Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support putting a stop to the Federal Aviation Administration's abusive and dishonest tactics in negotiating a new contract with the nation's air traffic controllers.

Under an unprecedented interpretation of current law, the FAA is claiming the ability to declare an impasse in negotiations and impose its terms. But such a unilateral action is patently wrong and unfair. It's long past time for Congress to return the parties to an equal footing and get them back to the negotiating table.

I hope that my vote for H.R. 5449 will send a strong message. The agency ought to cease misrepresenting controllers' salaries. If, as the FAA claims, salaries are truly exorbitant, then the agency shouldn't hesitate to enter binding arbitration. The FAA's desire to avoid arbitration speaks volumes about the weakness of its arguments.

Working under incredibly stressful and difficult conditions, air traffic controllers protect the safety of millions of Americans. I hope the FAA will follow Congress' lead in affording them the respect they deserve.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5252, the so-called Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006, H.R. 5252.

Supporters of this bill claim that if telephone companies provide video services to compete with cable and satellite, rates will decrease and quality of service will increase.

I agree, but there is nothing in current law stopping phone companies from offering video services. Just ask Verizon, which currently offers fiber optic TV in 16 states--and counting. However, AT&T and others thought they could get a better deal from their Congressional benefactors. The Leave No Lobbyist Behind Republican Congress did not disappoint them.

This bill eliminates all requirements to build out service to an entire community, so if you want to benefit from competition, you better live on the right side of town with the rich people. Your city also better have enough money to have a lawyer permanently stationed in Washington, DC, because this bill gives the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, final say over all video services. Under current law, cities control when and where video providers dig up streets to lay cable and they set standards for customer service and billing. But small government Republicans think that the FCC knows better. They provide no new staff or money to handle this enormous responsibility, so expect a busy signal the next time you have a problem with your cable bill.

Finally, this bill was a critical opportunity to renew so-called ``net neutrality'' rules that require Internet Service Providers to treat all Web sites equally. When Google was being run out of a college dorm, the search page loaded just as quickly as Yahoo or MSN or the Comcast corporate Web site. The ability for so-called ``garage inventors'' to enter the market without paying a toll or suffering degraded service enabled the Internet's rapid growth and success. Those non-discrimination rules ended last year, and broadband providers have made no secret of their desire to extract a high price for continued service. Their multi-million dollar campaign to defeat a net neutrality amendment only confirms their insidious plans.

This gift to giant telecom companies, devoid of any worthwhile public policy, is a disgrace, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act of 2006.

Though the Majority disingenuously argues that environmental regulations are responsible for high gas prices, the facts don't support their claim. Refining costs have increased because oil companies have deliberately decreased capacity to boost profits. In the late 1980s and early '90s, oil companies shut down 30 refineries in an attempt to raise profit margins. The scheme worked: refinery revenues increased by 255 percent last year.

In response to market pressure, refining capacity has increased in recent years. Between 1996 and 2003, capacity increased by 1.4 million barrels per day. As a result, the American Petroleum Institute believes that H.R. 5254 is completely unnecessary. The free market that the Republicans claim to love is working, but this legislation is about politics, not about solving the priorities of America's working families.

This legislation would: Allow the President to place new refineries on closed military bases. The military base in my district would probably be an appealing target for this President: it's the site of a planned National Wildlife Refuge. Like many communities around the country, the City of Alameda has undergone an extensive planning process to convert the base to civilian use, but if the President said the word, the City's work could be suspended while the federal government decided whether or not it wanted to build a refinery on the premises. Undermine environmental review processes and make state and local environmental officials answer to a new refinery czar appointed by President Bush.

The one good thing you can say about this bill is that it's not another gift to oil companies--they readily admit that environmental regulations have not prevented them from building new refineries. This legislation is just another ill-conceived talking point for Republicans desperate to appear responsive to rising energy prices. I won't play that game and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no''.

Mr. Chairman, if there was any doubt, FEMA's performance during Hurricane Katrina proved the Department of Homeland Security's incompetence. I had hoped that more than 3 years after its creation, the Department would use common sense. But as DHS continues to violate Americans' civil liberties, pursue policies that make us no more secure, and misallocate funds, I cannot vote to throw good money after bad.

H.R. 5441 will allow the TSA to spend $6.4 billion strip-searching grandmothers and small children. Yet multiple audits have found that despite this and other invasive techniques, the Department is no more likely to detect a weapon than were security personnel prior to September 11, 2001. Under this bill, DHS will continue to screen only 5 percent of port containers and virtually no air cargo. Wyoming will still get about $27.80 per capita in homeland security funding while California will receive only about $8.05. I shudder to think how FEMA will handle the next large earthquake in the Bay Area when they can't even handle a hurricane with a week's warning.

I vote ``no'' to DHS's misplaced priorities and urge my colleagues to stop supporting a dysfunctional agency.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage my colleagues to consider the thoughts of former President Jimmy Carter on achieving a lasting peace in the Middle East.

[From the Nation, May 25, 2006]

House Vote Harms Palestine, Israel, U.S.

(By John Nichols)

Jimmy Carter has been blunt: Despite the fact of a

Palestinian election result that was not to their liking, the

former president says, ``it is unconscionable for Israel, the

United States and others under their influence to continue

punishing the innocent and already persecuted people of

Palestine.''

Since the political wing of the militant group Hamas swept

parliamentary elections in Palestine, the U.S. and Israel

have been trying to use economic pressure to force a change

of course. Disregarding the democracy that President Bush

says he wants to promote in the Middle East, the U.S. has

sanctioned policies that have fostered chaos on the Gaza

Strip and the West Bank and created increasingly harsh

conditions for people who have known more than their share of

suffering.

``Innocent Palestinian people are being treated like

animals, with the presumption that they are guilty of some

crime,'' argues Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner whose

involvement in the Middle East peace process has extended

across three decades. ``Because they voted for candidates who

are members of Hamas, the United States government has become

the driving force behind an apparently effective scheme of

depriving the general public of income, access to the outside

world and the necessities of life.''

Instead of checking and balancing the president's misguided

approach to an election result that displeased him, Congress

has added fuel to the fire.

By a lopsided vote of 361 to 37, the House voted Tuesday

for the so-called ``Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act,'' a

measure so draconian that even the Bush administration has

opposed it.

The legislation, which still must be reconciled with a

similar measure passed by the Senate, would cut off all

assistance to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, and place

conditions on humanitarian assistance delivered directly to

the Palestinians by non-government organizations.

Presidential spokesman Tony Snow, in restating the White

House's opposition to the measure says that it

``unnecessarily constrains'' the flow of essential

assistance--food, fresh water, medicine--in a manner that

does, indeed, ``tie the president's hand'' when it comes to

providing humanitarian aid.

It also has the potential to encourage, rather than

restrain, violence.

Representative Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat who was

one of the few members of the House to argue against the

legislation, correctly explained that the approach endorsed

by most of his colleagues will strengthen the hand of

Palestinian extremists.

``It does little to prioritize on the basis of our

strategic interests, and provides no prospect for Palestinian

reform coming through the process of negotiations,''

Blumenauer said of the legislation. ``In so doing, it weakens

the hands of those who advocate for peace negotiations, and

supports those extremists who believe in violence.''

Debra DeLee, President and CEO of Americans for Peace Now,

which works closely with Israeli groups seeking a peaceful

settlement of tensions with the Palestinians, calls the bill

``an exercise in overreaching that will undercut American

national security needs, Israeli interests, and hope for the

Palestinian people, if it's ever signed into law.'' ``We

urged the House to craft legislation that was focused and

flexible enough to allow the U.S. to respond to Hamas'

election victory in a firm, yet responsible, manner,''

explained a frustrated DeLee. ``But by failing

to provide the president with a real national security

waiver, by failing to include a sunset clause for draconian

performance requirements that will stay on the books

regardless of who is running the Palestinian Authority, and

by failing to distinguish between Hamas and Palestinians

who support a two-state solution, the supporters of this

bill have missed that opportunity for now.''

Despite its dramatic flaws, the bill drew bipartisan

support, with House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, and

Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Minority Leader

Nancy Pelosi, D-California, lining up their respective

caucuses behind it.

Of the 37 ``no'' votes, 31 came from Democrats, including

senior members such as Michigan's John Conyers and John

Dingell, Californians George Miller and Pete Stark and

Wisconsin's David Obey. Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, a contender

for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, also opposed

the measure, as did California's Barbara Lee, a co-chair of

the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The six Republican ``no'' votes came from Maryland's Wayne

Gilchrest, North Carolina's Walter Jones, Arizona's Jim

Kolbe, Illinois' Ray LaHood and Texans Ron Paul and Mac

Thornberry.

As is frequently the case on votes involving Israel and

Palestine, dozens of members did not participate. Nine House

members, all of them Democrats, voted ``present'' Tuesday.

Twenty-five members, eleven of them Democrats, fourteen of

them Republicans, registered no vote.

Americans for Peace Now's DeLee says that, as the House and

Senate seek to reconcile differing bills, her group will

continue to work to alter the legislation so that it will not

encourage extremism or worsen a humanitarian crisis. But

there is no question that the task has been made more

difficult by the overwhelming House vote in favor of this

misguided measure.

Mr. Speaker, even President Bush admits that this country's addiction to oil is a crisis, but, like a desperate junkie, the Republican Congress is frantically trying one more time to squeeze every last drop out of our pristine wilderness. Mr. Pombo's bill--which won't have any meaningful impact on oil prices and which has no chance of passing the Senate--is a tragic reminder that the Republican Majority has lost the will to seriously govern this country. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is Republicans' reflex to high gas prices in the same way that banning gay marriage is their reflex to a disgruntled conservative base, and tax cuts are their reflex to sagging poll numbers. In the 11 years Republicans have worked to open ANWR, they could have instead begun to wean America off its dependence on unsustainable energy sources.

The Bush Administration's own studies show that any oil derived from ANWR would amount to about 3.9 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil--a six-month supply for the U.S. Once drilling has violated the area, however, the natural habitat that once existed will be permanently ruined.

ANWR is the largest undeveloped wilderness left in our country. This 19 million acre coastal plain has been called ``America's Serengeti'' because of its abundance of caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, snow geese, 135 species of migratory birds, eagles, wolves, sheep, and musk oxen. To destroy this natural treasure for six months of oil would be unconscionable.

I urge my colleagues to reject this sham once and for all so that after 11 years of lost time, we can finally get serious about renewable energy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2006, H.R. 5403, and ask my associates to vote for this legislation.

As the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has so eloquently described, this will help foster children across the country. But I think an easier way to look at it is here in the District of Columbia area where we are a subway ride from three States. From Maryland to Virginia to D.C., we will find that a juvenile judge in one area may have a placement of a child with a relative or acceptable foster family in another area as they move from Maryland to Virginia.

Now in California in the gentleman's district there, there may not be a lot of people wanting to go to Oregon or Nevada, it is a little longer trip. But in areas like the New Jersey-New York area, heavily populated areas are close by, and children could easily be placed in close proximity and have to cross State lines. This legislation will allow that to be done.

It takes care of a lot of technical details in terms of speeding up the process so that approval can be done across State lines, and it calls on States to update their requirements for approving the transfer of children across State lines and into foster care.

It probably will help older children, and by older I am saying 9 or older, who we have the most difficulty in placing in foster care. It is for that reason that this will help. Right now, a child 9 years or older has maybe a 20 percent chance or less of placement. We need to do better, and this bill will help.

We have 100,000 children ready for adoption, and this Congress should indeed do all that it can to expedite those procedures.

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this point first of all to commend the distinguished chairman of the Public Assistance Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Herger, for his Safe and Stable Families bill which we hope will be coming to the floor soon. It provides another $40 million to train case workers to help in this area. Chairman Herger has done yeoman's work on that bipartisan bill, and I know we are getting help from the junior Senator from the State of California who has offered to help expedite it on the Senate side, and with some luck, we will be able to pass that bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist the opportunity to note that it is this issue of helping children that in my 34 years here has always brought us together as no other issue does. The gentlewoman from Ohio, with whom I have often disagreed on political issues, and I note the presence of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) with whom I have disagreed on almost every issue except in the area of helping children. Now I suspect it is because the Republicans need more Republicans, and they are trying to get more children into politics, but other than that, Mr. Speaker, it is in the spirit of helping young people mature in this country.

I do not know if many of you know that the gentleman from Texas is responsible, and I say this having chaired the District Committee when there used to be one, but with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), he was instrumental in creating a family court in the District of Columbia, which most other States or jurisdictions have. Now he has done some other things with legislation in Texas with which I have a little trouble. But other than that, he has created a court here that helps children.

I want to remark on one other thing in Mr. DeLay's career. I am aware that, in Texas, he has created a most unique and it sounds to me like an exciting community called the Rio Bend Community. For those who are unfamiliar with this, it creates a subdivision of let us say eight homes. I suspect they are ranch homes or standard homes, where eight families who have foster children and perhaps birth children can live in close proximity and share baby-sitting and teaching.

When I talk about sharing teaching, I am also aware that in this area of Rio Bend, Texas, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is known as Old Hypotenuse, and Old Hypotenuse has been tutoring the children in this community in geometry. He may not know that I got a 100 in geometry in high school, Mr. Speaker, and I might be able to come down and spell him for a while.

But I just want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger)

and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and Mr. DeLay for the marvelous work they have done for children in this country. I hope we can continue in a bipartisan way to unify our efforts in the House to make every day for every child in this country more healthy with better education and a better opportunity to develop into citizens of which we can all be proud.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

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

Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished majority whip yield?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it should go unnoticed that the distinguished majority whip has become a recent adoptive father of, I believe, now a 7-month-old boy.

We seriously hope that he will grow up to be a Democrat.

But, aside from that, I want to extend best wishes. He is a man who practices what he preaches and is doing his share to extend this concern for adoptive children in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no more speakers. I would just like to reiterate my thanks to all the people. I would like to mention Sean McCluskie, who has been my staff member on the Subcommittee for Human Resources for over 7 years and, unfortunately, is leaving us for greener pastures.

I want to thank all of the staff on both sides of the aisle who worked so hard on these bills that come before our subcommittee which get little attention outside of the professionals in the social work field.

Again, I thank our Chair and thank Mr. DeLay and the people who have worked so well together to make this important step to improve the lives of foster and perhaps adoptive children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Alameda County Transit Agency, AC Transit, headquartered in Oakland, California. For the sixth time in 9 years, AC Transit has been recognized as the Nation's most outstanding public bus agency at the American Public Transportation Association, APTA, meeting in Anaheim, California. At its annual ``Bus Roadeo'' in which bus operators and maintenance teams demonstrate their driving skills and knowledge, APTA has crowned AC Transit's drivers and mechanics as the ``Best of the Best.''

In addition AC Transit also won first place for its Customer Service in a special competition to evaluate bus operators' courtesy, patience and know-how.

The ``Best of the Best'' award came after grueling tests of competition involving more than 40 transit agencies with teams of drivers and mechanics from virtually every State in the country. Drivers were tested on their abilities to smoothly stop and maneuver their coaches in and out of tightly constricted spaces, avoiding mishaps and pedestrians. Mechanics were tested on their ability to quickly troubleshoot vehicle malfunctions by quickly diagnosing problems and instituting immediate repairs.

The competition is the ``Super Bowl'' for transit agencies, offering some of the world's top professionals an opportunity to display their driving skills, reflexes, judgment and superior workshop intelligence.

The ``Best of the Best'' designation represents the highest combined scores of the operator and maintenance team. AC Transit's team-- operator Jesse DelaCruz and mechanics, Carlos Leyva, Grant Pinkston and Donald Righter--was deemed number one in the Nation. AC Transit operator Patricia Lock won first place for Customer Service.

Congratulations to AC Transit on winning this prestigious ``Best of the Best'' award.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4681 because it inappropriately uses a blunt instrument to clumsily attempt to achieve Middle East peace. If this carelessly written and unnecessary legislation becomes law, it will set the Israeli-Palestinian peace process back further and result in additional Israeli and Palestinian deaths.

H.R. 4681 weakens moderate pro-peace Palestinians. This legislation does not discriminate in imposing sanctions against both Hamas and non- Hamas controlled elements and officials of the Palestinian Authority, PA. H.R. 4681 bans all aid to the Palestinian Legislative Council, PLC, and PA agencies and instrumentalities, including those not controlled by Hamas. Among the officials this bill prohibits from receiving assistance is Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has been instrumental in counterbalancing Hamas and working toward a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This legislation undermines diplomatic efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East. This bill prohibits all members of the PA regardless of their affiliation or non-affiliation with Hamas--from obtaining visas necessary for diplomatic travel. This ill-advised rule will prevent the United States from fully engaging and bolstering moderate Palestinian leaders who recognize and support peace with Israel.

Even as the United Nations reports of an impending humanitarian disaster in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, this bill imposes unnecessarily strict sanctions on providing aid to Palestinian groups and non-government organizations not affiliated with Hamas. Under this legislation, the Palestinian people could receive essential medicine, but funds for democracy assistance, economic development, and sanitation infrastructure would be prohibited. This legislation therefore makes more likely a humanitarian crisis that will increase support for extremism, thereby endangering Israel and further destabilizing the region.

H.R. 4681 also ties the President's hands in dealing with emergency security and humanitarian crises. The bill limits the President's

ability to waive financial sanctions and travel prohibitions. It onerously requires the President to obtain congressional approval for every waiver on a case-by-case basis, complicating and delaying an American response to, for example, new Palestinian elections or a natural disaster.

Moreover, this legislation is unnecessary. Current U.S. law already forbids members of Hamas and other foreign terrorist organizations from obtaining visas or having diplomatic relations with the United States. According to the Bush Administration, the executive branch already has ample authority to impose all of the bill's restrictions. It is a rare but notable occurrence for me to agree with this Administration.

While I believe, that America should not provide aid to Hamas, I oppose this bill's reckless approach to the Middle East peace process. I voted for S. Con. Res. 79, that states that the U.S. should not provide assistance directly to the PA if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the PA maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel. Unlike the bill before us today, however, that resolution provided the executive branch the flexibility necessary to work with moderate Palestinian groups and permitted foreign aid to go to nongovernmental organizations.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful legislation and to consider a more thoughtful approach to achieving peace in the Middle East.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act.

Rather than aid in a speedy recovery after a natural disaster, this bill is itself a disaster for the environment.

Forestry experts have repeatedly expressed concern about the harmful effects of salvage logging, yet Republicans choose to ignore sound science and insist on implementing environmentally irresponsible logging policies. Contrary to what Republicans and their campaign contributors in the logging industry would like you to believe, research shows that post-fire logging actually impedes forest regeneration, causes erosion and degrades water quality.

As if facilitating the destruction of forests wasn't enough, this bill also weakens existing laws meant to protect our entire environment. In the case of a catastrophic event, H.R. 4200 allows for the removal of timber salvage while ignoring the National Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Water Act, and key provisions of the Endangered Species Act.

The exemptions contained in this bill are entirely unnecessary. The Forest Service is currently completing the removal of timber salvage, on national forests impacted by Hurricane Katrina with existing environmental guidelines and authorities for such practices. H.R. 4200 isn't needed and it is merely another attempt by Republicans to dismantle landmark environmental laws.

Finally, H.R. 4200 provides no protection for roadless areas, nation recreation areas, national conservation areas or wilderness study areas, thus putting many of our valuable public lands at risk.

I believe we have more reason to be concerned about the damage this bill will cause than the potential damage caused by actual natural disasters. H.R. 4200 is nothing short of disastrous for our national forests and public lands and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Interior Appropriations bill.

Given their commitment to ``conservative values,'' I would think that Republicans would be more committed to actual conservation. Instead, this bill shortchanges our environment, attacks our natural heritage, and recklessly endangers public health.

This bill slashes funding for environmental programs by $145 million and provides about $800 million less than is necessary to maintain current environmental protection services. Specifically, this legislation cuts Land and Water Conservation programs, which provide funding for the acquisition of land for national parks, wildlife refuges, forests and monuments, to their lowest funding levels in 30 years. At the same time, this bill cuts the Forest Legacy Program by more than $43 million, the Fish and Wildlife Service by $55 million and the National Park Service by $100 million.

We have an obligation to ensure that future generations can enjoy the beauty of our national parks and public lands. With this bill, however, the ``Moral Majority'' has abandoned their social and ethical responsibility to protect our environment and invest in America's future.

This indefensible legislation not only harms our environment but places Americans' health at risk by cutting the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to its lowest funding level in a decade. According to the EPA, close to $20 billion--nearly 30 times the appropriated amount--is necessary to maintain our current water quality. I am not willing to endanger the health of millions of Americans by exposing them to dirtier water.

I don't believe something as important as our natural resources should be left in the hands of Republican members of the flat-earth society who don't even believe in global warming. There is scientific consensus that the earth is warming because of manmade greenhouse gases and the threat posed by global warming is real and immediate. Recent polls show that 85 percent of Americans believe that global warming is probably happening and 76 percent, including 63 percent of conservatives, think the Federal government is not doing enough to address the problem. Yet Republicans are so reluctant to acknowledge global warming, they won't even allow the House to consider the issue.

If Republicans want to preach conservative values, perhaps they should start with actually conserving our most precious resources. I simply cannot vote for this mockery of environmental legislation and I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. Chairman, it appears the third time's the charm for the Republican leadership. Unfortunately, the same is not true for working Americans who will be worse off under yet another morally reprehensible Republican budget. This budget insults students, attacks veterans, and bankrupts future generations.

A budget is a statement about priorities. For the party of Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff, that means rewarding corporate contributors at the expense of ordinary Americans. Republicans protected billions of dollars in giveaways to an oil industry awash in profits. But despite President Bush's State of the Union rhetoric, this budget underfunded investments in alternative energy that are necessary to prevent global warming.

What else do the Republicans believe is less important than additional billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy? Education, health care, and the financial well being of our children and grandchildren.

Despite record enrollment from pre-K to college, Republicans support large cuts to education. This budget cuts Department of Education funding by $2.2 billion--and provides $15.4 billion less than Republicans promised when they passed No Child Left Behind. Even though college costs have risen 40 percent since 2001, the Republican budget again freezes the maximum Pell Grant and denies more than 460,000 students low-cost higher education loans.

Though 46 million Americans lack health insurance, the Republican budget does nothing to improve access to quality care--and actually includes policies that would increase the numbers of people without health insurance and who are underinsured. Rather than embrace necessary fixes to the Medicare prescription drug program, Republicans instead chose to continue billions of dollars in overpayments to managed care plans. And despite regularly thumping their chests while claiming to support the troops, Republicans propose $6.0 billion in cuts to veterans' health care over five years. Many Americans volunteer to serve their country, but the Republican Party rarely serves them.

When George Bush was elected President, a satirical newspaper joked that `our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity' was finally over. In the years since, Americans have learned the Republican record of warmongering and fiscal mismanagement is no laughing matter. Prior to this year, Republicans had already turned a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into a $3.2 trillion deficit. Though this budget cowardly rails to include tens of billions in supplemental requests related to a misguided Iraq War, it nonetheless adds another $2.3 trillion to the rational debt over the next five years.

This budget makes clear what no amount of spin and lies can hide. Republicans care more about wealthy corporations and campaign contributors than they do about America's families, our environment, land our future.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this cruel and heartless bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Paul Miller, Executive Director of Kidango, a private, nonprofit agency providing a variety of services to children and families in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Francisco Counties. Paul Miller has successfully led Kidango to become a leader in providing quality childcare and child development services to children and support services to their families.

Mr. Miller joined Kidango in 1979 and has helped the organization grow from serving just 90 children at one Fremont, California center to over 2,800 children attending forty plus centers throughout the San Francisco Bay Counties. Kidango has over 350 employees. Miller points with pride to his dedicated and committed regional and center directors, teaching staff, maintenance, food service and administrative staff, all who have an integral role in making sure the families and children Kidango serve receive the best quality programs possible.

Recent evidence of Paul Miller's ability to seize new opportunities and offer quality programs for children is readily apparent in Union City, California, where Kidango operates a preschool program on every New Haven Unified School District campus. Building on a 20-year relationship, the school district and Kidango launched a Preschool for All program in 2001. By the following year, Union City has the distinction of being the first district in the State of California to offer Preschool for All. The flagship New Haven-Kidango Preschool for All program has caught the attention of educators and policymakers throughout the State of California.

Mr. Miller continues to work hard to introduce Universal Preschool to other Bay Area school districts and the California Superintendent of Public Instruction has appointed him to the Universal Preschool Task Force.

In addition to.his exemplary administrative leadership at Kidango, Paul Miller is a major force throughout the State of California advocating for public policy that promotes quality childcare and early education. He is actively involved in the Child Development Policy Institute, the leader in the childcare and development field on fiscal and public policy matters, and the principal advocate for children and families in California's legislative budget process.

Paul Miller's 30 plus years of advocacy for children and their families are beyond measure. He is committed and dedicated to excellence as demonstrated by the growth and success of Kidango. He works tirelessly with a single focus of inspiring all children and their families by promoting their potential and diversity through quality education and nurturing relationships.

Paul will be recognized at a well-deserved Kidango Staff Appreciation Dinner on May 20, 2006. I join them in appreciating him for his good work.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Defense Authorization Bill, H.R. 5122. Only a few months after ruthlessly slashing $40 billion in health care, education and job training benefits for working Americans, the Republicans have shamelessly

brought forth a Defense Authorization bill that wastefully spends taxpayer dollars and does nothing to make this country any safer.

This bill clearly demonstrates that this Republican Congress has a habitual problem of fiscal mismanagement. This legislation spends billions on the development of ineffective or duplicative weapons systems that pad the pockets of big defense contractors. In turn, these defense contractors thank their Republican sugar daddies by filling their campaign coffers.

H.R. 5122 wastefully authorizes $9.3 billion on pie-in-the-sky Star Wars missile defense, a $184 million increase over President Bush's request and $2 billion more than the current level of spending. Rather than allocate billions for a Cold War weapon system that will never work, Republicans in Congress should address the real security threat posed by weapons that can easily be delivered or smuggled into America in a suitcase or container.

The bill provides additional funding to build ships that the Navy has not requested and does not need. The Republican legislation also allocates nearly $46 billion for 20 F/A-22 Raptors, $1.4 billion more than President Bush requested and $2.9 billion more than is currently spent. Yet these planes were initially justified as necessary to compete with a new generation of Soviet fighters that no longer exists.

Since the collapse of the Russian air force, there is no nation that has, or is planning to have, fighter jets as dominant as those the U.S. Air Force currently employs in combat. In Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan, the Air Force has demonstrated the superiority of existing U.S. planes. In addition, the GAO recently reported that the costs of the F/A-22 Raptors have ballooned to $1.3 billion more than was budgeted for by the Air Force. Where does accountability begin?

H.R. 5122 does not require the President to provide an exit strategy out of Iraq. Even after spending $315 billion on a misguided Iraq War, the Bush Administration has no clue on how to resolve the situation or an idea of how to get American soldiers out of the conflict.

It is time to stop giving the President a blank check to fight an aimless war. The only thing that the $50 billion outlay in this bill guarantees is that the U.S. will be in Iraq longer than is necessary and that more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will die without just cause.

I am also very concerned that certain members of Congress have decided to support chaplains who want to push their own religious agenda rather than the military's commitment to religious tolerance. When chaplains join the military, they accept a duty to serve the military's mission in addition to their mission to God. In providing spiritual guidance to our soldiers, chaplains should never carry out their duty in a manner that divides or alienates soldiers of different faiths. Chaplains who press ahead with their own agenda ahead of the military's mission threaten the cohesiveness of military units and the effectiveness of our soldiers in carrying out their duties.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this wasteful and irresponsible bill. It is time we had a defense budget that lives within its means, stops wasting hard earned tax dollars on useless weapon systems, and accounts for what is truly required in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for yielding me time.

This $70 billion sham defrauds the working class to line the pockets of the super-wealthy friends of the Republican Party. Taxpayers with incomes of over $10 million will have received on average $500,000 from the Republican capital gains and dividend cuts, and hardworking Americans making under $50,000 have average tax savings of $10; $500,000 if you are rich; $10 if you are just getting along.

Capital gains and dividend tax breaks benefit the rich, not the working class. Here is a chart that indicates how this money is distributed: $20 to the average middle-income household, $42,000 to those making over a million bucks.

You can see here we have taken care, the Republicans have taken care, of Members of Congress, they gave us $1,388, at least for those who are only working in the public trough. Not bad.

But this bill wastes $70 billion on millionaires that could be used to improve people's lives. With that $70 billion, $39 billion in unnecessary cuts to Medicaid which hurts the health care of children, disabled and the poor could be restored. We could fund the President's great bragging rights to the No Child Left Behind with $9 billion and provide health insurance for every child in this country for $20 billion, and there might even be a few bucks left over to decrease the deficit.

So you have here, amidst all the cute rhetoric on the other side, voodoo economics at its most ridiculous and radical extreme and moral reprehensibility that gives $100,000 to millionaires, but takes health care away from families earning less than $16,000 a year. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican tax reconciliation conference report. I'd like to say it was an honor to sit on the conference committee, but this backroom deal was cut without any input from House Democratic conferees. The predictable result is a Republican agreement that benefits millionaires at the expense of working families.

You don't have to dig far into this bill to realize it helps the rich get richer, while doing little for hard working American families. The extended dividends and cap gains tax breaks didn't even expire until 2008, but Republicans wanted to reward their rich campaign donors before the November elections. As a result, people making over $10 million get an average capital gains and dividends tax breaks of about $500,000 a year. These cuts give families making under $50,000 a whopping $10 tax cut. It is clear where the Republican priorities lie.

Some will say that other tax cuts in this bill help the working class. The facts don't support that argument. Families struggling to get by on less than $20,000 a year get only $2 in average tax breaks from this bill. Average middle income households only get $20. Where could all these tax cuts go? The answer is simple, those making over $1.6 million--the top 0.1 percent of all taxpayers--get $82,000 a year in tax breaks from President Bush and their Republican friends in Congress.

In sum, this tax reconciliation bill is a $70 billion boondoggle for America's wealthiest taxpayers. Wouldn't it make a little more sense to spend this money to help people in need? We could easily eliminate the entire $39 billion in cuts Republicans made last fall to programs like Medicaid, student loans and food stamps. That would leave us $31 billion to fully fund Bush's No Child Left Behind education plan and provide every child in the country with health insurance. There might even be some money left over to help decrease the budget deficit mess Bush has gotten us in.

It is clear this bill benefits the rich at the expense of the working class, but that isn't the whole story. Just as Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction to lead us into the quagmire in Iraq, Congressional Republicans are lying about the true cost of this legislation. This bill pays for the tax cuts for the wealthy by actually raising some taxes in the short-term. Many of the so-called ``revenue raisers'' in the bill will actually end up being huge tax breaks in future years. One specific provision allows people to cash out traditional IRAs and convert them into Roth IRAs. This raises revenue in the first few years, but will cost up to $1 billion dollars a year starting in 2013. Who benefits most from this future tax break? You guessed it . . . families making over $150,000 a year.

Regardless of what some may say, tax cuts for the wealthy do not generate economic

growth, jobs or increased wages. The only people that win under the Republican reconciliation plan are the millionaires who receive all the tax breaks. It is immoral to give a millionaire an extra $100,000 while we're taking Medicaid benefits away from a family of three making under $15,750.

I urge all my colleagues to stand up for the working class and vote against these irresponsible and immoral tax breaks for the rich.