encourage all of my colleagues to stand up for seniors and do the same.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work in producing an Energy and Water Appropriations bill that funds a number of important programs This legislation includes significant increases over the President's request for Basic Energy Research and for Energy Supply programs.

Sadly, this bill also marks a watershed in U.S. nuclear policy that will have dire consequences for us and for our children. Indeed, by funding research on adapting nuclear weapons for new uses against hard and deeply buried targets and funding work on new low yield nukes, Congress has given its stamp of approval to a persistent effort by this administration to put the United States back in the business of making nuclear weapons.

The funding of these two initiatives has been the culmination of the work of nuclear hawks in the administration who had produced a Nuclear Posture Review in December of 2001 that places a strong emphasis on the use of nuclear weapons for both offensive and defensive purposes and a misguided National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction in December 2002 that outlines new scenarios when the United States would consider using nuclear weapons.

The development not only marks a new chapter in American national security policy that directly invites a nuclear arms race with any power that wishes to compete, but also a shameful moment for Congress when elected officials have been too willing to embrace a new weapons program without challenging what have been very lightweight justifications.

Mr. Speaker, nuclear weapons will remain a crucial part of America's arsenal for the foreseeable future. They provide a hedge against potentially hostile nuclear powers and underpin security commitments to our allies. But today, the United States is addressing the threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan and a growing list of counties.

The Director of the CIA, George Tenet, warned last February that the ``desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge ``among small countries'' and that ``we have entered a new world of proliferation.''

Even Russia, our former Cold War rival whom we fought in a conflict that almost brought the world to the brink of annihilation, on noting the administration's current intent to pursue a new generation of nuclear weapons, has responded by making plans to strengthen its nuclear deterrent by modernizing delivery vehicles and keeping a number of heavy ballistic missiles previously slated for dismantlement.

Instead of working to build an equitable global regime that actively devalues nuclear weapons and creates incentives for their elimination, the administration would rather develop new battlefield nuclear capabilities, leading us into a world where nuclear weapons are seen as legitimate alternatives for all nations and the taboo on their use is severely eroded.

The administration's intent to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons of any size makes a mockery of the President's claim that the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) he signed with Russian President Putin marked the true end of the Cold War.

Indeed, if you combine the repeal of the ban on development of low yield nuclear weapons contained in the Defense Authorization Bill with the funding of these same weapons in this bill and the flexibility in the SORT which allows both Russia and the United States too keep all their weapons rather than dismantle them, we actually have the makings of a nuclear arms buildup in this country for the first time since the end of the Cold War.

While this bill cuts funds in half for the Robust Earth Penetrator and ties $4 million of the $6 million requested for advanced concepts to an important reporting requirement, there is no such thing as opening Pandora's box part way.

With this bill, the United States has crossed a major threshold and entered a new nuclear era.

By approving the administration's request for plans to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, Congress has failed the American people by adopting policies that potentially make the United States less secure.

The justifications the administration offered for its nuclear agenda--the need to maintain the knowledge of our nuclear designers and the need to strengthen our nulcear deterrent by developing more usable nuclear weapons--were paper thin.

The first justification deserves little comment. The argument that Congress needs to create a jobs program for scientists to help hone their skills doesn't hold water.

Second, the proposition that nuclear weapons can somehow be engineered to be smarter and cause less collateral damage is simply false.

Nuclear weapons will never surgically destroy hardened targets.

They offer no guarantee of destroying chemical and biological agents without releasing them into the atmosphere.

Detonated in an urban area, even a 1-kiloton nuclear bomb with a yield much lower than the nuclear warheads under consideration for an RNEP would kill tens of thousands of civilians and hinder friendly troops.

Our warfighters do not have a military requirement for new nuclear weapons, and we have not exhausted research on conventional alternatives.

I am deeply concerned that by preaching the rhetoric of disarmament and nonproliferation, and on the other hand, developing a new generation of weapons of mass destruction, we are making the world a more dangerous place. Perhaps the most alarming thing this Congress has done is to trivialize nuclear weapons and their destructive power.

The prohibition on low yield weapons not only was necessary, it reinforced the notion that nuclear weapons should always be considered the most destructive weapons known to man.

By lifting the ban on research and funding their development in this bill, it is much easier to believe that they are just like any other usable weapons system, rather than a horrific weapon of last resort.

The American people are poorly served when the executive branch does not engage them on policies that may have catastrophic consequences for them in the future and when their elected officials are reluctant to ask the hard questions or thoroughly review the administration's national security propositions.

I am going to vote for this bill because it contains a number of important provisions for our economy.

It will be up to this Congress and subsequent Congresses however, to ensure that the administration's quest for new and more usable nuclear capabilities does not take us closer to the day when we decide to use them again.

We did not heed the protests of the current mayor of the city of Hiroshima who wrote the President on the anniversary of the bombing of his city this summer that ``this clear indication that the United States intends to develop small nuclear weapons raises the horrifying specter that nuclear weapons will actually be used'' and represents a ``frontal attack on the process of nuclear disarmament.''

If today we are unwilling to listen to those who have the only experience of the consequences of nuclear war, I hope that in the very near future we can at least start giving proper attention to this development in future hearings and debates.

Mr. Speaker, I have mixed emotions as I consider the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization conference report.

I would like to thank my chairman, Mr. Hunter, and Ranking Member Skelton for working with me on several items that will benefit the people in my district, Travis Air Force Base, and our military airlift capabilities overall.

Indeed, the language in the bill expediting the transfer of land from the Navy to the Housing Authority of the City of Dixon will improve the living and work conditions of migrant workers who contribute to the local economy.

The language preventing the Secretary of the Air Force from retiring C-5A aircraft until one has been modernized and tested is a crucial measure that not only sustains a critical investment in upgrading one of the United States' most reliable transport planes, but it also ensures that Travis Air Force Base will continue to be an important provider of strategic lift in the near future.

The bill also contains a number of important provisions for our men and women in uniform such as an increase in base pay; a reduction in housing expenses; an increase in family separation allowance; and an increase in the rate of special pay for our brave troops who serve in hostile situations and imminent danger.

Despite these important positive elements, the bill contains several reckless provisions that undermine the security of the United States and needlessly jeopardize civilian employees and the environment.

This bill puts the United States back in the business of making nuclear weapons, adds unnecessary regulations that hamstring the DOD's nonproliferation programs, takes away the protections of civilian personnel, and gratuitously endangers the environment.

By lifting the ban on research and development of low yield nuclear weapons, Congress is abetting the administration's efforts to build a new generation of nuclear weapons; is inviting an arms race with rogue states, terrorists and allies; and is making a nuclear conflict more likely in the long run by undoing decades of American leadership in controlling the spread of the most deadly weapons known to man.

The Defense Bill, rather than increasing the budget for the DOD's valuable cooperative threat reduction programs that dismantle and destroy weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union, adds unnecessary funding restrictions that in the end will only hurt the security of the American people.

The broad environmental exemptions provided for in the bill will undermine efforts to protect our environment by, among other things, making it harder to wall-off parts of military facilities as protected areas for wildlife.

Proponents use spin to claim this is necessary for military readiness, but it's hard to see how a blanket environmental exemption for everything on military installations from golf courses to swimming pools are pressing matters of national defense.

Moreover, the Pentagon can already get waivers from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act when national security is at stake. But in the three decades since these laws have been in effect, not a single waiver has been sought.

The bill also abolishes DOD's long-standing labor relations system and replaces it with one in which civilian employees have only minimal consultation with unions and Congress.

The bill allows DOD to remove basic due process rights that employees currently enjoy by waiving their right to a written response, their right to be represented by an attorney, and their right to a written decision explaining the action.

I am deeply disturbed that the Republican Party has hijacked an important bill for our troops and attached to it a radical slash-and- burn ideology that is sure to undermine civilian morale at the Pentagon, needlessly endanger the environment and most alarmingly, endanger the American people with an irresponsible nuclear agenda.

I am voting for this bill because I do not believe, especially in a time of war, we should punish our active troops by withholding funds and measures that would benefit them because of some of the administration's imprudent and over-reaching provisions in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Robert Ruark, whose retirement from his position as Chief Criminal Investigator of the Solano County Health and Social Services, Special Investigations Bureau will commence on Thursday, November 6, 2003. During his fourteen year career with the county, Chief Ruark has established himself as an extraordinary leader in law enforcement. At his retirement, his many accomplishments and hard work will be recognized within the community of his colleagues and friends.

Robert Eugene Ruark was born in Turlock, California on November 4, 1946. After graduating from Turlock High School in 1964, Robert went on to attend Modesto Community College where he earned an Associate of Arts degree in Criminal Justice. He then attended Chapman University in 1968 where he obtained a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Social Sciences. Desiring to put his education to work, Mr. Ruark entered the U.S. Army as a Military Policeman and then served in the Republic of Vietnam as a Military Police Investigator. In 1969, Mr. Ruark graduated from the

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Course which allowed him to serve as a CID Special Agent until his retirement as a Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) in 1989.

In April that same year, he received his appointment as the Criminal Investigator II for the Special Investigations Bureau, Solano Health and Social Services Department and became a member of the California Welfare Fraud Investigators Association. In four short years he was promoted to the position of Supervising Criminal Investigator. His current rank as Chief Criminal Investigator was received in August of 2000.

Robert's dedication to the community is not limited to his work in law enforcement. His desire to serve the community as a positive influence motivated his ordainment to the priesthood of the Orthodox Christian Church in 1996. Upon his retirement from law enforcement, he will continue to serve the community as the pastor of St. Timothy Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church, as he has done since January of 1997. Through his work as pastor he cooperates with a local area food bank to distribute food to many of the areas homeless and those living at or below the poverty level.

However, of all his accomplishments he is probably most proud of his successful 32 year relationship with his wife, Alida, and his two wonderful children: William and Stephanie. Stephanie's daughters, Mikayla and Brianna, have further enriched his personal life.

His fellow employees of the Solano County Health and Social Services, Special Investigation Bureau will forever remember Chief Ruark's extraordinary leadership and contributions to the community.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I am offering an amendment with my friend and colleague from California (Mr. George Miller) to transfer $300 million from the weapons inspectors in Iraq to pay for lifesaving equipment for the Army National Guard and Reserve troops currently serving there. Our amendment would leave the remaining $300 million to focus on finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, if there are any. Some 300,000 of our Guard and Reserve personnel have been called to active duty to fight terrorists in Africa and Asia and secure the peace in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Iraq. They are being called on to serve multiple tours and will continue to serve until we either stabilize Iraq or get international troops in there to share the burden. Yet our Guard and Reserve forces are working in Iraq without bulletproof jackets, armored vehicles and other basic lifesaving equipment. I am deeply concerned that if the demands of the Guard and Reserve do not ease up in the coming months, we will severely undermine our ability to attract new Reservists and keep ones that we have, which will prevent those who are currently serving in Iraq from returning to civilian life. If we are to depend on our brave citizen-soldiers to secure the peace in Iraq and prosecute the war on terrorism elsewhere, it is critical that they have the same equipment as everyone else.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to increase funds to protect the lives of our troops currently serving in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

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

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

I want to thank the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations for not only including me on the trip but for his eloquence and his leadership. I appreciate the fact that he recognizes the urgent needs of our Guard and Reserve. I know that he intends to work diligently to provide them with the money to get this new equipment. I do think that it would be wiser for us to have U.N. inspectors in there not only to have more credibility but also to share the burden. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is with a heavy heart that I vote for this bill. While I am deeply troubled at the prospect of adding even more to our rapidly spiraling debt, poor planning and severe mismanagement by the White House have left 113,000 American troops in a deadly situation in Iraq without the training or equipment they need.

We cannot make this bill a retroactive referendum on all the mistakes President Bush has made about this war. Nearly $65 billion in this bill is for our troops who are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they desperately need it. When I went to Iraq last month, I learned that there are literally thousands of American troops there who lack basic life-saving equipment like bullet-proof vests. How can we tell them their lives are not worth the price tag?

If we don't send the money our troops need, we leave them stranded in an incredibly dangerous environment. If we pull out our troops now, we will leave innocent Iraqis in a security and economic situation worse than before the war began and our own country more vulnerable.

I attempted to amend this bill to hold the administration more accountable for the $20 billion they are requesting for reconstruction. I believe that part, but not all, of the responsibility for reconstructing Iraq lies with the United States, and I call on the administration to increase its efforts to seek international support to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. Until it is stabilized and self- governing, Iraq will remain a potential breeding ground for terrorism in a volatile region.

Mr. Chairman, I urge you to put good public policy over politics and ensure bills as distasteful as these cease to be the norm in the House of Representatives.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3289, President Bush's $87 billion funding request for Iraq. This supplemental appropriations bill is not about showing support for our troops. We are all united behind their courageous efforts. This is about where the United States goes from here.

I think most Americans realized that our commitment overseas would be lengthy and it would be costly. However, the Administration has been unwilling or unable to state its plans for the creation of stable representative governments, able to police and defend themselves, in Iraq or in Afghanistan. We have absolutely no idea how long troops will be stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan and we have no idea how much money will be required to complete this mission. When pressed by the Appropriations Committee for answers on these points, the Administration declined to give any answers. That is not good enough. It is time for the President to provide us all with answers to those questions.

I understand that the President cannot set out a precise timetable for troop withdrawal and he may not be able to provide a guaranteed final budget figure. I am not expecting that level of detail. However, I do expect, and this great country deserves, basic information about the future of this mission. That information is not forthcoming, and yet we are being asked to provide an additional $87 billion for an effort that has already cost billions of dollars and hundreds of American lives--without an end in sight to costing more of both.

I opposed the initial decision to invade Iraq because I did not believe that we had given the international inspectors sufficient time to confirm the President's allegations. Furthermore, I do not agree that the United States can or should impose democracy by force. I believe that my vote was correct at the time and every passing day confirms my conviction that I judged rightly. I did not approve of the initial invasion, and until I hear a responsible and realistic plan for dealing with the consequences of the invasion, I cannot in good conscience vote to approve these funds.

I fear that we are lacking more than an exit strategy. We need a foreign policy. This Administration has failed to meet the challenges of the post Cold War, post 9/11 world. Today, I insist on a plan for Iraq. Further, I would respectfully ask for clarification on our plans relative to other countries--notably North Korea, Iran and Syria. I understand that these countries differ from Iraq, and from each other, in their domestic politics and geopolitical importance. Nonetheless, the President has singled out these countries as he did Iraq. How does he plan on addressing his stated concerns relative to each of these? Does he plan another military campaign? Will he rely on diplomacy? Will he engage the international community?

Finally, I would certainly approve the replacement of armaments used in Iraq--we need a well-equipped military. I would approve funds to rebuild Iraq--we have an obligation to leave that country on its feet when we depart and the world expects no less. I would approve funding to increase the size of our military so that Congress would not have to resort to the use of private security to protect our military bases as this proposal allows. If necessary, I would approve funds to provide basic necessities for our troops--such as Kevlar, adequately armored vehicles, necessary communications equipment and comfortable living accommodations. However, I believe that these latter items should have been funded in the annual Defense appropriation; they are foreseeable and should have been available prior to engagement.

I have supported similar appropriations requests in the past, for Iraq and for Afghanistan. I would support similar funding if it were accompanied by a plausible plan for the phased withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. However, absent such information, I cannot, and will not, support this request for funding at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Ronn Owens, who received the National Association of Broadcasters' prestigious Marconi Award for major market personality of the year on October 2, 2003.

Ronn Owens began his broadcast career in 1968, hosting radio programs in Atlanta, Miami, Cleveland, and Philadelphia before moving to the Bay Area and KGO in 1975.

Over his thirty-five year radio career, Ronn Owens has established himself as the host of the most compelling and thought-provoking morning talk show in Northern California. A half-million fans tune into The Ronn Owens Show every morning to hear his opinions on a range of issues, from popular culture and gossip to current events and politics. He refers to his show as ``the ultimate town meeting.''

Ronn's guest list reads like a roster of Who's Who among world leaders, top celebrities, personalities, and newsmakers of the day. He has brought his devoted Bay Area audience numerous political figures, such as Al and Tipper Gore, John McCain, Bill Bradley, and Ralph Nader and celebrity personalities, such as tennis player Andre Agassi, theatrical legend Carol Channing, and attorney Johnnie Cochran. Ronn is the newsmen's news man. He has interviewed ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, veteran Washington Correspondent for ABC News Sam Donaldson, NBC's Washington Bureau Chief and Meet the Press host Tim Russert, Hardball host Chris Matthews, and CNN's Wolf Blitzer, to name a few.

Ronn Owens' sense of humor, directness, and intellect has made him a legend in the morning radio talk show industry. Ronn is quoted as saying that he is ``just like everybody else--I look at the world around me and comment on it.'' His fans will forever love Ronn as the man who tickled their funny bones, increased their awareness of national and local issues, and opened their hearts and minds.

Before being elected to Congress, I was a Ronn Owens listener. Over the past seven years, I have gotten to know Ronn as a guest on his show, and I have come to respect him a great deal. I have always found him to be insightful, funny and--even when we are at opposite ends of an issue--fair.

Congratulations, Ronn, on thirty-five years and the Marconi Award. Here's to thirty-five more.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Jose-Luis Orozco, whose commitment to bilingual education is being honored by the National Hispanic Caucus and the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) in Washington D.C.

Throughout the last quarter century, Jose-Luis Orozco has established himself as one of the premier bilingual educators in the United States. His accomplishments and hard work as an author, songwriter, performer and recording artist in the field of bilingual education will be recognized and commemorated in our nation's capital today.

Born in Mexico City, Jose-Luis Orozco discovered his love of music at a young age under the influence of his paternal grandmother. At age 8, he joined the Mexico City Boys Choir, traveling to 32 countries where he gained the cultural knowledge he shares with children through his wonderful books and songs.

At age 19, Orozco immigrated to California where he gained a bachelors degree at the University of California, Berkeley and a Masters in Multicultural Education from the University of San Francisco.

Originally a teacher, Jose-Luis Orozco found his true passion in sharing with children the songs and rhymes he picked up on his world travels.

Over his more than 30 year career as an author, songwriter, performer and recording artist, Jose-Luis Orozco has shared his work with millions of children throughout the country. He has recorded 13 volumes of Lirica Infantil, Latin American children's music, and written two award winning books, Diez Deditos (Ten Little Fingers) and De Colores and other Latin American Folk Songs for Children. These works have become an essential teaching tool used in tens of thousands of multilingual classrooms across the country.

Jose-Luis Orozco's determination to enrich the lives of children has made him a true legend in multilingual education. The world will forever remember Jose-Luis Orozco as the educator who has and will continue to make learning fun for millions of children through the medium of music.

Mr. Speaker, I am submitting this statement for the Record as a sign of my strong disapproval for what we are about to do. As a pro-choice, pro-child mother and Member of Congress, I believe that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

For more than a quarter-century, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear line on this issue.

As Americans and lawmakers, we are bound by the Constitution--and we must realize that an all-out ban on late-term abortions fails to meet the ``life and health of the mother'' standard the Supreme Court established in Roe and upheld in both Casey and Webster. The bill we have before us today does not take into consideration the health of the mother. The Supreme Court has found similar laws unconstitutional and will do the same with this one.

If the bill banned all late-term abortions, but allowed for the constitutionally required exception when it would be necessary to save the mother's life or avert serious health consequences, then I would support it.

The anti-women's health majority that continues to push this legislation is putting their own convoluted political agenda above the health concerns of women and above the law. The choice whether or not to have an abortion is a private and personal decision. It should be made between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God. The federal government has no business interfering.

I strongly object to this bill and urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), in a colloquy.

I am concerned about the transfer authority provided under sections 3(a) and (b) of the bill. This provision, as I understand it, allows States during this interim period to transfer funds from critical highway safety, transportation enhancement, and congestion mitigation and air quality programs. I want to be assured that the real intent of this provision is to give States additional authority for those cases where it is needed on a project-by-project basis to move funds beyond which current law would allow.

Further, it is my understanding that in cases where funds are transferred, section 3(c) specifically requires the restoration of any transferred funds promptly after the date of enactment of any subsequent law reauthorizing the Federal aid highway program, whether it be a short-term extension act or multiyear reauthorization legislation.

Therefore, this transferability provision expires at the end of the 5-month period on February 29, 2004; and any funds borrowed are required to be restored.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, and Pipelines.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the help of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar) on this. I really understand the clarification, and I support the bill.