Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the city of Newark, CA as it celebrates its 50th year of incorporation. The city will celebrate this milestone anniversary during its annual Newark Days event on September 22-25, 2005. This year's Newark Days celebration will fall on the anniversary of the city's incorporation in 1955.

The slogan for this year's Newark Days is ``People, Pride and Progress.'' Newark Mayor Dave Smith describes this slogan as an accurate representation of the involvement of the city's community. In a recent article in the Tri-City Voice, a local paper serving the cities of Fremont, Newark and Union City, the Mayor describes ``rampant volunteerism'' in the city; everything from Newark Days, a non-profit organization, to feeding the poor through an organization like the Viola Blythe Center or the just concluded Ash Street Park summer program run by Friends of Ash Street Community Enrichment or the League of Volunteers Newark, which provides many services to the city.

During a recent interview in the Tri-City Voice, Mayor Smith proudly stated: the people of Newark always rise to the occasion to give of themselves to the community. This makes it a special place. Why do they do it? It's because they take pride in their community. There is a tremendous community pride in Newark.

From humble beginnings as a total bedroom community, the city developed a long-term vision and a strategic focus to insure its prosperity and economic independence. Thoughtful planning of residential and commercial development, careful renovation, community involvement, as well as the exemplary delivery of services has resulted in the city's fiscal and social wellness.

I join in expressing heartiest congratulations to the city of Newark, its elected leadership, administrators, and residents on the 50th anniversary to Newark's' incorporation. I am confident Newark will continue to thrive. Happy birthday and best wishes for continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 conference report. If U.S. energy policy were the Titanic, Republicans would give a tax credit for bailing water rather than changing navigation techniques to avoid a future crisis. Fossil fuels are increasingly expensive, polluting, contribute to war and global unrest, and will run out within the next 50-100 years, and yet President Bush and Republicans in Congress want to ride the sinking ship of oil dependence to its disastrous conclusion.

This compromise between the House and Senate Republicans shows the good, the bad, and the ugly of politics.

Good: After four years getting nowhere with drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and exempting manufacturers of MTBE from legal liability for groundwater contamination, the Republicans have finally relented and removed these provisions from the conference report.

Bad: Now that everyone isn't focused on these high-profile issues, there's a sinking realization that this bill does nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and will actually raise, not lower, the price of gasoline, because it triples the use of ethanol. Ethanol is a Midwestern farm subsidy, pure and simple. It's expensive, it emits some air pollutants more than gasoline, and up to six times more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel contains.

Ugly: The bill exempts oil and gas companies from the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. To speed up oil production, oil companies can now inject fluids laced with toxic chemicals into oil and gas wells that penetrate groundwater. According to the bill, the EPA no longer has any ability to regulate these activities or force oil companies to prevent contamination of drinking water supplies.

If you asked the American people how to create a secure energy future, they'd talk about solar and wind power, placing higher

emission standards on SUVs, and conservation, but the great minds in the Republican Party don't believe in these proven strategies any more than they believe in the science of global warming.

Since I know that Republicans don't like high gas prices, smog, asthma, or ruined wilderness any more than I do, I can only conclude that they are selling out the American people for their corporate contributors. I will have no part of it and I vote ``no'' on this shameful bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have been told that weapons of mass destruction required an invasion of Iraq, that ketchup is a vegetable, and that global warming is a vast, left-wing conspiracy. Now, the great minds of the Republican Party want us to believe that lawyers are to blame for skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums.

Respected insurance, health care, and legal experts all show that insurance companies, with their record surpluses, are to blame for rising premiums. Who are you going to believe? I cast my vote with the experts, and against H.R. 5, the so-called Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005.

This bill arbitrarily caps payments for pain and suffering at $250,000 and extends liability protection not only to doctors, but to HMOs, nursing homes and manufacturers of drugs and medical devices. Furthermore, the President and other Republican proponents claim that this bill will halt skyrocketing medical costs. That's hogwash. Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has found that the this bill would have a negligible effect on health care spending, ultimately reducing insurance premiums by less than one-half of one percent.

Ineffective legislation is one thing, but this bill is legislative malpractice. It would mean that a child permanently disabled by an incompetent doctor would receive only $250,000 to be compensated for a lifetime of pain and the inability to lead a full life. If this bill were enacted, nursing homes that abuse our seniors, HMOs that deny critical care, and drug companies that market dangerous drugs like Vioxx can take your life for a guaranteed low price set by their friends in Congress.

The implication of limiting damages and attorneys' fees is that greedy lawyers and their irresponsible clients are somehow faking medical errors or blaming natural medical problems on innocent doctors. Given that medical errors are the eighth-leading cause of death in this country, exceeding car accidents, breast cancer, and AIDS, that suggestion is off base. Anyone who's ever been at the bedside of someone in the hospital and received 12 different answers from 12 different care providers about treatment instructions knows the risk of a serious medical error.

This bill does nothing to reduce medical errors, and it won't reduce malpractice premiums. Between 2000 and 2004, claims payments rose by less than 6% while insurers' net premiums rose by 120%. The money isn't going to lawyers--it is padding the pockets of wealthy insurance companies, and they have no intention of ending the windfall even if this bill passes.

I support the Democratic bill, which Republican leaders won't allow to come up for a vote. That bill reforms the insurance industry--breaks up insurance monopolies and gives doctors the right to challenge premium increases--and has sensible tort reform without blocking compensation for injured patients. Unlike the Republican bill, any savings by insurance companies would be required to actually reduce malpractice insurance premiums and 50% of punitive damage payments would go to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to reduce medical errors.

If high premiums and medical errors are the problem, the Democratic bill seems like a logical solution. So logical in fact, so tempting even to my Republican colleagues, that their leadership won't even allow them to vote on the Democratic alternative. I urge my colleagues to reject this sham and force this House to consider real legislation to solve this national crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3045, the implementing legislation for the U.S.-Central America- Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). When big business calls, Republicans always answer, and today we vote on a gift to big business paid for by American and Central American workers.

The signatory countries inked this agreement 14 months ago. CAFTA is so unpopular that the Republicans were unwilling to bring it up for a vote before the 2004 elections. Now we're voting at the final hour with supporters relying on promised favors and twisted arms for victory. This is not the example we should be setting for growing democracies in Central America and around the world.

Beyond the example we set globally, this agreement does not include basic labor, environmental and public health standards.

Instead of forcing countries to meet basic environmental standards, the agreement allows them to enforce their own substandard environmental laws. If you have ever wanted to see the pristine beauty of the Costa Rican rain forest or Lake Atitlan in Guatemala you might want to book your tickets before the ``benefits'' of CAFTA begin to destroy these natural wonders.

``Enforce your own laws'' must be the favorite new saying in the Bush Administration because CAFTA applies this meaningless standard to labor rights as well. It would have been simple to require all CAFTA signatories to codify the International Labor Organization's core labor standards. But the Bush Administration doesn't care about workers rights as long as American companies have a cheap Central American labor pool to draw from. When Central American workers don't have the right to organize, or even the right to a safe workplace, at least the Bush Administration can take solace in the fact that they have sent them low-paying jobs that used to belong to hard-working Americans.

There are other egregious provisions in CAFTA, some written for Republican benefactors like the pharmaceutical industry. At the behest of PhRMA--the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association-- the Bush Administration negotiated a sweet deal for brand name drugs that will limit CAFTA countries' access to affordable generic alternatives.

The pharmaceutical industry will solely benefit from a provision to extend its monopolies to Central America. If this agreement is approved, the most profitable industry on the planet will get an additional five years to exploit the sick to maximize profits. This provision will raise the price of drugs for CAFTA-country residents and could limit their ability to provide more affordable generic drugs during public health emergencies.

In countries where people make two dollars a day, it is abhorrent to eliminate cheaper generics from the market and force workers to pay for expensive, brand name drugs.

Instead of voting on CAFTA today, we should be telling the Bush Administration to renegotiate. This is a bad agreement for America and for Central America. I urge all my colleagues to ignore the Majority's empty promises and arm-twisting and vote against this reprehensible free trade agreement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3283, the so-called United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act. This bill purports to address China's lax enforcement of its international trade obligations. In fact, this bill does little to address serious trade issues with China, and it is on the House floor for only one reason: to garner votes for CAFTA later this week.

There is no question that Congress should do everything in its power to enforce trade rights worldwide. However, giving lip service to an issue that deserves our careful consideration and strong action is a grave disservice to the American people. What we should be talking about today is the Bush Administration's continued failure to decrease our trade deficits and promote labor rights, environmental standards and public health protections with our trading partners.

Let's look at the facts: In 2004, the U.S. trade deficit with China grew to a record $162 billion. This despite the fact that China joined the World Trade Organization, WTO, in 2001 and should be well on its way to reducing trade barriers and opening up their markets to U.S. goods and services. Even the United States Trade Representative has said that China's WTO compliance efforts are ``far from complete and have not always been satisfactory.''

Given these facts, I support strong trade enforcement against China. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1498, the Chinese Currency Act, which would allow the administration to impose countervailing duties due to China's continued currency manipulation. The bill has 110 bipartisan cosponsors and provides real enforcement mechanisms, instead of the studies and redefinitions offered by H.R. 3283. If the leadership were serious about China we would be voting on this meaningful legislation today. But, that is not the case.

Madam Speaker, we have known about trade enforcement issues in China for years. But China legislation magically appears only now that CAFTA is in trouble. I urge my colleagues to vote against this sham bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 525, the regurgitated association health plan, AHP, bill. This is the fourth vote on this exact same legislation in as many years. So, if my statement sounds familiar, that's because it has all been said before.

While they've titled the bill the Small Business Health Fairness Act, its impact would be the opposite. This bill would have the perverse effect of increasing the cost of health insurance for many people and increase the number of people without health insurance altogether.

This bill would allow new entities, called association health plans, AHPs, to bypass State regulation and offer bare-bones health insurance policies. Small businesses that don't choose to offer these inadequate policies would see their premiums increase by 23 percent on average. This premium hike would occur because AHPs, which would offer only bare-bones coverage, would attract the healthiest individuals, leaving traditional health insurance plans with the sickest and most expensive patients. This shift would penalize businesses with sicker employees, and make health insurance for those who need it the most even more unaffordable.

Further, this legislation would swell the ranks of the uninsured by over 1 million more individuals. As traditional health insurance becomes increasingly expensive, more and more businesses would have no choice but to drop health insurance for their employees, leaving these individuals with little or no opportunity to purchase health coverage.

Contrary to what proponents of this bill claim, AHPs would not truly help small businesses purchase health insurance for their employees. Although proponents claim that AHPs would give small employers bargaining power to purchase affordable health insurance, most States already have laws in place that allow for group purchasing arrangements. This bill would only harm existing laws while usurping the traditional role of States to regulate insurance.

In fact, this bill would override key State laws and regulations that protect millions of Americans. For example, many States regulate insurance premiums to prevent insurers from discriminating against the ill. But under this bill those laws wouldn't apply. AHPs would be allowed to offer extremely low, ``teaser'' rates, and then rapidly increase the premium if the enrollee becomes sick. Furthermore, nearly all States have enacted external review laws that guaranteed patients an independent doctor review if a health plan denies them coverage for a particular service. Patients who join AHPs would lose this vitally important consumer protection.

This bill also exempts AHPs from State laws that require health insurance to cover particular benefits. These laws have helped to ensure that millions of Americans get access to the healthcare that they need--such as mammography screenings, maternity care, well-child care, and prompt payment rules. In my State of California, employees who join AHPs could well lose access to these services as well as certain emergency services, direct access to OB/GYNs, mental health parity, and other important benefits. Moreover, this law would allow health plans to ``gag'' doctors, the currently illegal practice of health insurers preventing doctors from discussing treatment options that the plan does not cover, even if some of those options are in the patient's best medical interest.

The problems go on. AHPs are likely to create new fraud and abuse problems in health care as well. These plans are very similar to multiple employer welfare plans, MEWAs, that Congress created in the 1970s. MEWAs were also exempt from State insurance regulation. The Department of Labor found that many of these plans were frauds and left their enrollees holding the bag for more than $123 million in unpaid health expenses. Congress had to come back and clean up the law to end this blatant abuse. We should learn from that mistake, not repeat it.

This bill is bad for patients, bad for small business, and bad for States. It is opposed by more than 1,300 organizations, including the National Governors Association, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the American Academy of Actuaries, local Chambers of Commerce, small business associations, physician organizations, labor unions, and healthcare coalitions.

The Senate has no intention of taking up this legislation. It's bad policy, and our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol know it. Taking yet another vote on AHPs is an enormous waste of time and taxpayer resources, and has nothing to do with providing affordable healthcare options to our citizens. Health care reform shouldn't raise premiums, increase the number of uninsured, lead to massive fraud, and remove key State patient protections. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation once and for all.

Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act, because I swore to uphold the Constitution. The PATRIOT Act clearly violates all Americans' Fifth Amendment right to due process and Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, among others. If the Government takes our rights away in order to supposedly defend them, what are we even fighting for?

Using the PATRIOT Act over the last four years, the Bush Administration has monitored meetings of citizens who dare to criticize their government. It has searched homes without warrants and listened in on phone conversations without any reasonable justification.

If this is the price of security, now is a fair time to ask: what security have we gained? The terrorist who mailed anthrax to the U.S. Capitol and shut down a Senate office building for two weeks is still at large, but a University of Connecticut graduate student who studies anthrax in Petri dishes was charged with bioterrorism. The cargo that rides aboard almost every commercial flight remains unsecured, but a New Jersey man faces up to 20 years in prison under the PATRIOT Act for looking at star's with his seven year old daughter because he shone a laser beam on an airplane.

I am proud to represent one of the most diverse congressional districts in the country. The people of the 13th District know that your ethnicity, religion or country of origin is not indicative of your commitment to community--or anything else, for that matter. That's why cities across the East Bay were among the first in the nation to pass resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act. I stand with them in support of those actions.

Mr. Chairman, searching my constituents' homes and not telling them, collecting information about what they read, and tracking their e-mail and web usage is a war on liberty to create a false sense of security. To paraphrase one of our founding fathers, Ben Franklin, the nation that sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this unpatriotic act.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2601, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. This bill endorses more of the same disastrous foreign policy that the Bush Administration has recklessly carried out since entering office.

Due to the addition of a misguided amendment on the floor today, this bill endorses the United States' continued involvement in the Iraq War. This war has caused the death of almost 1,800 Americans and wounded or killed more than 60,000 Iraqis, wasted billions of dollars, and created a fertile breeding ground for anti-American terror. Instead of endorsing our prolonged involvement in a misguided war, this bill misses a significant opportunity to focus on a plan to leave Iraq.

Further, it is disappointing that this Congress--for the second time this year--has endorsed provisions that threaten punitive actions against the United Nations if they fail to implement the Republican Congress' idea of reform. It is this type of unilateral bullying that has diminished the reputation and standing of the United States around the world. Such uncompromising actions guarantee that the United States government will alienate its friends and encourage its enemies. We belong to a community of nations. We must begin to act like a good neighbor, or risk being further internationally isolated.

I also oppose this bill's claim that the Bush Administration policies at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are humane and legal. After the revelation of insurmountable evidence and court decisions, it is clear that the Bush Administration fully supported the U.S. military's policy of torturing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and has illegally held prisoners indefinitely without proper due process. To support any legislation that contradicts these facts would simply be lying. I will not join the Majority in an attempt to blatantly deceive the American people and the world.

This bill also continues to endorse providing military aid to Egypt and Israel. Only a fool would be surprised that lighting dynamite would cause it to explode. The same is true for providing more weapons to a volatile and dangerous situation that exists in the Middle East. Our military assistance has been employed to carry out violence against the Palestinian people and, in the case of Egypt, against their own citizens. It is time that the Bush Administration got America out of the arms dealing business and into the peace business. Only when the United States stops supplying the area with weapons will parties on both sides view us as an honest broker. Only then will peace be possible.

Today, Congress had a real chance to advance an agenda that would support American international interests and provide humanitarian help to many countries in need. This bill fails to grasp that chance. A Foreign Relations Act from the so-called greatest country on earth should do more than promote an illegitimate war, supply arms to embattled nations and lie bold-faced to the world about activities so many have witnessed. This bill is an embarrassment to this Nation and I call on my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the annual comparison of health care costs in the 30 OECD member countries. I commend Gerald F. Anderson, Peter S. Hussey, Bianca K. Frogner, and Hugh R. Waters for their Health Affairs article: ``Health Spending in the United States and the Rest of the Industrialized World; Examining the impact of waiting lists and litigation reveals no significant effects on the U.S. health spending differential.''

Once again the United States leads the way, spending $5,267 per capita on health care--53 percent more than the next highest country, Switzerland. The median per capita expenditure in the 30 OECD countries is a mere $2,073, and yet none of these countries have 45 million uninsured people. Even worse, the U.S. is 17th in life expectancy among these countries. It is a travesty that the U.S. spends more than any other country and still can't provide universal coverage or break the top fifteen in life expectancy.

It is no surprise that our failure to embrace universal healthcare and our inefficient fragmented delivery system results in high spending and poor outcomes. The rest of the OECD countries have some form of national health system. It works for them, but instead of working toward that system here in the U.S., House Republicans will put legislation on the floor during their upcoming ``health week'' that will further demolish our health care system.

Republicans will say that universal health care means waiting lists that hold down spending. They'll claim that litigation costs here in the U.S. are the main driver of increased healthcare costs, and that we need to limit malpractice suits to lower our costs. According to the study, neither litigation costs in the U.S., nor waiting lists in other OECD countries account for a significant portion of the difference between domestic and international health care spending.

If Republicans bring Association Health Plan (AHP) and Medical Malpractice legislation to the floor next week, don't think for one second they have any desire to reduce costs, increase access or improve quality. AHPs will actually increase premiums for nearly 80 percent of affected workers. This is how the market works, Republicans pass a bill, insurance companies cash in, and patients pay more and lose important regulatory protections. Medical malpractice makes up less than 0.5 percent of health care costs in all OECD countries with tort based compensation, and damage caps and other reforms will only mean increased profits for malpractice insurance carriers, not increased justice for patients or lower premiums for doctors.

The Republicans will give lip service to health care next week, but the only real way to deal with spiraling health care costs is to follow the lead of the other 29 OECD countries and provide universal health care.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Davis Street Family Resource Center's RotaCare Free Acute Medical Clinic in San Leandro, California. On July 20, 2005, an anniversary celebration will be held to honor the 10th anniversary of the Clinic and will also mark the grand opening of the Dr. Jack Goodrich Free Dental Clinic at the site.

Davis Street is the only multiservice family support agency in the San Leandro area. It provides services to more than 10,000 people in need every year. Programs and services include low-cost and subsidized childcare, emergency food and clothing, acute medical care, crisis counseling, job preparation and placement services, holiday food and toy baskets.

Davis Street Family Resource Center's RotaCare Free Acute Clinic opened its doors in 1995 and serves over 1,000 uninsured and underinsured individuals each year. Over 60% are children. The Clinic is entirely staffed by volunteer doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists and social workers to provide quality, essential acute care to individuals who otherwise would not have access to adequate health care.

With the support of the community and volunteers, the RotaCare Free Acute Medical Clinic offers Spanish back classes, workshops on diabetes and asthma management, nutrition education, immunizations and physical exams.

Since April 2004, Davis Street has offered Adult Dental days as a series of day clinics leading up to the permanent addition of the free dental program.

With the help of the San Leandro Rotary Club, Dr. Jack Goodrich and funding from Tom Kroetch, a longtime supporter of the medical clinic, the Braddock Foundation and the office of Alameda County Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker, the Free and Low Cost Acute Dental Clinic will provide low cost and free dental care to adults. Dr. Jack Goodrich, who is also a past Davis Street board member, will offer basic emergency care, basic dentistry, education on dental care and dental screenmgs.

I congratulate the RotaCare Free Acute Medical Clinic on its 10th anniversary of service and congratulate the Davis Street Family Resource Center's opening of the Dr. Jack Goodrich Free Dental Clinic. All who contribute to the success of these exemplary resources for our community are to be commended.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican attack on workplace health and safety represented by the four bills offered today amending the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Once again in this Republican Congress, the lobbying power of big business takes precedence over the well being of hard working Americans.

Every year almost 6,000 workers in this country die due to workplace accidents. That number will surely rise if the Republicans are successful in passing these four bills. I could understand if Congress wanted to attack supposedly overbearing OSHA regulations, but this legislative package makes it harder for OSHA to enforce even the most non-controversial workplace safety regulations. Republicans have no interest in actually reforming OSHA, they merely want another notch on the bedpost to attract more campaign contributions from big business.

In post 9/11 America, strong enforcement of OSHA regulations can save lives. In the unfortunate event of another terrorist attack, it is OSHA who ensures clear ingress and egress from buildings, and proper size and placement of stairwells and exits to facilitate emergency evacuations. The bills before us undermine OSHA's ability to effectively enforce these vital safety standards. Once again, the misguided priorities of the Republicans and the Bush Administration seem more concerned about corporate profits than the safety of our workers.

Even more shameful, is the message these bills send about the true Republican agenda for labor rights. For over a year, Republicans in Congress have been talking about how the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) improves working conditions in other countries. Not only is that contention blatantly false, it is clear from this legislation that Republicans don't care about working conditions in this country, let alone in Central America.

We should not undermine worker health and safety for the benefit of big business. I urge my colleagues to look past the rhetoric of ``OSHA reform'' and vote against these destructive bills that erode worker protections.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with Representative George Miller to introduce the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act of 2005.

More than a decade ago, the momentous and highly successful Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) became law. With the FMLA, Congress required large companies to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid family and medical leave to its employees. And while no one will argue with FMLA's success, there remains room for improvement.

On July 1, 2004, California became one of five states to improve FMLA by providing 6 weeks of paid leave. A study found that by providing wages during periods of leave, the new program worked even better than the original. A higher percentage of workers returned to their jobs after taking paid leave, and businesses were having no trouble shifting the workload absent employees left behind.

Prudently, the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act introduced today builds on the successes of both FMLA and the California paid-leave program. This new bill provides workers nationwide with up to 55 percent of their wages for as long as 12 weeks. This leave can be used to care for a newborn or adopted child, disabled family members, or to take care of their own short-term disability.

Since unpaid leave has worked well to reduce worker turnover and improve workers productivity, there is every reason to believe that paid leave would improve the lives of families and increase the profits of companies further.

In addition, the Harvard School for Public Health reports that the education and health of children improves when their parents have paid sick leave and work flexibility. Of children whose math and reading scores are in the bottom 25 percent, more than half have parents who lack paid sick leave and work flexibility. These same children were more likely to suffer from sickness, infection, chronic illness and under-immunization.

A Canadian government study demonstrated that extended time off for parents with their newborn child is directly associated with the successful social and cognitive growth of the child.

I'm pleased to have worked closely with a wide range of worker and consumer organizations to develop this bill. The legislation is endorsed by the AFL-CIO, United Auto Workers, National Partnership for Women and Families, and others.

With continued rhetoric focusing on ``family values,'' this bill gives Congress a concrete opportunity to strengthen both families and businesses.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act, and look forward to enacting this bill to strengthen families, make businesses more competitive and create a stronger America for the future.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY 2006.

The United States should be the world's leading peace broker rather than its largest arms dealer. Unfortunately, about one-quarter, or about $5 billion, of the funding for this foreign operations appropriations bill is direct military aid and more than $2.5 billion are ``Economic Support Funds,'' which are often used for security operations. Supplying so many weapons to other nations does more to promote war than it does to enable peace.

To be fair, there are positive provisions in this bill. For example, it increases funding for family planning programs and the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA. Regrettably, this good news is tarnished by another provision in the bill that gives President Bush the power to unilaterally withhold funding from the UNFPA initiative. For several years, President Bush has withheld these funds claiming that UNFPA plays a role in the coercive abortion practices of the Chinese.

Despite that rhetoric, UNFPA does not provide funding for abortions or abortion services. It works to prevent the need for abortions by educating women in other countries on the many advantages to services such as contraception and disease prevention. UNFPA is the largest internationally funded source of population assistance to developing countries. For over three decades, the UNFPA has provided billions of dollars of assistance to more than 150 countries for voluntary family planning and maternal and child health care.

I am also disappointed that the bill fails to fund the Global Environmental Facility, GEF. The GEF is the largest single funding source for projects to improve our global environment.

I also oppose provisions in this bill that have removed all conditionality on U.S. military assistance to Indonesia and Guatemala. Indonesia continues to abuse the human rights of its people and Guatemala has violated numerous agreements stipulated in its domestic peace accords.

What message is this Republican Congress sending the world? On the one hand, President Bush sends Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on a tour of the Middle East touting democracy. On the other hand, this Republican Congress is allowing brutal regimes to get military aid without any restrictions.

I cannot vote for this legislation. The large amount of military aid and the lack of commitment to promoting democracy and international family planning initiatives force me to vote against it. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this ill-conceived legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the twenty-second anniversary of the Fremont Festival of the Arts, sponsored by the Fremont, California Chamber of Commerce. Annual contributions from the Festival provide over $400,000 to non-profit agencies in the Fremont community.

The Festival is expected to attract over 45,000 individuals and will feature more than 800 artists, 40 culinary selections and 30 musical groups. This effort is made possible through the generous help of some 3,000 volunteers who give willingly of their time to insure the success of the Festival.

The spirit of community service continues to thrive in Fremont as exhibited by the Fremont Festival of the Arts. I am confident this year's Festival will be a success, and through its contributions to non-profits, will make a difference in the lives of all who live in our community.

I commend the efforts of David M. O'Hara, Festival Chairman, and Cindy Bonair, Chamber CEO and Festival Director, for their generous and untiring efforts to make the Fremont Festival of the Arts a model event.

Mr. Chairman, I rise against H.R. 3058, the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, because it shortchanges critical needs of the most vulnerable Americans while continuing to make room for tax breaks for millionaires and our unwinnable quagmire in Iraq.

This bill eliminates funding for the Housing and Urban Development Brownfields program and Youthbuild. It cuts funding for the successful HOPE VI public housing redevelopment program by over $80 million and for Community Development grants by $250 million.

The Brownfields program helps cities redevelop abandoned and underused industrial sites. Youthbuild allows unemployed young people aged 16 to 24 to work toward their high school diploma while building housing for low-income people and the homeless.

All of these programs could have been fully funded for $430 million more, or about the cost of 3 days of the Iraq occupation. I will not vote to deny a high school diploma to an underprivileged youth who's willing to build housing so that Halliburton can waste more than $1 billion, including charges for 10,000 meals never served, $152,000 in ``movie library costs,'' and $1.5 million for tailoring.

A Democratic colleague of mine wrote an amendment to reverse these cuts by reducing the 2006 tax break for individuals making more than $1 million by a mere $9,000. But the Republican majority would not even allow a vote on the issue. Perhaps a direct vote on their morally bankrupt priorities would have proved too uncomfortable.

Finally, this bill continues the Republican majority's pursuit of its right-wing social agenda against the citizens of the District of Columbia who have no voting representation in the Federal Government. The bill bars the District from using any Federal or local funds for needle exchange programs, which are proven effective in reducing the spread of HIV. It overturns the city's ban on handguns, blocks implementation of a medical marijuana program, prevents DC from forcing all insurers to offer full contraceptive coverage, and limits a woman's right to choose. Ironically, it also prevents the District Government from lobbying for voting representation so it can avoid suffering the social experiments of the modern day Pharisees.

While the bill could have been worse and funds some important programs, I cannot in good conscience support its misplaced priorities, and therefore I vote ``no.''