Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is often as the dean of the California delegation a sad duty to report the passing of a colleague, but I have to say today that I want to announce and celebrate with you the life of a distinguished former colleague who died last Saturday at 100 years of age. Augustus Freeman Hawkins had a 28-year career in this body, and I just briefly want to celebrate with you the accomplishments of this gentleman.

Gus, as we all knew him, was born in Shreveport, Louisiana on August 31, 1907, about the same time my dad was born in California. He moved to Los Angeles. He was elected to the State assembly in 1935. He was elected to Congress in 1962, and served here 28 years.

During that 28-year service, he chaired the House Administration Committee, he chaired the Committee on Education and Labor, a whole host of joint committees, Printing, the Library Committee, and decided not to run for reelection in 1990. But among his many accomplishments, and Gus authored more than 300 State and Federal laws in his career, but what he will be most known for, I think, is authoring title VII of the Civil Rights Act which created the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.

He was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. He sponsored and was noted and will be remembered most perhaps for the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act that he sponsored with Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota at that time.

I just want to pay tribute to one of the great careers of one of our great colleagues.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.

I would like to yield, if I may, to the gentlewoman from California who now represents the district that our friend Gus Hawkins represented.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Revenue Subcommittee for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak just to a couple of things, a couple of errors. First of all, I heard from the other side that today was a getaway day. Now, I think of a getaway day as a day to get home to see our constituents. Not, when you say ``getaway,'' how much unfairness in the Tax Code can you get away with? That's not what today's about.

I commend the chairman for putting forth legislation that will prevent millions of Americans from paying higher taxes. I want to talk specifically about one small part and that's carried interest. Half of the $50 billion that we are raising is coming from people who should not be getting away with a tax loophole. That's not raising taxes. That's just taking these people who are collecting carried interest deductions or switching to capital gains. It's a scam. They should be paying their fair share of taxes like all Americans.

If you look at all of these ``left-wing loonies,'' George Mankiw at Harvard, who was President Bush's chairman of Council of Economic Advisers; Mr. Buffett, the Blackstone Group; Michael Graetz, all of them say it's wrong to let carried interest be taxed at the capital gains rate so that the capital gains of $650 million is the average annual income of the top 20. That's 5.5 million bucks a month. Why should they only pay 15 percent? And the answer is they shouldn't. They should pay 35 percent, and this bill will get us a long way towards fairness.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of equal rights for all people. No job applicant should be discriminated against because of his or her race, religion, gender, ethnicity, age, disability, political affiliation--or sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA, H.R. 3685) simply modernizes existing non-discrimination law to prohibit discriminatory employment practices on the basis of sexual orientation.

Everyone knows that employment discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation occurs daily in our country. Many of us know people who have been the victims of such discrimination. It is wrong and it should be against the law. I'm only sorry it has taken us so long to bring this bill forward.

This legislation succeeds in advancing civil rights. However, it still falls short of what

needs to be accomplished. By no means is this bill as inclusive as it should be. It fails to include gender identity as a protected class. I commend Congresswoman Baldwin for her efforts to include the transgender community in today's legislation. Had her amendment reached a vote on the House floor, I would have proudly supported it.

Our Declaration of Independence states that Americans have an inalienable right to liberty and happiness, neither of which can be achieved if equal rights are granted to some and not others. Today's bill continues to leave transgender individuals without equal protection from discrimination.

I support this bill because it brings the country one step closer to a prejudice-free workplace, but I implore my colleagues to work toward legislation that guarantees fair employment practices to all people.

Most of us look back on America's history and bemoan that women and non-whites had to struggle for rights that should have automatically been granted to them. If we as a Congress cannot stand against discrimination for a group of citizens who simply demand the right to be treated fairly in the workplace, we are no better than past legislators who opposed a woman's right to vote or the right of African Americans to sit in the same section of a bus or restaurant as whites. I urge my colleagues to do what is right and support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a Peru Free Trade Agreement that is neither free nor fair. Much like the North American and Central American Free Trade Agreements, this agreement will hurt both working families and the environment.

Building on the Bush Administration's framework for CAFTA, it promotes the offshoring of high-wage American manufacturing jobs by removing many of the risks firms face when relocating to Peru in pursuit of cheap labor.

Much like NAFTA, it enables foreign companies to challenge--in foreign courts--American laws that protect occupational health, safety, and the environment. Already, NAFTA signatories have paid more than $35 million to corporations that have through this provision attacked bans on the use of toxic chemicals, limits on tobacco production and marketing, and regulations on deforestation.

In one case that hit particularly close to home, a foreign firm challenged

California's ban on the use of polluting gasoline additive MTBE. As a result, American taxpayers were forced to pay more than $3 million in legal fees before the case was eventually dismissed on technical grounds.

This agreement also undercuts Congress' authority to ensure American tax dollars are spent to create jobs in America by enabling President Bush to waive existing `Buy America' policies. And it enables foreign firms to challenge American procurement policies designed to promote recycling and renewable energy.

That's why numerous American labor, environmental, consumer, faith, family farm, and development groups oppose this agreement. Both of Peru's labor federations, its major indigenous people's organization, and a prominent Archbishop in the country oppose this agreement as well.

To be fair, this agreement does significantly improve upon the flawed framework provided of the North American and Central American Free Trade Agreements. For new labor and environmental protections that were absent from prior trade deals, I want to thank and recognize the hard work of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee.

Making measured alterations to the rules of the same old game, however, is the wrong approach. Rather than improve on President Bush's trade agreements at the margins, Democrats can and should set the terms of the President's negotiating authority in a way that honors our commitment to America's workers and the environment.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mike Kessler, who died on October 4, 2007 after a short illness. Mike was an active member of his community and a zealous political activist. I will always be thankful to Mike and his wife, Lillian, because they encouraged me to run for Congress.

Mike, a longtime political activist, was born in the College Point area of Brooklyn, New York on September 9, 1916. He married Lillian Hecht in 1941 and was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1942 where he served until 1945.

In the late 1940's Mike and Lillian moved to the west coast, where he earned a degree in Education, started a family, and worked as a furniture sales representative. Despite their active personal and professional lives, he and Lillian always found time to champion the civil rights and social justice causes important to them.

Mike achieved many impressive and diverse goals while working as a political activist. As part of the Hayward Demos' response to incidents of racial discrimination, Mike campaigned for adoption of the ``No Room for Racism'' resolution. Because of his efforts, the ``No Room for Racism'' placard is now proudly displayed in many cities and schools throughout California. He challenged the Patriot Act, which he said was not only racist but would curb the rights of many citizens. He also advocated for a U.S. stamp in recognition of Paul Robeson. Most recently, Mike was an outspoken advocate for a single payer health care system.

Mike was a lifelong Democrat and was never shy about his politics or seeking justice for those forgotten members of the community who could not advocate for themselves. His intensity, while sometimes overwhelming, did not obscure his sincerity and desire to help create a better world for all, regardless of race or creed.

Mike Kessler's constant activism and dedicated efforts to make a difference will be missed and long remembered. On November 17, 2007, Mike's family and friends will gather to celebrate his life. It was a life well lived where he provided hope, promise and recognition to many. He left his mark on the world and his light will continue to shine.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of legislation aimed at protecting children during and after disasters. Our current emergency management system is not

prepared to meet the unique needs of children. The ``Kids in Disasters Well-being, Safety, and Health Act'' (H.R. 3495) represents major progress in fixing this unacceptable situation.

The most important role of government is protecting the health and welfare of families. This is a role that the government must not privatize, contract out, or provide only to the wealthy and well connected.

Unfortunately, as we all witnessed after Hurricane Katrina, the government failed miserably to protect the most vulnerable, particularly children. It is unclear to me whether this failure was the result negligence or incompetence. Perhaps it was the natural result of running a government using a radical ideology that believes government shouldn't work.

What is clear to me is that this body has an obligation to make sure government works and finds ways to help families get back on their feet after disasters. My home state of California is no stranger to disasters: earthquakes, fires, flooding, and mudslides--we've got it all. During the last several weeks, wildfires ravaged Southern California. Just after the worst of the fires, 1300 childcare centers were closed, affecting over 16,000 children. These are children of first responders, teachers, and others that have to get back to work to make sure that the community can rebuild.

We should know if we are doing enough to help these families. We should know if FEMA is doing a good job of assisting those childcare centers to reopen. We should know if we are doing a good job of helping missing children to locate their parents. Local communities and governments should have access to the information and resources they need to ensure that children's needs are taken care of.

This bill will help to fill an enormous gap in our disaster preparedness system. There is currently no agency charged with safeguarding children in the aftermath of a disaster or coordinating the efforts of various levels of government. This bill will begin to close this gap by establishing a National Resource Center for Federal, State, local, and tribal governments as well as NGOs to use to address the needs of children before, during, and after disasters. It will also establish a commission to examine our past failures and make specific recommendations on how to correct those.

Our children are looking to us to take action. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of reforming one of the most antiquated laws still on the books. The General Mining Law of 1872 has remained essentially unchanged since Ulysses S. Grant was President. Originally intended to spur westward expansion, the law has become an environmental and fiscal train wreck. Today we have a chance to reform this relic by passing the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 (H.R. 2262).

Back in 1872 individual miners used hand tools to look for gold and silver; now multi-national corporations blast the tops off of mountains and produce chemicals such as cyanide, arsenic, and mercury that leach into streams and groundwater long after mining operations cease. Much has changed, but the law has not.

For 135 years, mining companies have been the beneficiaries of public largesse that would make even Haliburton blush: over $245 billion worth of minerals have been removed from public lands virtually free of charge. Taxpayers have then been expected to foot the bill for the massive cleanup of abandoned mines to the tune of at least $30 billion. Under the 1872 law, mining takes precedence over ever other concern-- environmental protection, recreation, or safety. The mining industry, which is responsible for more Federal Superfund sites than any other industry, pays no royalties on extracted metals. In addition, through the ``patent'' process, companies can force the sale of public lands for as little as $2.50 per acre. Patenting has resulted in the sale of over 3 million acres of public property at far below market value.

In my home State of California, a recent study found over 21,000 existing mining claims within 10 miles of national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas. The 285 claims within 10 miles of Yosemite threaten one of the Nation's most visited and spectacular parks.

The bill before us protects sensitive lands in California and throughout the West by creating environmental safeguards, transparency, and public participation. Some lands, such as wilderness study areas, would be completely off-limits. In other areas, new mines would be permitted only after a showing that they are not environmentally destructive. Local governments can also challenge new projects. The bill restores fiscal sanity by ending the practice of ``patenting'' and requiring that new mines pay an 8 percent royalty and existing mines pay 4 percent, both reasonable rates and well below what the coal and oil industries pay. These royalties are then put into a fund to pay for the cleanup of old mines.

It is time to fix a law that deserves to disappear into the dustbin of history. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for reform.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this third version of legislation to improve and extend the Children's Health Insurance Program, and I hope the third time will be a charm.

Eighty percent of Americans, 72 percent perhaps, a strong bipartisan majority in the Senate, nearly every House Democrat, and at last count 45 House Republicans, all supported this version of SCHIP. President Bush and many of my Republican colleagues, however, opposed the previous version of this legislation. Supposedly you opposed it because, one, it might have enabled the States to provide health care to adults.

Two, children in the middle-income families might get health care. And, three, worst of all, undocumented immigrant children might have gotten health care. Also, there was a concern by some that we'd run out of money. I haven't heard that concern of where we're going to get $1.7 trillion for a war that we're fighting, but at least you're worried about bringing that money to health care.

The bill before us today answers those criticisms. It should be more acceptable to a few more of my Republican colleagues, perhaps even to the President. The previous version concerns have been met, rectified, and so those who vote against today's legislation can only be voting against the government providing health care to poor children who have no other means of obtaining medical care. That's the only reason left to vote against this. No other way to account for a ``no'' vote.

But I'm most proud of what this bill does not do. It doesn't compromise in covering children. It adds $35 billion in new funding to the SCHIP program, and it provides coverage to 10 million additional children.

I urge my colleagues to join with me, making the third time a charm, not a strike out, for America's children. With even stronger bipartisan support, we may convince President Bush to do right by America's children. Let's provide him that opportunity and guide him down the path to compassion and humane treatment for all our children.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege.

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

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

I thank the Speaker.

In a very serious note, and I won't take the hour, I want to apologize to, first of all, my colleagues, many of whom I have offended, to the President, to his family, to the troops that may have found in my remarks, as were suggested in the motion that we just voted on, and I do apologize.

For this reason, I think that we have a serious issue before us, the issue of providing medical care to children, the issue of what we do about a war that we are divided about how to end.

I hope that with this apology, I will become as insignificant as I should be and that we can return to the issues that do divide us, but that we can resolve in a better fashion.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

First of all, I'm just amazed that the Republicans are worried that we can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? You are going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war?

You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement.

This bill would provide health care for 10 million children; and unlike the President's own kids, these children can't see a doctor or receive necessary care. Six million are insured through the Children's Health Insurance Program, and they'll do better in school and in life.

In California, the President's veto will cause the legislature to draw up emergency regulations to cut some 800,000 children off the rolls in California and create a waiting list. I hope my California Republican colleagues will understand that if they don't vote to override this veto, they are destroying health care for many of our children in California.

In his previous job as an actor, our Governor used to play make- believe and blow things up. Well, the Republicans in Congress are playing make-believe today with children's lives. They claim they can't afford health care. They say the bill will socialize medicine. Tell that to Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, and Ted Stevens, those socialists on the other side of the Capitol. The truth is, the CHIP program allows States to cover children primarily through private health care plans.

But President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.

I urge my colleagues to vote to override his veto. America's children need and deserve health care despite the President's desire to deny it to them.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize for 1 minute a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) who, unlike the Republicans, has had some experience with the truth and knows that occasionally it hurts.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall) 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, who has a brilliant 3-minute speech, and I yield him 1 minute in which to present it.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to recognize a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished lady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am delighted to recognize the gentlelady from Arizona (Ms. Giffords) for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I hope that we can find, as we close today and we come to this vote, enough people on both sides of the aisle who will vote to override the veto. It doesn't make much sense. There is no cost, there are no illegal aliens, there are no rich people, unless the Republicans choose to make it possible for them. It's a bill that is paid for, unlike the war, which the Republicans don't mention.

What are you going to do for that 200 or 300 billion bucks, folks, that you're spending to kill these kids when they grow up? You can't answer that, can you? You look at your shoes, look up here, you don't know.

So you don't even want to talk about $200 or $300 billion to kill innocent Iraqis and young men and women. There is no Member of this House that has an enlisted child over there. There is no risk for you guys.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

The fact that we don't want to talk about killing children that we send to die in a war and spend $200 billion, we're going to shuffle on, calling things ``socialism,'' Madam Speaker. And we're going to talk about if we only had a chance to do this a little better to make sure that illegal aliens were treated a little less fairly than they are now, we might vote for it. It's too bad. It's too bad they're voting to harm children for a bunch of really petty grievances that they have in the minority. I hope they will change their minds and vote to override the veto.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Colorado for 1 minute.

And pending that recognition, I would just like to point out that under the Republican plan, by 2017 we probably will have killed 20,000 soldiers in Iraq spending $200 billion.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Madam Speaker I rise today to honor the League of Women Voters of Fremont, Newark and Union City. On October 27, 2007, the League will be celebrating 50 years of civic engagement with our community. Individuals who helped to shape the Tri-Cities of Fremont, Newark and Union City, after their incorporation, formed the League.

Over the last 50 years, members of the League of Women Voters of Fremont, Newark and Union City have registered thousands of voters, hosted hundreds of candidate and other public forums, published and distributed voter information, and produced a community based cable program that has been actively broadcasting for over 10 years.

The League of Women Voters of Fremont, Newark and Union City has stayed true to its mission and held to its motto: Democracy is not a spectator sport! The League has been a leading voice for voter service, citizen education, advocacy, and government accountability.

I applaud the League members for their commitment to empower citizens to shape better communities. The Tri-Cities, over the last 50 years, have greatly benefited from the League's activities and initiatives to make a positive difference.

I join the Tri-Cities community in thanking the members of the League of Women Voters of Fremont, Newark and Union City for their untiring efforts and send best wishes for many more years of successful public service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of freedom of the press and an informed public.

The Free Flow of Information Act (H.R. 2102) is a straightforward bill that will protect journalists from being legally obligated to disclose their confidential sources of information. This will allow sources to speak more freely, allowing for the vibrant exchange of important information between reporters, their contacts and the public.

Predictably, George Bush's Department of Injustice opposes today's legislation, in part because the Administration issued more than 300 subpoenas last year alone. That's understandable. If I had a track record of wasting money on a failing war, abusing civil liberties, suppressing scientific research, and failing to enforce important consumer protections and environmental regulations, I too would want to keep the press and the public in the dark.

But it is also despicable. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia already recognize a reporter's privilege to keep confidential sources, and to do so without risking interrogation or prosecution. A federal media shield law would further protect the public's right to know about corruption, waste and mismanagement in and out of government.

In the past few years, journalists have depended on confidential sources to inform them about the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the disclosure of CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, and the President's warrantless wiretapping program. If we left it up to the administration to decide what went into news stories, we would have headlines that told us the war in Iraq is a smashing success and that Dick Cheney's hunting technique is unparalleled.

The Constitution guarantees the right to a free press. That freedom depends on not having to worry about being punished for revealing information that the public has a right to know. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.

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

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

I just want to remind my colleagues that we are dealing with a President who has a very short memory. Just 2 days ago, he proclaimed October 1 as Child Health Day 2007. Today, he just trashed that. I don't know what he thought he was doing when he talked about improving the lives of children and preventing and reducing the cost of disease and promoting community health, because he is just following a position that denies 1 million kids the right to health care.

So I hope, Mr. President, that you certainly don't proclaim a Protect Congress Day, or we are all in deep trouble.

This veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program compromise legislation is finally showing the American people the President's true priorities. He is a war President. All he cares about is war and more war. The previous speaker on our side talked about $190 billion for the war in Iraq, and these funds aren't paid for. They add to the deficit. In addition to our children having to look around for health care, they are going to have to look around to pay for that illegal war.

Simultaneously voting to extend a State Children's Health Insurance Program would be a good program. We would extend health care to nearly 4 million children, and the President is cutting a million off that cost a fraction of his illegal war. It is fully paid for and doesn't increase the deficit one penny. It passed both the House and the Senate with strong bipartisan majorities.

What's wrong with our Republican minority? Why do they insist on denying 1 million children, kicking them off the rolls of SCHIP? Why do they scorn in the face of 43 of the Nation's Governors who have written to the President and argued against his vetoing this bill?

President Bush says he has his own plan. I don't know if he had that when he declared October 1 as Child Health Day. Whatever that plan is, it would cause millions of children to lose their health care. My own Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, estimates that the President's plan would cause 1 million children to be denied health care in California by the year 2012.

This is a matter of life and death for our children's insurance. Children with health care do better in school, in life, and have their illnesses caught before it is too late. Ladies and gentlemen, the axis of evil is not just in the Middle East. It is right down here on Pennsylvania Avenue.

I urge my colleagues to reject the President's veto, have a compromise bill to assure the health of America's children and make sure that that is put ahead of some obscure, extreme, radical ideology.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Madam Speaker, I intend to recognize in a moment Ms. Shea-Porter from New Hampshire, but pending that, a couple of comments.

Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest that the 45 Republicans who voted for our bill, if they are being disregarded by Republican leadership, we have a lot of room over here and would welcome them on our side. I also suggest to the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, while his 2-year-old may not be ready for it yet, as somebody who is raising two children who are now 6, the reason we are waiting is for what we call in our household a ``time- out.'' You go to your room and think about the mistake you made, and when you're ready to apologize and come back and set things straight, you can come out of your room. That is what the 2-week period is all about.

He will.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I always thought that 800 percent of poverty was a Republican, but I am happy to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen) for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Madam Speaker, are we closing?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) for the remaining time to close for our side.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a resolution that does nothing to end the war in Iraq.

Does H.R. 3087 call for our troops to immediately be brought home? No, it does not.

Does it at least call for redeployment over several months, or even years?

No, it does not.

Or at the very minimum, does it demand that the Pentagon actually develop and outline to a Congress a strategy on how redeployment might occur? No, it does not. As introduced, the bill would have done so. But in committee, this weak bill became even weaker.

There's no there there, if there ever was.

All the bill does is require the Department of Defense to report to Congress on the status of planning for redeployment.

Let's not kid ourselves about what the result of today's resolution will be. Every 3 months, President Bush's Secretary of Defense would tell Congress that the administration has not and will not develop a plan for the withdrawal of all our brave men and women in uniform.

That much I already know. I don't need a Bush lackey to repeat the bad news on a quarterly basis.

The only plan President Bush has is to keep our troops in harm's way for years if not decades. He wants to continue wasting tens of billions of dollars abroad while domestic needs go unmet at home.

I urge all my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3087 and instead support an immediate end to the war in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and I are offering this jointly. Very quickly, it makes it mandatory for FEMA to send a first-class mail notification to affected property owners under the flood insurance sections.

The notification that they send must include an explanation of the appeal process and contact information for responsible officials with whom they should deal.

It's needed because ordinary citizens don't read the Federal Register, and often the announcements are printed in the legal page of newspapers. The first that my constituents have heard about this is from the mortgage lender who tells them they have got 45 days to buy insurance, and they are then precluded from an appeals process, which if they find out at least 90 days beforehand, they have a right to utilize a community appeals process which is far less cumbersome and expensive.

I can only suggest in support of the amendment that my good friend Chairman Frank at one point stated when Burton and Stark get together, you may not like the amendment, but you should save one of the puppies. It is a bill that I think will help make this process simpler for all of our constituents, and I urge the adoption.

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