Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring your attention to the recent Human Rights Watch report, Getting Away with Torture?: Command Responsibility for the U.S. Abuse of Detainees. This report reveals the unthinkable: The torture carried out against prisoners under U.S. authority may have been part of an official government policy. The report also points out that none of the government and military investigations carried out so far has independently examined the culpability of top civilian and military officials.

Despite strong evidence showing that high-ranking U.S. officials may be responsible for carrying out immoral and illegal policies, ``independent'' investigations have focused on protecting high-ranking officials and punishing subordinates instead of bringing the guilty to justice.

These actions run counter to the United States' long-standing commitment to the spirit of the Geneva Convention. The War Crimes Act of 1996 provides criminal punishment for Americans who commit a war crime inside or outside the United States, and defines a war crime as any ``grave breach'' of the Geneva Conventions. The Anti-Torture Act of 1996 crimina1izes acts of torture occurring outside the United States' territorial jurisdiction regardless of the citizenship of the perpetrator or victim.

It should not have to be stated, but the United Stated must operate under the laws it has passed. If crimes have been committed they must be investigated completely.

This report raises important issues and calls for the United States Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to carry out an investigation and prosecute all government officials and private citizens that developed, approved and carried out these torture policies. I urge my colleagues to read the report, available online at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405/.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the George Mark Children's House in San Leandro, California, the first freestanding residential children's hospice and respite care facility in the United States. The House offers around the clock respite care; transitional care, end-of life and family care services to children with life- threatening or terminal illnesses.

The George Mark Children's House's focus is on keeping the family intact while in the midst of profoundly challenging circumstances. The House features private family quarters that allow parents and siblings to stay together with a child during the final stage of his or her life, when care at home or the hospital is no longer practical and/or desirable. The House helps families make the most of the precious time they have remaining together. In this unhurried, nurturing and non- institutional setting, child focused end-of life care and bereavement support is available for the entire family.

An interdisciplinary team of specialists staff the House; pediatric physicians, nurses, social workers, spiritual care counselors, therapists and intensively trained volunteers. Through the generosity and support of the community, the George Mark Children's House is accessible to medically eligible families, regardless of their ability to pay.

It is anticipated the House will serve up to 150 families per year from the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond. I am hopeful the George Mark Children's House will serve as a model to be replicated throughout the country for the establishment of other residential children's hospices for terminally ill children, and respite care for their families with a full spectrum of supportive services.

I send best wishes to the George Mark Children's House as we welcome them to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2005. Medicare's mental health coverage is woefully inadequate. Instead of the standard 20 percent coinsurance payment required of beneficiaries, mental health services require a 50 percent copayment. Further, only limited community-based treatments are covered and, unlike treatment for physical illness, there is a 190-day lifetime cap on mental health hospitalization days. The bill we are introducing today eliminates this blatant mental health discrimination under Medicare and modernizes the Medicare mental health benefit to meet today's standards of care.

One in five members of our senior population displays mental difficulties that are not part of the normal aging process. In primary care settings, over a third of senior citizens demonstrate symptoms of depression and impaired social functioning. Yet only one out of every three mentally ill seniors receives the mental health services he/she needs. Older adults also have the highest rate of suicide of any segment of our population. In addition, mental illness is the single largest diagnostic category for Medicare beneficiaries on disability. There is a critical need for effective and accessible mental health care for the Medicare population. Recent research has found a direct relationship between treating depression in older adults and improved physical functioning associated with independent living. Unfortunately, the current structure of Medicare mental health benefits is inadequate and presents multiple barriers to access of essential treatment. This bill addresses these problems.

The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2005 is a straightforward bill that improves Medicare's mental health benefits as follows:

It reduces the discriminatory co-payment for outpatient mental health services from 50 percent to the 20 percent level charged for most other Part B medical services.

It eliminates the arbitrary 190-day lifetime cap on inpatient services in psychiatric hospitals.

It improves beneficiary access to mental health services by including within Medicare a number of community-based residential and intensive outpatient mental health services that characterize today's state-of- the-art clinical practices.

It further improves access to needed mental health services by addressing the shortage of qualified mental health professionals serving older and disabled Americans in rural and other medically underserved areas by allowing state licensed marriage and family therapists and mental health counselors to provide Medicare-covered services.

Similarly, it corrects a legislative oversight that will facilitate the provision of mental health services by clinical social workers within skilled nursing facilities.

It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study to examine whether the Medicare criteria to cover therapeutic services to beneficiaries with Alzheimer's and related cognitive disorders discriminates by being too restrictive.

The push for mental health parity is ongoing. We've made important strides forward for the under-65 population. Twenty-three states have already enacted full mental health parity and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan was improved in 2001 to assure that all federal employees and members of Congress are provided mental health parity. In April 2002, President Bush called for Congress to enact legislation to provide equivalence for private sector health insurance coverage of mental and physical conditions (though he has yet to endorse any legislation to achieve that goal).

What has been too-often missing from this overall mental health parity debate is the fact that the Medicare program continues to fail to meet the mental health needs of America's seniors and those with disabilities. That's why we've introduced the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act. That's also why this bill has received support from numerous mental health advocacy and provider organizations including: the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Mental Health Counselors Association, and the Clinical Social Work Federation.

It is past time for us to take action with regard to Medicare's inadequate mental health benefits. Over the years, Congress has updated Medicare's benefits for treatment of physical illnesses as the practice of medicine has changed. The mental health field has undergone many advances over the past several decades. Effective, research-validated interventions have been developed for many mental conditions that affect stricken beneficiaries. Most mental conditions no longer require long-term hospitalizations, and can be effectively treated in less restrictive community settings. This bill recognizes these advances in clinical treatment practices and adjusts Medicare's mental health coverage to account for them.

The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act of 2005 removes discriminatory features from the Medicare mental health benefits and helps facilitate access to up-to-date and affordable mental health services for our elderly and disabled. I encourage my colleagues to support its passage into law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Arabella Martinez, a remarkable individual who is retiring after many years of exemplary service and dedicated community involvement in Oakland, California. On May 11, 2005, the community will celebrate Ms. Martinez ``The legacy of a Living Legend'' at a dinner in her honor.

Arabella Martinez has extensive experience in a wide range of activities affecting the role of minorities and women in the economy and larger society. Her experience in social work, community action programs, and community development led to her conviction that economic development, evolving from strong, community-directed institutions, was the most effective path toward economic self-sufficiency and empowerment. President Jimmy Carter recognized Ms. Martinez's talent and experience and appointed her Secretary for Human Development Services in the Department of Health Education and Welfare. She became the first Hispanic woman to hold this position.

Ms. Martinez was one of the founders and the first Executive Director of the Spanish Speaking Unity Council. After a fifteen-year absence, she returned to the Unity Council in December 1989, to rescue it from near bankruptcy. The Spanish Speaking Unity Council is now one of the largest and most successful community development corporations in the nation. Besides founding the Unity Council, Ms. Martinez helped build the Women's Initiative for Self Employment as a Board member and consultant. She raised over $800,000 for the Oakland YWCA's capital campaign to save its historically significant Julia Morgan building.

Over the past ten years, Ms. Martinez has successfully worked to revitalize the Fruitvale district, an inner-city neighborhood in Oakland, California. The revitalization includes major real estate development projects, community building activities, and a range of community and family asset development programs. Ms. Martinez's major responsibility has been the successful development of a $100 million mixed use, transit-oriented development around the Fruitvale BART station. The Transit Village includes 245,000 square feet of community facilities, child development and senior centers, a community clinic, a library, technology center, retail space housing and podium parking in two multi-level complexes, bisected by a pedestrian plaza.

The Fruitvale Transit Village has transformed the community and its residents. It provides social services as well as community empowerment for individuals and businesses to thrive.

Arabella Martinez is truly a living legend who continues to work tirelessly for the benefit of others. I join the community in expressing heartfelt appreciation for her noteworthy contributions. She leaves a legacy of talent and commitment that is hard to match.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act of 2005. This bill would not only jail grandparents, older siblings, and others who attempt to help minors who can't turn to their parents, but it would criminalize doctors, regardless of the laws of the State in which they practice.

Today I stand here principally as a Californian. Republicans and Democrats in California have stood up for a woman's right to choose. They have defended the privacy and health of women. We do not have a parental consent law in California because we don't dare suggest that the decision to have an abortion is ever taken lightly or done in isolation unless it's absolutely necessary. We don't pretend that forcing girls who have been raped by their fathers to get their permission to terminate the pregnancy is somehow standing up for ``family values.''

The people of my home State have resisted the grotesque politics of the so-called ``culture of life.'' The politics of people who vote to cut $xx billion in health care for the poorest Americans and simultaneously intervene in private, end-of-life decisions and hide behind their hypocritical mandate of ``looking out for the most vulnerable.''

Even though the people of California and their bipartisan elected leaders have judiciously worked to protect the privacy and health of women, some in Washington, DC, think they know better. This legislation would jail California doctors with out-of-state patients unless they inform the parents in person 24 hours in advance of the procedure. If the parents are unreachable, doctors would have to give notice ``by certified mail, return receipt requested, restricted delivery to the last known address of the person being notified, with delivery deemed to have occurred 48 hours following noon on the next day subsequent to mailing on which regular mail delivery takes place.'' This ludicrous meddling in medical decisionmaking would be a joke if it weren't so tragic.

If enacted, the consequence for offending the religious right now carries with it up to a year in prison. God help the doctor who is as confused by that sentence as I am.

Mr. Chairman, those of us who still believe in science know that the best way to reduce the number of abortions in this country is to have comprehensive sex education and provide full funding for family planning so that unintended pregnancies don't happen in the first place. It's no coincidence that the abortion rate, which hit a 24-year low when President Clinton left office, has risen throughout President Bush's first term. The ``culture of life'' philosophy of hypocrisy, fear, and shame works better on the campaign stump then it does in practice. If this is what the culture of life is really all about, then I want no part of it. I vote no on this shameful, unconstitutional bill.

Madam Speaker, I guess I would be willing to suggest that the Medicaid programs are perfect, but for one major problem, and that would be the Republican Party in the Congress of the United States. What changes would I make? I would enforce the ethics rules to keep their hands out of the pockets of the lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry who fly them about in jets and give them hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, which keeps them from allowing reimportation of drugs which would save many of the Governors a good bit of money on their Medicaid programs.

Changing the ethics rules that let people who might make unethical moves would be another great move, so it would prevent the managed care industry from getting extra money in the Medicare bill which would prevent the Republicans having the money to help Medicaid.

The Medicaid growth is due largely to the lousy job the President has done in job growth, the worst job since Herbert Hoover and the last Republican who had low job growth which increases the demand on Medicaid and the number of poor children and low-income workers who are forced to get their medical care through Medicaid because they are out of work through no fault of their own.

So if we would have decent ethics rules, if we would allow reimportation of drugs, if we would stop allowing the lobbyists to buy votes, we would be able to get the kinds of reform that are needed. The money is currently available in the excesses we are paying to the pharmaceutical industry and the excesses we are paying to the managed care industry which the chair of the Committee on the Budget understands very well, and that is the reform that is needed.

Change Congress. Make the Republicans behave in an ethical manner, and you will have the money for Medicaid.

As Hubert Humphrey once said, ``The moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.''

With all due respect for many of my colleagues, none of us could more eloquently make the case for Medicaid, which takes care of those in the dawn, twilight and shadows of life.

Yet the budget we are going to consider this week fails the moral test of government by requiring savings that will result in deep cuts in Medicaid and other programs that serve low-income, vulnerable populations.

A budget is a statement of priorities. Once again, we are faced with a Republican budget that put tax breaks for the rich and payola to corporate interests, ahead of basic government obligations.

Just as when we debated the Medicare bill in 2003, it appears we will be asked to vote on entitlement policy without adequate information as to its effect. We do not know, for example, how the cuts will be distributed across states and populations. How many people will lose coverage? How many states will be forced to raise taxes--and by how much.

To make up for the shortfall in funding and increased need?

The saddest part of this debate is that Republicans don't need to target Medicaid. We can raise more than the amount Republicans expect to extract from Medicaid and income security programs simply by eliminating the overpayments currently paid to Medicare HMOs.

We pay these plans more than we would for care provided through traditional Medicare. That's wrong!

In fact, MedPAC--the non-partisan Congressional advisory commission-- has recommended that Congress enact changes that would result in ``payment neutrality.'' Doing so would result in savings of more than $21 billion over 5 years--more than enough to offset this budget's proposed Medicaid cuts.

Sadly, I doubt Republicans will go after this low-hanging fruit. It would evoke howls of protest from their contributors. Consider this budget a word of warning to individuals in the dawn, twilight and shadows of life.

Those who run on a moral values platform should consider that when they cast their votes on the budget this week.

Vote for the Spratt Motion to Instruct, and against the Resolution itself later this week.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. First of all, it is improperly titled. It is not an energy policy act at all; it is the delay bill. Now, why is it the delay bill?

Well, it is a bill that delays energy self-sufficiency by enacting tax breaks and policies that benefit the oil and gas industry and ignores renewable alternatives.

It delays protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It delays holding the makers of MTBE accountable for destroying drinking water. It delays the end of $8 billion in special interest tax breaks. It delays fishery restoration by giving dam owners free rein.

It delays protecting our children who suffer more and more from asthma as this bill delays enactment of stricter smog regulations. It delays protecting our shorelines from oil and gas development. It delays cleaner air and lower gas prices by mandating an agricultural welfare program called ethanol. It delays the end of corporate welfare for the likes of Enron and Home Depot. It delays the ability of States to enact tougher energy efficiency laws.

I could keep going, Madam Chairman, but I do not want to delay the proceedings any further.

The bill was written by and for the oil and gas industry with the involvement of a small band of powerful Members of Congress. Its very existence raises questions of ethical behavior. But as we know, our Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is unable to meet to consider such transgressions because of delay by my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle which delay Committee on Standards of Official Conduct action against one of their own.

The purpose is not to enact a sane energy policy for our country at all. In fact, as I have outlined above, it delays that very possibility. It is an antienvironment, anticonsumer, antienergy self- sufficiency and irresponsible corporate welfare bill.

Rather than considering this legislation, we should be considering why ``delay'' continues to rule the House of Representatives.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) without further delay.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strenuous opposition to this unfair bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 256. This bankruptcy bill is touted as reform, but it is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing intended to allow credit card companies and other lenders to gouge consumers when they are most vulnerable.

Republicans are giving this gift to big credit card companies at a time when many Americans are faced with uncertain job stability, retirement security, and health coverage. In fact, 90% of all bankruptcies are filed due to the common financial emergency of a lost job or lack of medical coverage. This bill makes it harder for working families to seek shelter from these devastating and unavoidable expenses.

The Wall Street Journal recently featured the case of a constituent in my district. Crystal Herndon, a single mom in Haywood, California, earns $15 an hour. Ms. Herndon got sick with pneumonia, causing her to miss six weeks of work and rack up over $5,000 in medical bills. These unforeseen expenses caused her to fall behind on other financial obligations, and before she knew it she was simply unable to make ends meet. Bankruptcy protection was the only way out for Ms. Herndon and her family. It's hard to see the abuse in real instances of need such as these, especially when many Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

Sadly Crystal Herndon is not the only worker to be forced into bankruptcy due to unavoidable medical expenses. According to a recent Harvard University research study 2 million Americans, including filers and their dependents, face the double jeopardy of illness and bankruptcy each year. Most of these medically bankrupt are middle-class homeowners with responsible jobs and health insurance coverage. Once illness strikes, high co-payments, deductibles, exclusions from coverage, and other loopholes quickly overwhelm these families' budgets. Loss of income and health insurance often deepen this financial crisis when a breadwinner becomes too sick to work.

To add insult to injury, consumers like Crystal Herndon will potentially face an avalanche of litigation that they can't afford as a result of this bill. The bill requires the debtor in some cases to have to challenge big corporate lenders in court to prove they are eligible to seek relief under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. In addition, this bill also allows creditors to threaten debtors with costly ligitation that will force many families to needlessly give up their legal rights.

In their continuing compassion, the Republicans have crafted this so- called reform so that a parent seeking child support from a bankrupt spouse will have to fight it out with creditors in order to receive payment. Meanwhile, this bill makes it easier for those seeking bankruptcy protection to lose their homes or be evicted by the landlords. Yet, those with million dollar mansions will be able to keep their homes even while seeking the same protection under the law. Nothing like a fair shake for America's working families.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, with all of the perks they've awarded to the big credit card companies, Republicans have done nothing to ensure that they are held accountable for their role in this consumer crisis. There is nothing is this bill that stops the abusive, predatory lending that lands too many Americans in bankruptcy in the first place.

Bankruptcy has always been about giving a fresh start to those who have fallen on hard times. The link between illness, job loss, and health insurance is a harsh reality in our country today. It is morally reprehensible to suggest that we exploit medical tragedies befalling honest, hardworking Americans in order to grant the wishes of the credit card companies.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this merciless legislation. Now is not the time to turn the tables on America's working families. Vote no on S. 256.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.256 because the bill does not accommodate the 50 million uninsured Americans forced into bankruptcy by health care costs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise just to comment. My colleagues will hear a lot of people talking about our friend Bob Matsui and his legislative accomplishments. I want to remind everybody that his name on this Federal courthouse will remind people that it was 6099 that interned Japanese Americans in the 1940s in violation of what we then thought were human and civil rights. As we proceed to violate people's human and civil rights under the PATRIOT Act, I think it will be appropriate that the Matsui courthouse will be the place where, hopefully, these rights will be corrected and restored to the American citizens and residents who deserve them.

I think it is most fitting that this building is named for Robert Matsui.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess it becomes my job to point out that the Republicans are at it again. Another huge tax cut or break for the less than 1 percent of the richest Americans while they turn their back and cut Medicaid, refuse to recognize that Social Security is not in crisis but needs some adjustment, cut Head Start, cut programs for housing, cut programs for the environment, fail to provide the promised benefits to our 140,000 servicemen in Iraq, turn their back on all that is American to give a few dollars to the very richest of Americans.

Now, not all Republicans are that way. I find that many of the Republicans who have actually worked for a living at some point in their lives, and not just either inherited money or been at the trough of the government, actually oppose this bill. Warren Buffett, the Gates family, people who have done quite well think that as I do it is a stupid bill and will do nothing for our free enterprise system. It will stifle creativity and leave us with a system where merit and ability mean nothing and heredity means everything.

$300 billion over the next 10 years and perhaps another $700 billion over the decade following that are going to be frittered away to a very small number of Americans. With that we could end this talk about privatizing Social Security that President Bush is leading, and we could start shoring up the trust fund. We could get rid of the doughnut hole in the poorly constructed Medicare drug benefit. We could fulfill the promise that the President and the Republicans have ignored for funding No Child Left Behind. We could eliminate the proposed cuts to Medicaid which will hurt the poorest children in this country. And while we may help a few very rich children with an inheritance, we will cut hundreds of thousands of children's Medicaid benefits. That could be prevented.

We could cover a large portion of the 45 million people who are without health insurance, I might add 8 million more than when President Bush took office. But Republicans obviously do not care about Social Security or Medicare or the uninsured or education or the children. They only care about tax cuts for the very richest among us.

Now, if you eliminate this, you are only going to help probably less than a couple thousand people a year, and they will arguably have by 2009 estates of over $7 million. Until now there has not been a family farmer or a small business who has been unable to pass the business on to the next generation.

I might add to my friend from Missouri of his people in the lumber business, if their children cannot get the first $7 million handed to them and then get a 50 percent down payment on the balance of the business and be given 10 years at less than 6 percent to pay off the balance of that, they are probably too dumb and would lose the business in no time at all anyway.

So what the current law allows is so generous, and there have been absolutely no instances, not one, of a family farmer or family business being lost, decimated or put on the auction block because of the estate tax.

In fact, 99.7 percent of all estates would be exempt from the estate tax if

we just extend the tax as it applies in 2009. They cannot show that it harms people. They can only show that gives billions, $300 to almost $1 trillion over 20 years, to the very smallest, most select group of rich people in this country.

It is indeed a follow on of the Republican mantra, give money to the rich, give it to them in huge amounts and cut back on education, cut back on health care, do not help the environment, cut back on support for our troops and cut back on improving America's infrastructure, all in the name of helping the few rich who may be contributors to the Republican party.

I urge that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the final bill. I urge that my colleagues vote for the gentleman from North Dakota's (Mr. Pomeroy) who will offer a responsible substitute, which will at least keep the $300 billion from being squandered, and it will prevent this bill, which does nothing to help hardworking Americans or small businesses, and I hope we can bring some sanity back to the financial code and to the economic future of this country by not passing this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself enough time to remind the historians here that it was the Republicans in the 1800s who established the original inheritance tax to prevent a nobility class from forming, an idle nobility class, in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Linda Wood, upon her retirement as Alameda County, California's top librarian. After 14 years at the helm of the county library system, with 10 branches and an annual budget of $21 million, Ms. Wood is stepping down from an extraordinary career.

She has been working in the library field for almost 40 years and states, ``I'm proud of my accomplishments, but I'm ready to move on to the next phase of my life.''

Ms. Wood began her library career reshelving books. After earning her degree in library science from the University of Washington, she graduated to reference librarian and went up the ladder from there. She has taken on many duties, from serving as branch manager to administrator in libraries from Oregon State to the cities of Riverside and Los Angeles.

Ms. Wood leaves the Alameda County library system a lot bigger than she found it. Since being hired as county librarian in 1991, she has helped open two new branch libraries--in Albany, California in 1994 and Dublin, California in 2003 and has obtained seed funding and a patch of land for a new branch in Castro Valley, California.

The county library system, with over 200 full-time employees, also includes branches in Fremont, Newark, Union City and unincorporated San Lorenzo, a bookmobile and services for jail and juvenile facility inmates and literacy and senior outreach programs.

Ms. Wood has overseen a full-scale modernization of library services and fought to maintain services through ups and downs in funding. She fought for library services not only in Alameda County but also throughout the State of California.

Today's collections have expanded from books and periodicals to include movies, CDs, DVDs and books on tape. Old card catalogues have given way to databases and now vast Internet services where patrons can research library holdings day and night.

Throughout her illustrious career, Ms. Wood has demonstrated her longtime advocacy for libraries. Her advocacy has made a positive difference in strengthening many library systems for the public's education and enjoyment.

I join Linda Wood's colleagues, friends and admirers in expressing good wishes as she retires and thank her for her contributions to our communities through libraries.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember and honor my friend and distinguished former colleague Bill Lehman.

Bill Lehman represented South Florida in the House of Representatives for twenty years beginning in 1972. Bill and I came to Congress together that year. It is with sadness that I stand to pay tribute to him today as one of the last remaining members of the class of '72.

Though Bill left Congress in 1993, he and I kept in touch. It was less than a month ago when we last corresponded. He noted my name in an article in the Miami Herald and wrote to encourage me to keep up the fight. I'm going to miss those notes and his many years of friendship.

Bill was unique. He was special among those who've served in this institution. He was an individual of great principle and compassion beloved by the community he represented. As his hometown paper the Miami Herald eulogized him, Bill Lehman was a ``legendary figure of South Florida politics considered a visionary on racial issues and public transit.''

Bill Lehman was legendary in this House where he served ten years as Chairman of the powerful Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. He was a tireless advocate of progressive causes at home and abroad, known for taking principled stands on international and constitutional issues.

Bill Lehman had another distinction, too. He's the only politician I ever met that, when

compared to a used car salesman, he was proud to be a used car salesman.

Born in Selma, Alabama in 1913, he took the moniker ``Alabama Bill'' when he moved to South Florida and opened a used auto dealership in Miami in 1936. Playing country music in his advertising, ``Alabama Bill'' earned a modest reputation as a country western singer. That original business has grown into one of South Florida's largest auto dealerships carried on today by his son Bill Lehman, Jr.

After nearly 30 years in the used car business, Bill Lehman went off to Oxford University. In the early 1960s, he returned to Miami and began a second career teaching high school English. In 1966, he began yet a third career running for and winning a seat on the Dade County School Board and went on to serve as Board Chairman in 1971. A year later he was elected to Congress.

I was greatly saddened to hear of Bill Lehman's passing on March 16 of this year and commend my colleagues for dedicating this evening in his honor.

My thoughts are with Bill's wife Joan, to whom he was married for 66 years, their two sons Bill Jr. and Tom, and their 6 grand children and 2 great-grandsons.

Bill's years of dedicated public service in this House will never be forgotten. His spirit and the principle and compassion he brought to the job will continue to be greatly admired by those of us who knew him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the 2005 ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution'' class of Fremont, California's Irvington High School in my district for winning the state championship in January.

The We the People competition is an educational program administered by the Center for Civic Education of Los Angeles and funded by the U.S. Department of Education. The main focus of the program is to commemorate the framing and adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and to revitalize educational programs on the Constitution in our Nation's schools. It provides a course of instruction on the basic principles of our Nation's constitutional democracy and the history of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Participants then enter into competitive simulated congressional hearings following the course of study.

Students who wish to participate in the program must go through an interview process the year prior to the start of the class. The applicants must answer questions similar to the ones they will be asked during competition.

Accepted applicants learn and familiarize themselves with current event topics along with curriculum taught in the class. There are six different areas that are taught in the course and each participant must become an expert in each and every area.

The participants prepare for several months before testifying to a panel made up of judges representing the community. The judges ask detailed follow-up questions regarding the presentation, which require the students to think quickly and provide spontaneous answers. They compete first at two competitions at the local level before going to the state championships. Those who win at the state level go on to compete nationally.

In January, students from ten schools representing various areas of California came to Sacramento to compete in the state We the People championship. I am proud to say that the Irvington High School team, coached by their teacher Mrs. Cook-Kallio, won the competition and will be representing California during the national finals, which will be held from April 30th through May 3rd here, in Washington, DC.

The victory reflects the hard work and dedication these students put together after about nine months of preparation. The Irvington team spent countless hours in and out of class getting ready for the competition. Most groups stayed past 10 p.m. on some nights to take part in practice sessions where their teacher, Mrs. Cook-Kallio, along with other teachers and alumni of Irvington High School, drilled them on their subjects to try and simulate the environment of the competition.

I applaud the We the People class, Mrs. Cook-Kallio, and Irvington High School in reaching the national finals and am honored to have them represent the state of California at the national level. I join with other admirers and members in the community of Fremont in wishing the team luck. I hope to be giving another congratulatory speech once they become National champions.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget. It's dishonest. It's immoral. It's wrong for America's future.

Republicans dishonestly proclaim their budget is fiscally responsible. The only way their numbers work out is if you use slick accounting gimmicks or fuzzy math.

Let me give you some examples of their clever sleight of hand:

The Republicans' top priority to privatize Social Security through private accounts will cost billions of dollars. You'd think that'd be accounted for in this budget? No.

The billions of dollars that will be needed for the Iraq war. In the budget? No.

The cost to our children of extending the massive Bush tax cuts to the wealthy that will balloon our massive deficit? You guessed it. Not in the budget.

Even as they leave out all this massive spending, Republicans still claim fiscal responsibility. Don't be fooled. They're lying to the American public. The true costs of this budget are far higher than Republicans claim and our children and grandchildren will pay the tab for this deceit for decades to come.

This budget isn't just dishonest--it's immoral. It imposes deep cuts to vital programs that Americans depend upon.

As our weak economy is forcing more people to rely on Medicaid's health safety net, Republicans are cutting the program by $20 billion. Income support programs that keep low-income families afloat economically are being axed. Some 48 education programs, vital environmental protections, community development grants and veteran's health care programs are being gutted.

If you're an average American family this will affect you and your economic security. But, while you're tightening your belt watching funding for child's education and your family's health care diminish, billions of dollars are going to big business and special interests. While every other priority is sacrificed in the GOP budget, billions of dollars more are being funneled into the bloated defense contracts or frittered away in corporate tax giveaways.

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget is supposed to be a statement of our nation's priorities. This budget is a punch line to a sick joke being played on the American people.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this dishonest, immoral and irresponsible budget.