Floor Statements

I thank my friend, Chairman Johnson, for the opportunity to speak today in support of the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act.

Mr. Chairman, I can't tell you how pleased I am to have joined my good friend and neighbor, Jerry McNerney, in introducing H.R. 700. As Californians, Mr. McNerney and I know how precious every drop of water is to our communities, our economy, and our way of life.

Our legislation provides a real Federal commitment to exploring alternative water sources now so we can have the water supplies we will need in the future. This legislation will reauthorize a critical EPA program which was authorized in 2000 by the then Republican-controlled Congress.

Unfortunately, the Republican Congress' commitment to the program and water supply reliability ended with words, not deeds. The program was never funded, and the EPA never implemented it.

Fortunately, today is a very new day. This Congress has the opportunity to provide local communities with the means to invest in critical alternative water source projects.

By providing a modest $125 million authorization for this EPA program, we will help communities plan for their future; and investing in innovative projects such as water recycling, water reuse and aquifer storage will allow our local communities to use water more effectively and efficiently.

In my own district, these types of projects are already under way and will benefit from today's legislation. Projects like the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program and the Bay Area Regional Desalination Project are all advancing alternative water sources now and will be able to continue their work through access to these grants.

If we are effectively to plan for our Nation's future to use critical resources, there has to be Federal investment and innovation. The passage of H.R. 700 will clearly indicate that this Congress is ready to lead.

Today, some are trying to say that this program is duplicative, that these types of projects can already be funded through existing sources. First, let me say that we all understand that programs such as the Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds can be used for alternative water source projects.

However, in fiscal year 2007, the President's budget cut the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by 22 percent, and in the fiscal year 2006 he recommended that the fund be cut by $370 million.

So let me ask a simple question: Where will our communities find the resources to maintain and improve critical infrastructure and plan for the future if the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress keep cutting the funds? It is disingenuous for anyone to claim that there are already resources available for these critical water projects while they are cutting the funds.

So it is time for us all to be responsible. It is time to make critical investments in water infrastructure which have been neglected for all too long, and it is time to ensure our communities can plan for their future water needs.

Mr. Chairman, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act, which was passed by a voice vote in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I urge all of my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Madam Chairman, I rise today as the Chair of the House New Democrat Coalition in strong support of the Employee Free Choice Act. Passage of today's legislation will give working Americans a basic right--the ability to choose, unabated, whether to join with their coworkers and bargain for a better life. As Americans strive for fairer treatment at work and greater economic prosperity, it is a right which we must not deny them. There is powerful evidence that America's middle class is stronger when workers join together and bargain for better wages, better working conditions and better benefits. In fact, union workers' median weekly earnings are thirty percent higher than nonunion workers'. Eighty percent of union workers have employer-provided health insurance. And sixty-eight percent of union workers have a guaranteed pension through a defined benefit pension plan.

Contrary to what opponents of the legislation will say, the Employee Free Choice Act does not mandate that workers join a union. It does not abolish the secret ballot election process. And it will not make union organization more vulnerable to fraud and coercion. It will, however, provide American workers with a choice--a choice and a hand in determining their future economic prosperity. This is the least we can do for America's workers. I strongly encourage all my Colleagues to join with me and support H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of debate time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 157, and as the designee of the majority leader, I demand that the time for debate be enlarged by 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the leaders or their designees.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am honored to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy at this time to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored at this time to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from the great State of California (Mr. Waxman), the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 157 and as the designee of the majority leader, I demand that the time for debate be enlarged by 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the leaders or their designees.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a chief deputy whip.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee for yielding time.

At this time I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield myself 20 minutes. And at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to my good friend and neighbor in California, the gentlewoman from Oakland, Representative Barbara Lee of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my neighbor and colleague from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lend my strong support to this bipartisan resolution supporting our men and women in uniform and opposing the President's decision to send more troops into Iraq.

Last year, Congress united across party lines to say loudly and clearly, the year of 2006 must be a year of significant transition in Iraq. Rather than chart a new course, the President is proposing more of the same. His actions will only deepen America's involvement in Iraq's civil war.

Instead of acknowledging the facts on the ground, instead of listening to the combatant commanders and the Iraq Study Group and instead of hearing the American people's call for change, the President has once again chosen to stick to his failed policies, and now he has raised the risk by insisting more U.S. troops head to Iraq.

It has been 4 years, Mr. President. The American people have every right to expect a change of course in Iraq, and it is your responsibility to them and our men and women in uniform to stop fighting Iraq's civil war.

As General Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency under President Reagan, wrote this weekend, unless Congress speaks up, and I quote, we may be doomed to 2 more years of chasing a mirage in Iraq and possibly widening the war to Iran. We cannot let that happen. Sending more U.S. troops to Iraq will not stabilize it or the region as a whole. As the latest National Intelligence Estimate makes clear, Iraq is becoming more polarized and violent, not less. Sending more American troops to Iraq without stronger Iraqi leadership will only lead to further chaos.

My consistent opposition to this troop surge is built upon years of hearings in the House Armed Services Committee, congressional briefings and five trips to the region, including three to Iraq, witnessing the war firsthand and speaking with our troops and commanders on the ground.

I have watched the President plead his case to the American people, trying to justify why more troops will save his failed policy; but I am consistently disappointed by the stubbornness exhibited by an administration that has failed every step of the way.

I have stated from the beginning of the war that the Commander in Chief has the responsibility to define a well-articulated mission that has the support of the American people and an exit strategy to bring our troops home sooner and safer. He has neither.

Top military commanders in Iraq, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and the American people all agree that sending more troops to Iraq will not end the civil war. They understand the Iraqi Government needs to take responsibility for securing their own country, and we should immediately begin a strategic redeployment of U.S. troops in conjunction with diplomacy that forces Iraq's neighbors to step up as regional, responsible partners.

If the President sidesteps the Congress, he does so at his own peril; and, sadly, it is the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families who will pay the highest price.

I believe it is grossly irresponsible to send more troops to Iraq when only two thirds of our Army's up-armored Humvees in Iraq and Afghanistan have been fitted with the latest anti-IED protective kits. That is over 4,000 Humvees without the right equipment.

General Pace has indicated that all armored vehicles will not be up- armored until July, well after the President's surge has occurred.

This is why I am an original cosponsor of the Meehan legislation that requires the President to ask Congress for an up-or-down vote if he plans to raise troop levels in Iraq and why I am proud to support this legislation today.

I will continue to challenge the President to abandon his flawed troop surge policy, and I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution. We owe it to our troops and to our conscience.

If the gentleman will yield, I just wanted to respond, since you were so nice to quote me.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is, as we all know, the Iraq Study Group had a very comprehensive strategy, but it was a radical departure from what the President is proposing today in this surge. I think there was some, you know, 70-plus recommendations in the Iraq Study Group, including shifting the mission to training of the Iraqi Security Forces and a big emphasis on diplomacy. So I don't think it is fair for the gentleman to cherry-pick a paragraph out of what the Iraq Study Group says.

But with all due respect, I will tell you what the Iraq Study Group recommended is not what the President is doing now. Frankly, the President has rejected the Iraq Study Group recommendations, and I think that to suggest that he is going along with the Iraq Study Group recommendations is really not correct.

Well, yielding myself some time, I don't disagree with you, but one recommendation out of some 70-odd does not make the Iraq Study Group what the President is doing.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am going to yield myself 25 minutes, and at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Costello.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 6 minutes to my friend and colleague from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, colleague, and neighbor from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 6 minutes to my friend and colleague from Tennessee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

(Mr. COOPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining on both sides?

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I was interested in my colleague, the last speaker's questions, the question about why do we have a nonbinding resolution and does it have any significance. I should say, no one should minimize the significance of this resolution. Passage by a bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives of this resolution opposing the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq would be a major turning point in the war debate.

Despite the fact that it is nonbinding, passage would have enormous significance. This bipartisan resolution is serving as the basis for the first real debate on the President's flawed Iraq war policy since the war began nearly 4 years ago. Last November, the voters sent President Bush a loud and unmistakable message about Iraq, but the President didn't listen.

As his announcement of an escalation of the war showed, passage of this bipartisan resolution is a second

chance for the President to hear a strong, clear message that cannot be ignored. Passage of this bipartisan resolution will send another clear message: No more blank checks for the President on Iraq.

In addition, passage of a nonbinding resolution opposing the President's escalation plan is only the first step in the Congress, demanding a changing of course in Iraq. When this resolution containing fewer than 100 words passes, we will take the country in a new direction in Iraq. A vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional legislation, which will be coming to the House floor.

Furthermore, what is surprising, as I see my colleagues from the other side trot forward one after another, I have to remind them that in their 12 years in the majority, House Republicans passed hundreds, hundreds of nonbinding resolutions, including in very similar situations.

For example, on October 30, 1995, the House Republican leadership brought to the floor and passed H. Res. 247, a nonbinding resolution repudiating President Clinton's pledge to deploy up to 20,000 troops to Bosnia as part of a peacekeeping force. I will remind my colleagues, Kosovo is about to be declared independent because the United States and NATO countries interceded and stopped the genocide there. That is a perfect example of wrongheaded policy that Democrats were able to put forward.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Madam Speaker, I am happy today, right now, to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

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

I just want to rise to close this debate from our side and say how impressed I have been by the debate that I have heard today. It has been about 11 hours. We are going to have tomorrow and debate on Friday and Thursday, and this is the first real serious debate we have had about the President's policies in Iraq since the vote in October of 2002.

This week the House is considering a bipartisan resolution introduced by Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, Tom Lantos of California, and Walter Jones of North Carolina, which supports our troops and opposes the President's plan to add 21,500 more combat troops in Iraq.

People have talked quite a lot tonight about the size and the scope of the resolution, but it is elegant and it is certainly spare in the fact that it is about 100 words, but it is significant because of what it says.

The resolution is very straightforward. It says:

``Resolved by the House of Representatives that:

``(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

``(2) Congress disapproves of the decision by President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.''

Those supporting this bipartisan resolution strongly support our troops and our veterans. Let us be clear on this one fundamental principle. We are honoring the service of our troops by asking the difficult questions about this war. In conducting this debate, we must be ever mindful of the sacrifices our military personnel and their families are making during this war and the toll it is taking on them and their families and our veterans. Each Member must determine for themselves, in a manner worthy of our troop's sacrifice, whether the President's plan will succeed in making Iraq more stable.

I, for one, do not believe it will, and I strongly believe and hope that my colleagues will support this resolution and the debate that is coming forth in the next 2 days

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

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 35 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, let me first thank my friend and colleague from California for her passion and her presence and for her leadership and also my other colleague Barbara Lee and for Lynn Woolsey and so many of my colleagues who have been indefatigable, unrelenting and brilliant in their insistence that we continue to put pressure on the administration and the President specifically for the litany of mistakes that have been made in Iraq, but at the same time holding deeply in our hearts the fighting men and women that come from all of our neighborhoods, come from all of our communities. For your patriotism, I cannot thank you enough. For your leadership and friendship, I will always be indebted.

Madam Speaker, I cannot and will not support putting more American troops on the ground in Iraq. I stand here today more convinced than ever that the President's so-called new plan to send over 21,000 additional American troops to Iraq will only lead to further chaos.

My opposition to this troop surge is built upon years of hearings in the House Armed Services Committee, where I serve as subcommittee chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, congressional briefings and five trips to the region, including three to Iraq, witnessing the war firsthand and speaking with our troops and commanders on the ground.

Sadly, the President has gotten it very wrong every step of the way. Yet he continues to ask us to trust him.

When the Republican-controlled Congress was rushing a vote to authorize the war in the middle of 2002's campaign season, I joined my friend Dennis Kucinich to call on the Republican leadership to take the politics out of the vote, take the decision to send our troops into harm's way seriously and postpone the vote until after the election.

We wrote to our colleagues in October of 2002: ``It is incumbent upon us to address the matters of national security and decisions through the reasoned and deliberate process afforded us by our Constitution. This becomes particularly important when these decisions could possibly mean putting our young servicemen and women in harm's way. This is not a process that can be rushed for the sake of political expediency.''

Our best attempts failed. Congress was rushed to a vet, and we had no opportunity to sort through what we now know was the Bush administration's personal collection of cherry-picked or just plain false intelligence.

The President made it clear that he wanted to rush to invade Iraq and prevent international weapons inspectors from finishing their job.

I spoke out at the time saying, ``We must consider every peaceful alternative and contemplate every possible outcome before we turn to force.''

Our warnings were again ignored. In February of 2003, I co-authored legislation that would have required the President to submit a public report to Congress prior to initiating military action in Iraq.

Our bill said: ``The United States should not proceed with unilateral or preemptive military action in Iraq, but if we do have to go to war to disarm Saddam, Congress needs to be sure there are sensible plans that will not compromise our ability to prosecute the War on Terror elsewhere or further destabilize an already volatile region.''

That same month, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the United Nations with the Bush administration's case on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, I again said, ``I continue to believe that the United States should not proceed with unilateral or preemptive military action.''

After the invasion, I remained concerned about the Bush administration's rush to war, and in July 2003 I authored legislation to create a select committee to hold public hearings to investigate several aspects of intelligence, including whether intelligence supported the claim that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States, questioning the accuracy of intelligence that led the administration to believe Iraq was working with al Qaeda, and questioning the role of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon.

The Republican-controlled Congress at the time would not allow my bill to see the light of day.

In September 2003, the President requested an additional $87 billion to finance the war. In response, I authored legislation calling for explanations, noting that ``President Bush has not yet provided Congress with a detailed plan that outlines the strategic objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom.''

I have sent dozens of letters to the President, Secretary Rice, Secretary Rumsfeld and others over the past 4\1/2\ years urging them to explain our mission and exit strategy for Iraq. I have offered suggestions to stabilize Iraq and bring our troops home sooner. Yet I have received few answers.

Last week, I watched the President plead his case to the American people, trying to justify why more troops will save his failed policy. But yet again I was disappointed by the stubbornness exhibited by a President that has failed in Iraq every step of the way.

I have stated throughout the timeline of the war that the Commander- in-Chief has the responsibility to define a well-articulated mission that has the support of the American people and an exit strategy to bring our troops home sooner and safer. The President has neither.

Top military commanders in Iraq, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and the American people all agree that sending more troops to Iraq will not end the civil war. They understand that we should immediately begin a strategic redeployment of U.S. troops in conjunction with diplomacy that forces Iraq's neighbors to step up as responsible regional partners.

Adding additional troops further prevents the Iraqi government from taking responsibility for securing their own country. If the President sidesteps the Congress, he does this at his own peril, and sadly, he does it with the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families paying the highest price.

This is why I am an original cosponsor of the Meehan legislation that requires the President to ask Congress

for an up-or-down vote if he plans to raise troop levels in Iraq.

I am not advocating cutting funds for the troops while they are in harm's way, but I am an advocate of conditioning all further spending for the Iraq War based on the Iraqis meeting security and political benchmarks and establishing a plan for the redeployment of our troops.

I will continue to challenge the President to abandon his flawed troop surge policy, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. We owe it to our troops, to the American people and to our conscience.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of America's senior citizens.

We in the Congress have a duty to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with all the tools necessary to grant seniors continuous access to affordable prescription drugs.

This legislation, which I support, helps move in that direction.

However, we must be careful that our actions do not restrict seniors' access to medicines prescribed to them by their doctors.

And we must be careful to ensure that any changes to Part D do not diminish the ability of life sciences and biotechnology companies to continue innovation--innovation on the drugs that are extending and improving the quality of life for countless people around the globe, and innovation on future research that holds limitless promise.

I also firmly believe that limiting formularies is not the way to go because it has a direct impact on limiting choice to seniors.

We also need to address the donut hole created by the Republican- authored Medicare bill.

It is wrong that we provide seniors help with their drugs, and then suddenly--that help stops. Coverage needs to be continuous.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to rectify this problem. Our seniors deserve it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mayor Kathy Hicks who is retiring after prominently serving the City of Walnut Creek for 17 years.

A resident of Walnut Creek since 1969, she has served on the City Council since November 1994, the City's Planning Commission and the Park, Recreation and Open Space Commission from 1990 to 1994, for which she served as chair. She also served as vice chair of the Walnut Creek Bicycle Advisory Committee, a member of the Boundary Oak Golf Course Advisory Committee, and the Creek Restoration Plan Task Force. She is past vice president of and current City Council liaison to Friends of the Creek, a non-profit organization supporting the creek restoration plan in downtown Walnut Creek.

Mrs. Hicks represents the City as board member for the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, for which she served as chair in 1995 and negotiated a historic reduction in garbage collection rates as part of a new, longterm contract. Additionally, she serves on City Council subcommittees focusing on the library, youth and schools, community outreach, and economic development. Mrs. Hicks is also the City liaison to the Transportation Commission and serves as vice chair of the League of California Cities Community Services Policy Committee.

Mrs. Hicks other community activities include membership in the Walnut Creek Open Space Foundation, the Friends of the Library, the Diablo Regional Arts Association, Ruth Bancroft Garden Conservancy, the Gardens at Heather Farm, the Walnut Creek Action for Beauty Council, the Lindsay Wildlife Museum, American Association of University Women, the National Women's Political Caucus and the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley. Mrs. Hicks is also a 1994 graduate of the Walnut Creek Chamber of Commerce ``Leadership Contra Costa.''

For the 17 years Mrs. Hicks has served the city of Walnut Creek, her hard work and dedication has proved to be a great asset to the community. Today, I am proud to commend her for her service to the community, her dedication to duty and her commitment to the people of Walnut Creek.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Grand Opening of the new Fairfield Cordelia Library in the City of Fairfield, California.

On December 14, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., the new Fairfield Cordelia Library, located on 5050 Business Center Drive, in Fairfield, will open its doors to the public.

Constructing a library in the Cordelia and Lower Green Valley area of Fairfield was identified as a top priority in the Solano County Library's 20-year Facilities Master Plan that was developed in 2000 and was also listed as a top priority of the citizens in the area.

The new library will provide access to the residents of the Cordelia and Green Valley areas of Fairfield, which due to their location and traffic conditions are far removed from convenient library access.

The two-story, building will provide a civic presence that includes a library and city offices for residents in the area.

The City of Fairfield partnered with the County of Solano and the State, to build the $14.5 million, two-story 29,000 square foot facility.

As the lead agency, the City of Fairfield will be the owner of the facility and the County of Solano through the Solano County Library will provide library services.

The Solano County Library's mission statement reads: The Solano County Library offers professional, innovative, cost-effective service by providing library materials, resources, information, entertainment and life long learning opportunities to enrich the lives of the people of Solano County.

The City of Fairfield will continue to partner with the Fairfield- Suisun Unified School District, Solano County Office of Education, and Friends of the Fairfield and Suisun Community Libraries to provide educational services the library and meet the goals as envisioned by the Solano County Library.

As the citizens of Fairfield open their new library, I would like to recognize the City of Fairfield and their partners for this achievement and extend my congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Suisun City mayor, Jim Spering, who after serving 20 years as the mayor of Suisun City will be stepping down to assume his newly elected position as the Solano County supervisor for District Three in January.

Under the leadership of Jim Spering, the city of Suisun constructed a new city hall on the waterfront, symbolizing Suisun City's transformation from what the San Francisco Chronicle rated as ``the worst city to live in'' to what is now considered a jewel on the water. City hall, which for many years was located in a trailer, was ``the only city hall in California that was registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles.'' The city now contains some of the best public spaces in the county, has a vibrant downtown, the quality of housing has improved tremendously, and the city's crime rate has dropped dramatically.

Similar to Billy Beane, the general manager of his favorite team, the Oakland Athletics, Jim has been creative in finding innovative solutions during times of fiscal stress.

In addition to his leadership position on the Suisun City council, Jim Spering has assumed a leadership role on regional transportation issues. This has earned him the reputation as Solano County's ``go to guy'' on transportation matters. Jim Spering has been past chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the 9-county San Francisco Bay area region and is currently on the board. At the MTC, Jim helped found the Transportation for Livable Communities Program which provides incentives for pedestrian and transit-oriented developments that strengthen the link between transportation, land use and community goals.

Jim Spering has also represented Suisun City or Solano County on several boards and commissions including the City Housing Authority, the Solano Transportation Authority,

and District, and Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board. Jim has been a tremendous asset to the city of Suisun and Solano County as one of their most experienced and valued mayors. His efforts earned for him the high esteem of his associates and the appreciation of the public.

As Jim Spering steps down as mayor of Suisun City, I would like to thank him and his wife Pam for their commitment and service to the community of Suisun City. I wish Jim the best of luck in his new leadership role on the Solano County board of supervisors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 100th birthday of a woman who is not only an example of strength to her family, but to all of us as well.

Born in Hartville, OH, December 11, 1906, Letha was the second-born of 10 children to Alvin and Jesse Adams. The family of 12 resided in Ohio until 1915, when they moved west, on what she describes as ``a very long train ride.'' The family settled on a farm in French Camp, just outside of Stockton, CA.

Letha married Wilfred Cannon in 1928. They raised two children, Ruth and Wilfred, Jr., in the Stockton area.

After Wilfred passed away, Letha persevered, and even began a new career as a nurse. She spent 11 years at St. Joseph's Hospital.

In addition to her roles as a nurturing mother and nurse, Letha has made time for her community. She has been active in the PTA, Grange, Escalon Presbyterian Church, French Camp Vaqueros, and Dixon Community Church.

As if her plate was not full enough, Letha is a prize-winning gardener. Her African Violets took first place at the Dixon May Fair.

Letha also takes pleasure in travel. Even at her age, in the past year, she has flown across the country to New Jersey and Wisconsin.

Letha is blessed with 5 surviving siblings, 2 children, 8 grandchildren, 17 great grandchildren, and 29 nieces and nephews.

Her family and friends have gathered together to celebrate her remarkable age of 100 and to thank her for being their ``foster mom,'' as many fondly call her.

Letha Adams Cannon has spent her life enjoying travel, gardening, and most of all, her family. I wish Letha and her family the best on this momentous occasion.

Mr. Speaker, please let me thank my colleague, Mr. McNulty, for his great leadership and my distinguished colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Ramstad, for his friendship and leadership, too.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in really strong support of the Innocent Spouse Protection Act. Along with my great friend and colleague Senator Feinstein of California, I introduced this legislation because I believe that it will provide a straightforward solution to the unfair treatment of innocent spouses under the current law.

Under the current Tax Code, the IRS may relieve an innocent spouse of liability for unpaid taxes if it would be unfair to hold that spouse responsible. No recourse exists, however, to prevent the IRS from seizing assets or garnishing wages if relief is not approved. The story of one Californian provides an example of the problem.

The IRS seized all of her husband's income to pay a tax liability incurred 20 years earlier, very long before they were married, which is clearly not the responsibility of this spouse. But because the IRS seized all of the income, the taxes on the income remained unpaid and, as you can imagine, the ball keeps rolling along.

When this woman's spouse died, the IRS pursued the innocent spouse for the taxes on her deceased husband's income. Along rolls the ball. She was forced to then sell her family home and all of her property owned jointly with her husband. In fact, the IRS may have her wages garnished along with funds set aside for her in a trust by a probate court in a completely unrelated family matter.

Recent decisions by the Eighth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have denied the tax court jurisdiction over petitions for equitable relief. Consequently, there are no mechanisms for review or appeal of these IRS decisions.

The aim of this legislation is to provide an avenue through which these decisions may be appealed. This bill in no way guarantees relief, but rather fixes the broken appeals process for these IRS decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this small change that is supported by my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee that will have a profound effect on the lives of many innocent spouses who deserve their day in court.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Democratic motion to instruct conferees on the SAFE Port Act. The Republican leadership has failed to fix the Department of Homeland Security's grant system which just this week failed to provide the port of Oakland in California, the fourth busiest port in the country in the heart of the Bay Area, with any money at all to protect this vital national security and economic security asset.

The most recent round of port security grant awards demonstrates the agencies' continued ignorance of the security needs of our Nation's ports, and the lack of a credible threat assessment by which to award funds.

Of course, should we be surprised? This is the same agency that identified Old McDonald's Petting Zoo as a vulnerable national asset, but left the Empire State Building off the list as a logical target in need of funding support.

We cannot do enough to protect our critical infrastructure in the United States; but without Ranking Member Thompson's motion to instruct, we will be leaving glaring vulnerabilities in our rail, subway, bus, and trucking systems.

The Republican leadership has had many opportunities to address these issues, separate and apart from ports legislation, but it has failed to take our Nation's domestic security seriously.

Today, through the motion to instruct, the House has the ability to show our absolute commitment to the safety and security of Americans who use our Nation's vital transportation systems. We should follow the leadership of the other body to secure our Nation's rail and transit systems, strengthen aviation security, secure the border, create a national warning and alert system, and provide first responders with post-disaster health monitoring.

By supporting the Democratic motion to instruct conferees, we will get it right; and we will instruct the conferees to accept the Senate positions on these important issues. We should not let this opportunity to do better, to strengthen security, and assist first responders pass us by.

Please support the Democratic motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear: I believe that there is a special place in hell reserved for the planners and perpetrators of 9/11. But 5 years after 9/11, we have yet to hold and try one single terrorist accountable. And sadly, today we have before us a bill that, if passed in its current form, will do nothing but put us in further legal limbo, further delaying punishment for these terrorists.

We need clear legislation and swift, tough and fair justice to be sure that we don't observe another 9/11 anniversary without these terrorists punished.

How do we go about that? Well, I can tell you that we don't do it by passing this bill. We need a bill that is not going to be turned over by the Supreme Court, a bill that is clear about our commitment in the United States to common article 3 and to the kind of rule of law and the law of war that will be sure that these perpetrators of 9/11 and others meet justice and do it quickly.

Right now, we have before us a bill that the Republicans pretty much negotiated among themselves that allows the President to redefine torture when and how he sees fit, and will put our armed services at risk for abuse if they are ever captured while doing little to obtain the intelligence we need from captured terrorists.

That is why so many retired generals, JAG officers and senior military experts oppose the President's plan and say very clearly that we must not go down this road that will put our troops in danger.

The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shalikashvili, and over 40 former military officers and Pentagon officials, wrote recently that the Geneva Conventions are currently the only source of legal protection for many of our troops deployed in harm's way throughout the world.

That is why my amendment that was not approved by the Rules Committee is an important opportunity to get this right. We do have to do this now. It is important to do it now. But we cannot rush to judgment and get it wrong again.

Keep in mind the President's original plan has not given us the ability to prosecute anyone because they got it wrong. And because they blew it, and are about to blow it again, we are still not going to be able to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice, which is what we want to do.

Ladies and gentlemen, please support a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this bill, do the right thing, and get a bill that we can bring to the President to sign soon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Chief Mark Moczulski who is retiring from the city of Antioch Police Department after 29 years of serving Antioch and the entire region.

Mark Moczulski began his distinguished career with the city of Antioch Police Department in 1977. In 1985, he was promoted to police corporal, and in 1987 received the ranking of sergeant. Three years later he became a lieutenant, and in 1996, he was promoted to captain.

In 2000, Mark Moczulski was promoted to police chief for the city of Antioch. As chief, he has been instrumental in helping the police department expand in size and quality of service and supporting community-wide efforts to maintain a high quality of life for city of Antioch residents during the region's punctuated growth.

During his tenure, Chief Moczulski oversaw the completion of several projects to support the department's expansion. Some of these accomplishments include managing the completion of the build-out of the police department's main facility and the establishment of a sub- station at the Prewett Family Water Park.

As Chief, Mark Moczulski was also responsible for several technology improvement projects including the implementation of a new state-of- the-art information and records system as well as acquiring important safety equipment including portable radios for all officers and automated external defibrillators. These expansion projects were important for the police department and even more invaluable for residents of the Antioch community, who now receive more value-added police services than ever before.

Chief Moczulski also worked to improve the quality of department services during his tenure at the Antioch Police Department. His work included the creation of a professional standards and training bureau as well as the development of a continuous testing process for hiring new employees.

As a resident of Antioch with his wife Robin, Mark Moczulski is both a member and leader of the community. Mark has one daughter, Jennifer, who is 24 and a son, Eric, who is 24.

For 29 years, Chief Moczulski has served the Antioch Police Department and surrounding community. His hard work has improved the safety of the city and the community as a whole, and has ensured an enduring legacy of public service in Antioch. Today, I am proud to commend him for his service to the community, his dedication to duty and his commitment to the people of Antioch.