Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because I don't believe that giving gun makers, gun dealers, and gun trade associations special exemption from lawsuits makes our streets any safer.

If this law had been in place, the families of victims of the DC-area sniper could never have held negligent suppliers accountable. In September 2004, eight victims received a settlement from the dealer that ``lost'' the snipers' assault rifle from its inventory, along with at least 238 other guns. The victims' families also received a settlement from the manufacturer who negligently supplied the dealer despite its record of missing guns and regulatory violations. Most importantly, as part of the settlement, the manufacturer agreed to instruct its dealers of safer sales practices that should prevent other criminals from obtaining guns.

Since the National Rifle Association owns about two-thirds of the Congress, guns have fewer safety regulations than teddy bears. The American people can't look to Congress to protect them, so they have no choice but to turn to the courts. It's no surprise that this last resort will now be shut down out of deference to the almighty gun industry.

As if this blatant pandering to an industry responsible for widespread violence and mayhem isn't bad enough, this bill also violates the fundamental right of every American to have their day in court. As soon as the President signs this bill into law, Americans will be able to sue the manufacturer of any product except for guns for death, injury, and any other kind of negligence. Congress, at the behest of the NRA, will close the courthouse doors to gun victims.

I vote ``no'' on this bill because no industry, certainly not the gun industry, should have the right to conduct their business without the oversight of the judicial system.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act because I don't think that any industry should have the right to conduct its business without the oversight of the judicial system. What the lawyer-bashers don't want you to know is that frivolous lawsuits, by definition, get thrown out of court. In other words, the much-feared million-dollar settlement for someone who eats 12 Big Macs a day is not going to happen.

That's why there are only a few obesity cases in court right now and why the only reason we're considering this bill today is because the well-heeled McDonald's Corporation doesn't want to face a legitimate lawsuit for false advertising. Many of the pending cases are for false advertising, claiming food is low fat when it's really not, and this bill is so broadly worded that it would preclude such cases from going forward.

The threat of legitimate lawsuits against fast-food corporations is as much a part of creating social change as is the threat of a Congressional investigation. I believe that both are equally legitimate and democratic. We wouldn't want judges to ban us from holding hearings and nor should we ban them from hearing cases

Even more important than the issue of obesity or Congressional meddling in the judicial branch is the fundamental right of every American to have their day in court. Even if you eat 12 Big Macs a day, you have a right to plead your case before a judge. And the judge has the right to throw the case out, but Congress has no business preemptively closing the courthouse doors to a particular group of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague and neighbor Ms. Barbara Lee to pay tribute to the celebrations planned by the

United Nations Association, East Bay Chapter to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the United Nations. Events have been planned in the city of Alameda, California and Jack London Square in Oakland, California.

At Jack London Square, there will be a Parade of Nations, a 60th Anniversary Ceremony, International Food Festival, Multi-Cultural Musical and Dance Performance as well as children's and family activities.

United Nations celebratory activities in Alameda will be held in Kofman Auditorium and will feature a participatory experience of song, dance and inspiration for Alameda's children, families and all who, as global citizens, dream of a better and united world. The event will be a springboard to think globally and act locally in the spirit of the United Nations.

The United Nations Association-East Bay Chapter describes membership in their organization as a personal investment in the world's future. Their members stay involved in some of the most important issues facing our world today.

We applaud these committed members as they plan and participate in the activities to celebrate the United Nations' 60th Anniversary in the East Bay. Their engagement and involvement to educate and involve the public in UN activities and their promotion of UN principles are exemplary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3893, the so-called Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005.

This bill represents the worst of legislation written by and for corporations. In the name of helping the economy, it decimates environmental laws and eliminates the ability of state and local governments to decide what's best for them. It then reimburses oil companies for the inconvenience of having to act appropriately to protect our air and water. It is so far afield of economic reality that even the oil companies admit that refining capacity will increase without it. It is so environmentally reckless that one has to wonder if Republicans think that they, in addition to being exempt from our ethics rules, breathe different air than the rest of us.

While the Majority says that environmental regulations are the reason for high gas prices, the facts just don't support their claim. The reason that the cost of refining has increased is because oil companies voluntarily closed 30 refineries in the late eighties and early nineties to increase their profit margins. The scheme worked: Refinery revenues increased by 255 percent last year alone.

As one would expect, high profits are now encouraging companies to once again build and expand refineries. 1.4 million barrels per day of refining capacity were added between 1996 and 2003. Due to this expansion, even the American Petroleum Institute acknowledges that the Republican's bill is completely unnecessary.

This bill is shamefully using hurricanes and high gas prices as an excuse to advance the extreme anti-environment agenda of the Republican Party's corporate bankrollers. It would:

Allow the President to place new refineries in national forests, wildlife refuges, and 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, all that could be undone without any local recourse.

Give the Federal Government sole authority to place new refineries, even those not on federal land. Apparently the oil executives running the Bush Energy Department know better than your City Council where an oil refinery should be placed.

Requires the Federal Government to reimburse refinery operators for the cost of lawsuits and any new environmental regulations. Citizens beware: If the Bush Administration wants to put a refinery next to your child's preschool, you can sue to block it, but you'll have to pay back the oil company every cent the lawsuit costs them.

We could have raised fuel economy standards today--the one policy that would actually have a dramatic impact on gas prices--but the Majority blocked the House from even voting on the issue. Then again, it would hardly be germane to consider such an amendment on a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with lowering gas prices. I vote no on this reckless bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Rick Geha who is being honored by The Ohlone College Foundation in Fremont, California, as 2005 Citizen of the Year.

Since 1987, the Ohlone College Foundation has awarded a Citizen of the Year Award at its Annual Benefit Luncheon to honor individuals or organizations that have made an exceptional contribution and commitment to the advancement of the community.

Rick Geha is being honored for his ``Commitment to Excellence.'' As a businessman, he is a leader among Bay Area realtors and a mentor in the real estate business.

As a community activist, he is a strong advocate for children and education. He has served on the Ohlone College Foundation Board since 1993 and has held the position of Board Chair for the past eight years. He has served two terms on the Kidango Board of Directors. Kidango, formerly Tri-cities Children's Center, provides a variety of child development programs in 46 locations in three Bay Area Counties. The Fremont Education Foundation honored Rich Geha as the Community Honoree for its 2005 Excellence in Education award.

Rick Geha gives tirelessly to the community through his philanthropy, community service, business expertise, and dedication to making

a positive difference. On October 21, family and friends as well as the grateful recipients of Rich Geha's kind service and financial support to non-profit organizations, will gather to acknowledge his years of community service. I join them in appreciation for his commitment to excellence.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act.

The Republican majority has already dismantled nearly every Government program for people, and now it appears they're moving on to other species. They constantly preach that God's creations are precious, yet once again they are showing their hypocrisy that they would be so careless with the lives of God's creatures. Perhaps if some of these endangered species were in a persistent vegetative state, Republicans would come rushing to their aid. Perhaps if scientists would concede these same plants and animals were fashioned during the week of God's creating the world, the right wing would be willing to help.

The Republicans want us to believe that this bill represents a fair and balanced way to protect endangered species without infringing on property rights. Not true. This bill grants unprecedented and immeasurable subsidies to land owners rather than ensuring their fair costs are covered; so much so in fact, that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office cannot estimate the potential impact to the Federal budget.

This bill is nothing more than an assault on our environment. I urge my colleagues to join me, and every environmental organization on God's green Earth, in opposing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 388, Condemn Cuban Repression.

It is ironic that Congress is busy condemning Cuban President Fidel Castro for violating human rights when President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other members

of the administration have endorsed the perpetual detention and torture of over 500 detainees held by the United States military in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Until the United States' foreign policy matches its rhetoric, no country should take these resolutions seriously.

I also oppose this resolution because it singles out and criticizes the European Union for its policies towards Cuba. Again, the United States hypocrisy is on show for the world. As Congress complains about foreign governments having commercial relations with the communist Cuban government, this same Congress has the audacity to pass free trade agreements and expand commercial relations with the communist government of China. Recent history shows that the Chinese government has consistently repressed its citizens. However, I have not seen one recent resolution condemning the Chinese government for its human rights abuses.

Further, the embargo of Cuba has been a failed policy that has only strengthened Fidel Castro's authority. For Congress to encourage other countries to implement a policy that has not worked for 40 years is as misguided as hiring a horse lawyer to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. If this Congress wants to be respected for its opposition against human rights abuses, then the government it should be condemning first for its practices is our own.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 245, which tells the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. I oppose this resolution on two grounds. First, Congress shouldn't be telling the Supreme Court how to do their job. Second, the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional and the 9th Circuit decision should stand.

That being said, I shouldn't be surprised that those who claim to speak for God also think they have the right to tell our independent judiciary what to do. The Republican Majority has railed against activist judges legislating from the bench throughout the Supreme Court nomination hearings, but they apparently see nothing wrong with telling those judges how to rule from the legislature. If judges shouldn't legislate, Congress shouldn't adjudicate.

Beyond the hypocrisy and improper meddling of this resolution, I oppose it because the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The Constitution bars Congress from passing any law that recognizes religion. The 1954 law, passed at the height of anti-Communism, that specifically added the phrase ``under God'' to the Pledge, could not be more clearly unconstitutional.

The feeble argument of proponents of this resolution that ``under God'' is not overtly religious is only undermined by their holy crusade to make darn sure that the phrase stays in the Pledge. This will be the sixth time this House has voted on this issue--hardly a sign of the phrase's unimportance to religious conservatives.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want my children or any child to have a compulsory, religious recitation in this supposedly free society, and seeing the vehemence of those who think otherwise only strengthens my opposition to the Pledge.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) to introduce the Medicare Informed Choice Act. This bill provides needed extra protections for beneficiaries during the first year of implementation of the new Medicare prescription drug program.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced that participation rates by private drug plans and new Medicare Advantage plans in the new Part D drug program will be much higher than originally predicted. There will be an average of 40-50 plans per region in the country. Babette S. Edgar, finance and operations division director in CMS's Medicare Drug Benefit Group, was recently quoted saying, ``There's going to be a lot of choice out there . . . It's going to be very, very confusing for [beneficiaries].''

We agree with Ms. Edgar. That's why we're introducing the Medicare Informed Choice Act. It is a simple bill with three important protections:

(1) Delays late enrollment penalties: Beneficiaries need adequate time to make an informed choice. The bill expands the existing six- month open enrollment period to the entire year of 2006. This will give people added time to do the research and make the best decisions for themselves. Six months is not adequate time to reach and counsel 42 million beneficiaries on this complex new program.

(2) Protections against bad choices: This provision gives every Medicare beneficiary the opportunity to make a one-time change in plan enrollment at any point in 2006. Marketing is sure to be very aggressive and people may make a bad choice. Given the importance of the decision they make, it is appropriate to give beneficiaries a one- time chance to correct an initial mistake made during the first year of implementation.

(3) Protections for employer-provided retiree benefits: Some retirees might not understand that purchasing Part D coverage could cost them their retiree health benefits. This provision would protect retirees from being dropped by their former employer's plan during the first year of implementation, so that beneficiaries have time to correct enrollment mistakes.

Medicare beneficiaries are going to soon begin getting bombarded by information on the new drug benefit. Some information will come directly from the government in the form of the 2006 Medicare & You Handbook, a government insert in an upcoming edition of Parade Magazine, government-prepared television advertisements, and mailings from Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration, communications from their Members of Congress and Senators, and more. On top of all of these messages, they'll be recipients of direct marketing from untold numbers of private plans urging them to join their drug plan. They'll also likely hear from advocacy organizations like the Medicare Rx Access Network, State Health Insurance Programs around the country, and senior organizations. If they currently have retiree health benefits, they'll hear from their former employers as well.

Medicare beneficiaries are being told that there will be counselors available to assist them at 1-800-Medicare and at local State Health Insurance Programs around the country. We know from experience that these phone lines and support services will be overburdened. Beneficiaries should not pay the price for a support system that may not operate effectively. To avert that, we must inject some flexibility into the implementation period.

The Administration's own actuaries are concerned that participation rates will be far lower than they'd initially anticipated--they've announced figures as low as 9 million out of Medicare's more than 40 million beneficiaries. Again, CMS is right to be concerned. We appreciate their recognition of the pending chaos for seniors and people with disabilities.

By delaying late enrollment penalties, giving every beneficiary a chance to change plans during the first year, and protecting those with employer-provided retiree health benefits, we can make sure our constituents are not forced into making quick--and wrong--decisions during the first year of this new program. By providing this flexibility, it is our hope that people will feel more confident in their ability to make an informed choice.

We are pleased that Representatives Dingell, Rangel, Miller, Waxman, Brown, and Pallone--Congressional leaders on health care policy--have all joined us in introducing this legislation today. The bill has also been endorsed by leading senior citizen advocacy groups including: the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of Teachers, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Consumers Union, Families USA, the Medicare Rights Center, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

We urge CMS Administrator McClellan, HHS Secretary Leavitt, President Bush and Republicans in Congress to join with us to help mitigate the weight of the difficult choices that beneficiaries will have to make by endorsing the Medicare Informed Choice Act and working for its swift passage.

Let's work together to make sure that initial choices don't negatively impact Medicare beneficiaries who may have acted without all the information needed to make the best choice. Protecting Medicare beneficiaries should not be a partisan endeavor. We look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to enact this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005.

Disappointingly, I would have voted for this legislation to reauthorize the Head Start program if it were the same bill that the Education and Workforce Committee passed unanimously with bipartisan support. That bill's new teacher qualifications and increased accountability would have greatly improved the educational outcomes for children in the Head Start program. I would have preferred that bill provide more funding to ensure all eligible children can receive Head Start services, but on balance, the bipartisan bill was worth voting for.

Instead, the Republican Majority has added an amendment which would, for the first time

in Head Start's 30-year history, allow a faith-based sponsored Head Start Program to use Federal taxpayer dollars to discriminate against highly qualified teachers and other employees solely because of their religious views. Ironically, even the faith-based community Republicans spend so much time pandering to is opposed to this discriminatory amendment. Groups including the Baptist Joint Committee, American Jewish Congress and African American Ministers in Action oppose the notion that Head Start should allow religious discrimination.

This Head Start bill, however, is only the latest example of such prejudice; President Bush and his Congressional Republican counterparts have steadily pushed an agenda latent with religious discrimination. Most recently, the Majority has sought to impart their religious views on historically secular programs such as the Workforce Investment Act and the Community Services Block Grant.

Perhaps what is most abhorrent is that the Republican Party wants to institutionalize discrimination in a program that provides early childhood development and educational services that are intended to prepare low-income children to enter kindergarten and improve their success later in life. These are not the ``family values'' we should teach our children, whether it's paid for with tax-payer funds or not.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. It is time to show the American people that this Congress supports tolerance over discrimination. It is time we had a Head Start Reauthorization bill that focuses on improving the educational development of our children, and is not being used as a vehicle to teach our children one of the world's ugliest lessons: discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 437, which would establish a partisan committee to investigate the Hurricane Katrina preparation and response. I agree with the vast majority of the American people, who favor an independent commission of experts similar to the 9/11 Commission.

Perhaps the American people, like me, are skeptical of the investigative integrity of the Republican Majority. After all, these are the same people who took more than 140 hours of testimony to investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card database but less than five hours of testimony about prisoner abuse in Iraq. The Downing Street Memo has sent shockwaves through the world and confirmed our worst fears about the Iraq war sham, but mum's the word from Republicans in Congress. You also won't find a single committee hearing about Valerie Plame, no-bid Halliburton contracts, or U.S. citizens being imprisoned without a trial.

However, now they say that we should trust them to do a thorough investigation and not hide any damaging evidence regarding the woefully inadequate response to Katrina. Given their history, I think the American people deserve better than an empty promise. It is an insult to the thousands of dead, the victims of rape at the Convention Center, the people who waited five days for buses that never came and so many others who suffered needlessly, to suggest that one year before an election, this Republican Congress is going to pursue indictments not only of their President, but of themselves.

After all, the senior Members of Congress who would populate this Committee are the same ones who advocated moving FEMA into the Homeland Security Department, zealously pursued the downsizing of disaster prevention and response programs, starved wetlands restoration and Army Corps of Engineers funding, and presided over rising poverty rates that make Americans all the more vulnerable.

These foxes have already systematically dismantled the henhouse, sat idly by while the hens suffered, and now want to appoint a committee of foxes to find out what went wrong. I vote no on this ridiculous proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note that failure of leadership and gross incompetence of key officials has led to thousands of unnecessary deaths. To then take this tragedy and attempt to blame the victims, or suggest that they're taking advantage of the situation, is beneath contempt.

The catastrophe on the Gulf Coast shows how vulnerable this country is because of unaccountable, ineffective leadership; a weakened, over- stretched government; and rising poverty and economic dislocation.

The only way to make good of the horrors of this hurricane and the bungled response is to heed the lessons offered:

Some jobs require more than good intentions and the President's trust. It is inexcusable that people with no emergency management experience fill top positions at the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Four years after 9/11, we are no better equipped to save lives in an emergency. Our domestic infrastructure and readiness have paid a severe price in favor of fighting two wars while cutting taxes.

We cannot rely solely on local governments and charities. A strong, well-funded federal government is critical.

If government fails, millions of impoverished Americans are as vulnerable to natural disasters as people in the poorest countries of the world. The horrific photographs of the aftermath of the hurricane make that point all too clear. Meeting all Americans' health care, education, job training, and housing needs should be at the top of our agenda every day, not just in response to a disaster.

I hope that the crisis of conscience brought by coverage of this hurricane will convince everyone in Congress and around the country to do their part to change the reckless policies that have exacerbated this disaster.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005. Once again, this Congress is attempting to address a very serious and complicated problem with a law that substitutes the talking points of ``tough on crime'' politicians for the wisdom of judges, prosecutors, treatment professionals and child advocates. As a father and someone who has fought for better foster care, education, and health care for children, I object to this ill- conceived legislation that is as much an attack on our independent judiciary as it is a bill to protect kids.

Many child advocates themselves oppose this bill because kids in grade school or junior high will be swept up alongside paroled adults in sex offender registries. Many caught in registries would be 13 and 14 year olds. In some States, children 10 and under would be registered.

This bill creates 36 new mandatory minimum sentences, which impose the judgment of Congress over every case, regardless of the circumstances. The Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have found that mandatory minimums actually have the opposite of their intended effect. They ``destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging plea bargains.'' They treat dissimilar offenders in a similar manner, even though there are vast differences in the seriousness of their conduct and their danger to society. Judges serve a very important role in criminal justice, and Congress should not attempt to do their job for them.

Finally, this bill expands the death penalty, which is not a deterrent, costs more to implement than life imprisonment, and runs the risk of executing the innocent.

Nobody, especially the parents and victims of sexual abuse who have contacted me on this issue, should confuse my objections to this bad policy with indifference to the problem of child sex abuse in this country. It is a huge problem, affecting millions of American children. Recent news stories prove that the registry system isn't working well.

I support aspects of this bill, including a strengthened nationwide registry for pedophiles, with strict requirements for reporting changes of address and punishments for failing to report. I support establishing treatment programs for sex offenders in prison, background checks for foster parents, funding for computer systems to track sex crimes involving the Internet, and, at last resort, procedures for committing sexually dangerous persons to secure treatment facilities.

However, I cannot violate my constitutional duty to protect our independent judiciary nor can I support extreme, dangerous policies, so I will vote against this bill. I hope that, working with the Senate, we can improve this legislation and implement the policies that everyone agrees are needed without the unintended consequences of the bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H. Res. 427.

I cannot vote for a resolution supporting a ``global war on terrorism'' because there is no such thing. The only war the United States is engaged in is the misguided Iraq War. To support a resolution simply so President Bush can continue to carry out actions in the name of this false global war of terrorism only encourages this Administration to lead this country into additional unnecessary military actions.

Instead of honoring the victims of 9/11 and their families, this resolution only encourages the President to sacrifice more American lives for wars that have nothing to do with terrorism or the events of that tragic day.

When the House leadership presents a resolution that truly honors the victims of 9/11, I will vote for it. Until that happens, I urge my fellow Members of Congress to vote against this resolution and others that endorse President Bush's misguided foreign policies.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, September 10, 2005, the San Lorenzo Homes Association in San Lorenzo, California will celebrate 60 years as one of the oldest homeowners' associations in the United States.

During World War II, thousands came to the San Francisco Bay Area to work in the shipyards. In response to the need for housing, David D. Bohannon purchased rich farmland south of the San Lorenzo Creek where abundant fruit and vegetable crops were grown.

On May 18, 1944, builders broke ground on the first home in the Village tracts, which launched the wartime construction of the planned community. Bohannon applied a mass production method, the reverse of the normal prefab process, by moving the factory to the housing site. Each worker was trained to do a single part of the job. The assembled houses rolled off the line at the rate of one every seven hours.

The first houses had a ``war worker's room'' with a separate entrance to help meet the housing shortage. The 1945 three-bedroom homes were priced at $5,950. Some rented for $55 per month. With the slogan ``Every Lot a Garden Spot'' and In-Door-Outdoor Living, San Lorenzo Village grew at the rate of 1,329 houses per project.

Land was set aside for schools, churches, stores, parks, restaurants, a movie theater and the Nimtez Freeway, which was built in 1953. The construction headquarters was turned into a playground, community hall and the San Lorenzo Homeowners' Association offices.

The Association is controlled by a board of directors elected annually on staggered terms of three years each. The first meeting was held on April 5, 1945. After a few months, with the number of homes increasing so rapidly, it became apparent that it was necessary to have paid employees to devote their full time to Homes' Association work.

Through the years, the Association, with its volunteer Board of Directors and professional management, has been successful in ensuring the appearance, safety, and financial accountability of San Lorenzo Village.

Since 1945, San Lorenzo Village has grown from its original 1,329 homes to 5,686. The value of San Lorenzo Village homes has increased over eight thousand percent over the past sixty years.

I have a personal connection to the San Lorenzo Homes Association. My wife, Deborah Roderick Stark, was born in San Lorenzo and her parents, Frank and Mary Roderick, are long-time residents and members of the Association.

On behalf of the Roderick and Stark families, I applaud the exemplary contributions of the San Lorenzo Homes Association. The Association has demonstrated its leadership to maintain the integrity of this planned community and its commitment to quality service delivery to meet the needs of Village residents.