Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans are worried sick about their retirement nest eggs, and they are demanding decisive action by Congress. In just the last 2 weeks, two national publications have featured cover stories on the peril America's workers and retirees are facing.

On October 31 of this year, the issue of Time magazine has a stinging anthology of missteps and foibles of the Congress in the regulation of private pension plans. The cover story that is pictured here on this cover of Time magazine, called, ``The Great Retirement Rip-off-- Millions of Americans who think they will retire with benefits are in for a nasty surprise--how corporations are picking people's pockets-- with the help of Congress.''

That is the status of the American workers' pension system today. It is a system that is in peril, and it continues to be in peril because of the lack of action by this Congress.

For 3 years, we have been warning the President and this Congress that we must take decisive action to strengthen unfunded pension plans. Back in July of 2002, I wrote Secretary O'Neill and Secretary Chao, urging them to take action after private pension underfunding quadrupled $25 billion to $111 billion.

I wrote to them that ``The implications of such massive shortfall in pension funds are staggering, for pensioners, taxpayers and for private companies themselves. As part of your agency's statutory duties, as overseers of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, it is incumbent upon you,'' Mr. and Mrs. Secretary, ``to ensure that private pension plans continue to

be properly and adequately funded, and that the economic security of employees and taxpayers is no further endangered.''

What do you think happened since I wrote that letter back in July of 2002? Private pension plans' underfunding has quadrupled again to nearly $450 billion. The pension plans of hard-working men and women in this country, the pension plans that they are basing their retirement plans on, the pension plans that they are relying on for the future care of their spouses and other members of their family are underfunded by $450 billion.

The deficit at the PBGC, the agency that is supposed to guarantee these pensions should these companies go out of business, should these pensions be put into default, they are, in fact, now at greater risk of having to pay out billions of dollars to make up the shortfall. In fact, they are at risk of whether or not the PBGC can continue, given the amount of shortfall that exists in America's pension plans.

Since we wrote the Secretaries back then and since the quadrupling of the underfunding, hundreds of thousands of employees at U.S. Airways and United have lost billions of dollars in promised benefits. What has this Congress done about this? Absolutely nothing.

It took years for the Bush administration to get a reform plan up to the Congress, and it has not lifted a finger to push for the passage of that plan. Where is the leadership on behalf of America's working families? Where is the sense of urgency to protect billions of dollars in promised retirement benefits that are now threatened?

After years of costly delay, finally the House and Senate committees have passed legislation out of committee, but there is an ugly truth about the bills that many of you do not know about. When the Members of Congress voted on these bills, they were not given the facts about what these bills really do: What is the impact of these bills on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; what is the impact on the companies who we were raising the premiums for; what is the impact on the taxpayers; and what is the impact on America's workers and their retirement plans.

When we voted on one of these so-called pension bills last spring, the committee Democrats voted ``present'' because we had no information on the legislation's impact. A few weeks ago, several weeks after the committee voted, we asked the PBGC and CBO what, in fact, are the real impacts? What they have told us is that it has made the situation worse, that the bill that was passed in the committee actually hastens the pension crisis.

Here is what the Congressional Budget Office wrote us in October of this year: ``H.R. 2830,'' the pension bill, ``would increase PBGC's 10- year net costs by $9 billion, or about 14 percent, compared with what it would be under current policy.'' So we made the problem for the guaranty corporation worse with this bill.

The PBGC, that guaranty corporation, also analyzed itself, and it said that using a model that contains the hundreds of plans found in the guaranty corporation, the committee-passed bill would add billions more to the PBGC's deficit than under current law.

Not only does this bill make the problems worse with respect to underfunding, it also fails in many other respects. Most significantly, the bill does not stop companies like United Airlines from dumping billions of unwanted pension debt onto the guaranty corporation.

Delta and Northwest now have watched this Congress, they have watched United; and I believe that we can expect that they will follow suit, and we will end up with those pensions. They watched United dump $10 billion onto the public taxpayers, and the Congress did not lift a finger. Now Delta and Northwest are in bankruptcy and very well could dump their pensions into the guaranty corporation and onto the backs of the taxpayers.

According to the guaranty corporation, Delta Airlines is underfunded by $10.6 billion. The PBGC loss would be about $8.4 billion and the employees and retirees would lose $2.2 billion in promised benefits.

Northwest Airlines is $5.7 billion underfunded, and the employee loss would even be greater there. Those employees would lose about $2.9 billion in pension benefits that they have planned on, that they are expecting, and that they have built their retirement on. And now, more dominoes may be falling. Delphi Auto Parts has filed for bankruptcy, the largest such filing in the history of the automobile industry. According to the PBGC, the Delphi claim on the taxpayer-funded corporation would be about $4.1 billion. The hit on employees, over $10 billion in uninsured losses would be the largest ever. That tops the $6 billion in worker losses that the PBGC estimated occurred over its four previous largest pension plan terminations.

What does this all add up to? This all adds up to the fact that there is bad news for American workers who are relying on their employer to help them provide for their pension plans, for their retirements. We see this story in Time magazine, the cover story telling us how Americans are in for a very nasty surprise when it comes time to retire in the next few years for many of the baby boomers. Then we see a week later in The New York Times magazine: ``We Regret to Inform You That You No Longer Have a Pension.''

That is the message that is being sent to millions of Americans, millions of Americans who in many instances have no way to recover those resources for their retirement because of their age. They are 50, they are 55, they are 60 years old. They have no way to recover this. They could not work enough overtime. They could not work enough Saturdays and Sundays. They could not work enough holidays to get that pension back.

What is the Congress doing? The Congress is doing nothing. In fact, the tragedy of the Time magazine story is that it shows that Congress has been a handmaiden in allowing corporations to game the system, allowing corporations to use the pension plan for the convenience, the profit, and the personal rewards of board members, shareholders, and the CEOs of the company. They all use the pension plan and manipulate the pension plan for their benefit. But the workers are left out of that equation.

Even this morning, in The New York Times, we are told that the Accounting Standards Board is now looking at taking action because of this manipulation of workers' pensions. They talk about how, I believe it was the Lucent Corporation, where the CEO was given a $4 million bonus for doing such a great job, on top of a $1.5 million salary, and then was given another bonus because the profits of the corporation were up and the revenues were up. The only problem was that the CEO had been in the process of manipulating the pension plan to make it look like the profits of Lucent were up.

Of course, the story of Lucent is well-known. The profits were phantom. They were not there, and they have tumbled. That same CEO has now been fired, probably given a severance package, but nobody said a word while they were manipulating the pension plan.

So this goes on every day and the Congress stands by and does nothing. They do nothing to ensure that Americans will have a say in their pension plans. Imagine this, this company had $10 billion, $12 billion of workers' money, their retirement; yet those workers had no say in how that company would use that pension plan. That is not just Lucent; that is true of almost every other pension plan in this country. That is what we saw with Enron. That is what we see with Lucent. That is what we see with company after company that uses the plan for the convenience of the company to mislead shareholders, to mislead investors, and to mislead Wall Street.

Hopefully, hopefully in the next few weeks, the Accounting Standards Board will step up to the plate here and hit one out for the American public and give the American public some say in the money that they have earned, people who have earned these pensions over 15 years, over 20 years; these people who gave up salary so they would have a better retirement plan. They gave up health care so they would have a better retirement plan. They produced this pension plan, and now it is treated as if it is only the personal property of the executive board of the company, the corporation, and the personal property of the CEO. And if

things go bad, they run to the taxpayers to bail them out, but the workers lose over half of all of their pensions. That is what happened to the people at United Airlines. That is what is going to happen to the people at Delphi, and that is what is going to happen to so many pensioners.

Now, we could not get the Republican Congress to hold a hearing on this problem to take a look at United Airlines, so we had to resort to an e-hearing. We had to go out on the Internet and ask the employees of United to tell us what this meant to them, and we got thousands of responses from people, thousands of responses from people about what this pension meant to their life.

Among those thousands of responses, and among millions of so many people in this country, were people telling us about their pensions and the importance of their pensions to take care of a spouse who had serious illnesses, who had disabilities; to take care of a child who was disabled; to take care of a child who had a serious illness, and now they were going to lose that ability because United was cutting their pensions in half, and the PBGC Board would not be able to take care of them. So very often these people talked about their plans for their retirement that simply evaporated the day United callously threw their plans into bankruptcy.

One of the letters we see was from a spouse of a captain at United. She wrote: ``Dear Congressman Miller, my name is Ellen Saracini. My husband, Captain Victor J. Saracini, was the captain of United Flight 175 that struck the south tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, at 9:03 a.m. While no one could have imagined the events of that infamous day, neither could Victor have imagined what would be happening to his wife and two daughters.

``I am writing this letter to voice to you what has been taken away from Victor and his family. If you only knew my husband, you would know he was a true family man, who made sure his family's future was provided for. I am currently receiving the spousal portion of Victor's pension, which is 50 percent of what he thought would be there for his family. After United took away our employee stock ownership plan, this pension is how I am supporting my two daughters and myself.

``I was given a choice to sue the airlines, the port authority, and others, or join in with the victims compensation fund set up by the government. I pledged I would not sue and proceeded with the fund. After all, this is the company Victor was so proud to work for and the same company of his United brothers and sisters. Every bit of preparation that Victor and I worked for was used against the claim. Life insurance was deducted. My full pension was deducted from the award. Now I will have a double jeopardy, as I will again lose my pension with no recourse on either side.

``I can't help but ask myself, at what point are companies allowed to take away so much from the lives of dedicated employees and their families? At what point does our government step in and stop the atrocities such as this before they are allowed to irrevocably change the lives of so many? I refuse to believe that this is the only solution that can be reached.

``The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's decision to allow United Airlines to end their pension is just wrong. If this monumental verdict moves forward, I will be faced with many hardships. Victor was a proud United pilot, husband, father, and friend, who fought a war with terrorists. Never would he have imagined that he would have to fight for his family's well-being with the very company he so proudly spread his wings for. Sincerely, Ellen Saracini.''

That letter echoes what we heard from so many across the country about their plans being shattered, about their ability to care for members of their family being shattered. And, of course, we understand that so many others would like to tell their stories, but there is no vehicle in the Congress of the United States for doing that.

One of my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee, Congressman Tierney, I see has joined us from Boston; and I would like at this point to yield to him. He has been a stalwart in this effort to try to hold the Congress accountable, to try to hold the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation accountable, and most importantly to try and hold corporations to be accountable and stop this criminal activity of the manipulation of the pension plans of their employees, the same manipulation, the same activities that are outlined in the cover story of Time magazine of October 31 of this year and then again in The New York Times magazine of October 30 of this year. And today, if you want to be current on it, you can read The New York Times business page about the continued manipulation of the pension plans for the benefit of everybody except the retirees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman points out that this raid is taking place on pensions. The President, in the middle of the Enron debacle said what is good from the captain is good for the crew, and then we have heard nothing from the President again. The President has done nothing to shore up the existing system that is under threat. And in the middle of that, what does the President do? He attacks the Social Security plan, which is the single largest source of pension benefits for these very same people.

So while he lets the corporations dump pension benefits into bankruptcy, lets corporations dump them into the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which costs the pensioners billions and billions in dollars of pension benefits, then at the same time he conducts a raid on Social Security by trying to create some private accounts that adds trillions of dollars in new debt to Social Security.

So now what you have is the poor American worker, whether it is their private savings, whether it is their employer pension plan or Social Security, it is all under threat. It is all under threat. The tragedy is that, given what is going on in the private sector with the manipulation of pension plans, with the uncertainty about the future of pension plans, with corporations fully prepared to just throw them into bankruptcy, Social Security is emerging as the most secure retirement system in the Nation. There is not a single corporation, not Delphi, not General Motors, not AT&T, not Lucent, not Kodak, not Microsoft, that can look you in the eye and tell you, 75 years from now 85 percent of your benefits will be there and they will be there like clockwork. Social Security can, and that is the one they have targeted for extinction.

Their proposal is to leave the worker in this country, the employee who has struggled for the success of the companies that they work for, to leave them with nowhere to turn. All you have to do is just go out into any public gathering and you will start to get feedback from people who are telling you about how nervous they are about their retirement benefits and how much they have counted on them, and now they do not know if they are going to be there or not. They are uncertain and they have no ability to plan.

We have a plan, and that plan is, just as we did with employer and employee contributions to pension plans, just as we did to employer and employee contributions to Social Security, the idea is if we work together as a society, we can bond together and provide these resources so people will have decent retirements.

Because we went through many generations in this country where people's retirement was only about poverty. But because of Social Security, because of Medicare, we have lifted millions and millions of Americans out of poverty to have a decent retirement plan. They have contributed with their personal savings and their employers have contributed with their employee pension plans. Now all of that appears to be at risk.

This Congress must step in and start to deal with this problem because the economic livelihood of millions of American families and individuals is at stake here and the system we have now was designed when few companies went out of business.

Today, these companies understand that you simply take all of your liabilities, you dump them on the taxpayer, and this is what Bethlehem Steel did, you get rid of those liabilities, and then the company continues on. We absorbed billions of dollars in liability from the steelworkers. Mr. Ross got all of the steel companies together, and then he sold them to Mitel, the Indian steel company, and they are off and running as part of one of the largest steel companies in the world. Thank you, American taxpayer, and thank you the steelworkers who lost a big chunk of their pension plans. They subsidized that activity.

Mr. Speaker, that cannot be allowed to continue. I thank the gentleman for joining me here today.

The fact of the matter is, as pointed out in these articles, people no longer having pensions or people being in for a nasty surprise, the fact of the matter is, for 5 years the Bush administration, the Republican Congress, have simply stood back as the American middle class standard of living for retirees is dismantled, it is threatened, is devastated, however Members want to describe it. That is what they have done.

They have suggested this is okay because you can ask Secretary Chao until the cows come home anything about it, she cannot answer a single question, expresses no concern, could provide no information about the pension bill. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation refused to provide us the information before we voted. After we voted, they said, You made the problem worse. And from the Congressional Budget Office, You made the problem worse.

So I guess that the policy of the Republican Congress and the Bush administration is that millions of Americans will lose their hold on the middle class the moment they retire. The moment they retire, they will lose their hold.

We have tried to encourage a younger generation to save, to provide for their retirement. We cannot get a hearing on things that would dramatically change, if not these retirees' livelihoods, it would certainly change the livelihood for younger workers in this country. It is a sad day that we do not do this.

Tragically, there are going to be millions more cover stories like this as millions of Americans lose access to the retirement they were planning for for the care of themselves, their families, and their children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of James Gray, the founder of a small but enormously successful educational program called the National Writing Project. Sadly, Mr. Gray died on November 1 in Danville, California after a long illness. He was only 78 years old.

Mr. Gray, a former high school teacher and then a senior lecturer at University of California, Berkeley's Graduate School of Education, founded the innovative Bay Area Writing Project in 1974. Acting on his belief that successful classroom teachers were an untapped resource for providing their peers with professional development, James Gray brought together 25 talented Bay Area teachers and charged them with sharing their expertise about the teaching of writing.

The Bay Area Writing Project became the first site that offered a professional development model for teachers of writing. Now known as the National Writing Project (NWP), the program has grown to 189 university-based sites located in fifty states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Congress, on a bi-partisan basis, has shown its recognition for the value of this program by providing Federal appropriations for it for over ten years and I am proud to have helped secure these well-spent funds for this purpose.

Mr. Gray served as Executive Director of the NWP until his retirement in 1994 and remained on the NWP Board of Directors until his death.

James Gray's simple but highly successful model has been responsible for transforming classroom practices and improving student writing performance at schools in rural, urban, and suburban communities across the U.S.

A May 2001 Academy for Educational Development report notes the impact of that vision: ``Teachers described their experience with the writing project as nothing short of profound. Beginning with the summer institute and continuing throughout their careers with continuity programs, teachers noted how their philosophy about teaching and learning, their daily practices, and their connection to a network of teachers developed through the project.''

I couldn't agree more with Richard Sterling, the NWP Executive Director, when he said that, ``Jim's belief in teachers and their knowledge, commitment, and creativity never wavered. We are all the beneficiaries of his vision and his tireless work on behalf of the National Writing Project.'' I am honored to have known James Gray personally and I am grateful for his vision, and I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing the gratitude of the U.S.

Congress for the contributions to education and our society that he made during his lifetime.

Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Madam Speaker, somebody ought to call the cops. Today I am not talking about collusion, corruption and cronyism and the leaking of sensitive classified information that has irreparably damaged the national security of the United States. No, I am not talking about Scooter Libby or Karl Rove, though their involvement in outing a female CIA agent to silence her husband's criticisms of the President's Iraq policy deserves closer scrutiny.

No, I am talking about another shadowy character and administration ally, someone whose deception played a large role in leading the United States into war in Iraq. I am talking about Ahmad Chalabi. Mr. Chalabi is the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq's newly constituted government. But Mr. Chalabi also is a convicted bank swindler who, we now know, fed the Bush administration false intelligence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and capabilities and Iraq's ties to terrorism.

Many Americans remember Mr. Chalabi as a man who convinced Vice President Cheney that the United States would be greeted as a great liberator in Iraq. Some have even said it was Mr. Chalabi who promoted the false story about Iraq's attempted purchase of nuclear material in Niger. Chalabi fed false stories about Iraq's weapons capabilities to New York Times reporter Judith Miller, a story that the Times was later forced to publicly discount.

Mr. Chalabi, who supplied information to the White House Iraq working group, a mysterious cabal, as Colin Powell's former chief of staff recently said, that hijacked U.S. foreign policy and hyped the case for war in Iraq. The bottom line is that Mr. Chalabi played a central role in the orchestrated deception leading to the invasion of Iraq.

After the administration discovered that Mr. Chalabi provided false intelligence, instead of investigating, the Department of Defense attempted to prop Mr. Chalabi up as a candidate of choice in the post- war Iraq.

Keep in mind what Mr. Chalabi did next. He was suspected of leaking classified information about U.S. intelligence capabilities to Iran. He was suspected of telling the Iranians that we had broken the code by which we were learning information about their activities.

Seventeen months ago, then National Security Adviser Rice promised an FBI inquiry into who leaked information to Iran. Seventeen months ago, and yet nothing has happened. Despite the fact that Mr. Chalabi was a prime suspect, the FBI has never interviewed him. In fact, the Wall Street Journal quotes the FBI as having said they have little active interest in this matter. Little active interest in a person who is leaking intelligence material to Iran in the middle of the war in Iraq?

Just this week the administration invited this criminal to meet with the Secretary of State and maybe even Vice President Cheney in the West Wing to discuss his candidacy for the Iraq presidency in this December's election. I would be curious to learn from the President what role granting a U.S. entry visa to a man suspected of spying for Iran plays in the administration's terrorism strategy.

Mr. Chalabi's actions are an insult to every American, especially those serving in our Nation's Armed Forces, and his high-level visit to the United States is an additional affront. Chalabi's crimes cannot go unanswered. He belongs in jail for his misdeeds. Instead, he gets a White House photo-op.

As the Senate concludes its investigation into the administration's use of false and misleading intelligence to make the case for war, no such inquiry would be complete without Mr. Chalabi's testimony under oath. While he is sashaying around the streets of Washington, D.C., the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee may want to issue a subpoena for his presence. He has offered to testify, but no intelligence agency of the United States has interviewed him, nor has the FBI, as we learned today.

He should be detained in this country until he gives that testimony. I know I speak for all Americans when I say that our idea of democracy is not propping up a bank swindler, kidnapper and extortionist whose lies and deceptions contributed to the 14,000 U.S. soldiers injured and over 2,000 killed in action and is an intractable quagmire with no end in sight. Americans deserve the truth about the Bush administration's manipulation of intelligence to justify this tragic war.

Calling the cops to arrest Mr. Chalabi, while he is here, so he can be interrogated, would be a good beginning to understand how extensive the manipulation, how false the evidence was, that caused the President to take us to war and which was championed by the Vice President and the President and the cabal to try to justify to the American citizens the reason for this war.

Mr. Speaker, call the cops. Mr. Chalabi should not be allowed to run free on the streets of this Nation's capital.

[From The Wall Street Journal, November 7, 2005]

Top Secret: Status of Chalabi Inquiry

(By Scot J. Paltrow)

As Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi arrives this

week in Washington for talks, there is little sign of

progress in a Federal investigation of allegations that he

once leaked U.S. intelligence secrets to Iran.

More than 17 months after then-National Security Adviser

Condoleezza Rice publicly promised a full criminal inquiry,

the Federal

Bureau of Investigation hasn't interviewed Mr. Chalabi

himself or many current and former U.S. government officials

thought likely to have information related to the matter,

according to lawyers for several of these individuals and

others close to the case.

The investigation of Mr. Chalabi, who had been a confidant

of senior Defense Department officials before the war in

Iraq, remains in the hands of the FBI, with little active

interest from local federal prosecutors or the Justice

Department, these people said. There also has been no grand-

jury involvement in the case.

The investigation centers on allegations that one or more

U.S. officials in early 2004 leaked intelligence to Mr.

Chalabi, including the fact that the U.S. had broken a

crucial Iranian code, and that Mr. Chalabi in turn had passed

the information to the Baghdad station chief of Iran's

Ministry of Intelligence and Security. The assertions about

Mr. Chalabi's involvement came after U.S. intelligence

agencies intercepted a cable from the station chief back home

to Iran, detailing what the chief claimed was a conversation

with Mr. Chalabi about the broken code.

Former intelligence officials said such a leak could have

caused serious damage to U.S. national security. The broken

code had enabled U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor covert

cable traffic among Iranian operatives around the world. The

encrypted cable traffic was a main source of information on

Iranian operations inside Iraq. The leak also threatened U.S.

efforts to monitor any Iranian steps to develop nuclear

weapons. And there was concern that the disclosure could

prompt other countries to upgrade their encryption, making it

more difficult for the U.S. to spy on them.

Mr. Chalabi has strongly denied the allegations. He once

was a close Bush administration ally and a key proponent of

the Iraqi invasion, though he has more recently appeared to

fall from American favor. Before the war, during his long

period as a prominent Iraqi exile, he also cultivated close

ties to the government in Iran, which was his ally in

opposing former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Just this

weekend, Mr. Chalabi made a trip to Tehran to visit Iranian

government leaders.

The handling of the Chalabi investigation so far stands in

contrast to the aggressive inquiry conducted by special

counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the leaking of intelligence

agent Valerie Plame's name, which led to the indictment of I.

Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.

Questions about the progress of the Chalabi investigation

also follow the FBI's disclosure last week that it had closed

an investigation into forged documents purporting to show

Iraq had sought uranium ore from Niger. The Niger claim set

off an intense intelligence debate, which was at the center

of the leaking of the intelligence agent's identity.

Whitley Bruner, a former longtime undercover Central

Intelligence Agency official in the Middle East who has

followed Mr. Chalabi's career closely since 1991, said that,

in contrast to Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation, the Chalabi

leak inquiry ``just sort of disappeared.''

FBI spokesman John Miller strongly denied that the Chalabi

investigation has languished. ``This is currently an open

investigation and an active investigation,'' he said, adding

that ``numerous current and former government employees have

been interviewed.''

Mr. Miller said that, because the investigation is an

active one, he couldn't discuss specific individuals nor

comment on how the inquiry is being conducted. A Justice

Department spokesman declined to comment.

Mr. Chalabi's lawyer, Boston attorney John J.E. Markham II,

said neither the FBI nor Justice Department ever responded to

an offer to have Mr. Chalabi come to Washington to answer law

enforcement questions and aid in the investigation. Mr.

Markham made available a copy of a letter he said he had sent

on June 2, 2004, to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and

FBI Director Robert Mueller. It categorically denied that Mr.

Chalabi had leaked any U.S. intelligence. And it stated ``Dr.

Chalabi is willing and ready to come to Washington, D.C. to

be interviewed fully by law-enforcement agents on this

subject and to answer all questions on this subject fully and

without reservation.''

Mr. Markham, a former Federal prosecutor, said that,

ordinarily in a leak investigation, ``the first thing you

would do would be to get the tippee,'' the person to whom the

information was leaked, ``in there and say `Who talked to

you?' '' But, he said, ``That never happened.''

The FBI's Mr. Miller said he wouldn't comment on Mr.

Chalabi but said the FBI, in general, interviews witnesses

when an investigation indicates it is best to do so, not

necessarily at the beginning of an inquiry. He added, ``The

fact that this person or that person has or hasn't been

interviewed yet is just not material to whether there's an

active investigation.''

One likely focus of FBI inquiries would be a small group of

people in the Pentagon and White House who had frequent

contact with Mr. Chalabi and also probably knew the closely

guarded secret of the broken code. Interviews indicate that

many of these individuals haven't been questioned by the FBI.

Among the officials with whom Mr. Chalabi at one time had

close ties, for instance, was Douglas J. Feith, who until

earlier this year was an undersecretary of defense and headed

the Pentagon's powerful office of policy and planning. In an

interview, Mr. Feith said he has never been questioned by the

FBI or federal prosecutors in connection with the

investigation and that if others had been, he was unaware of

it.

Lawrence Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald

Rumsfeld, said in an emailed response to questions that he

had no knowledge of the FBI or federal prosecutors having

questioned current or former Defense Department officials.

``I don't know anything about a [Department of Justice]

investigation in this matter,'' Mr. Di Rita said.

Mr. Chalabi had been considered a trusted ally by

influential figures within the administration, but last

spring those ties appeared to have ruptured. On May 20 of

last year, Iraqi police backed by U.S. troops raided Mr.

Chalabi's headquarters, searching for evidence of corruption

and leaked American intelligence.

Since then, however, the Bush administration has become

more open to dealing with Mr. Chalabi again, spurred on by

his rise in the current Iraqi government, the possibility

that he might become prime minister and his current control

over, among other things, Iraqi oil production.

Mr. Chalabi's visit to Washington this week is his first

since the leak allegations. He is scheduled to meet with

Treasury Secretary John Snow and with Ms. Rice, now secretary

of state. He also is to give a speech to the conservative

American Enterprise Institute.

Senate Democrats have been pressing for an investigation

into the role Mr. Chalabi played in drumming up support for a

war to depose Mr. Hussein. They also are critical of Mr.

Chalabi because of alleged corruption; in 1992, he was

convicted in absentia by a Jordanian court of having

embezzled $288 million from a bank at which he was managing

director. He has strongly denied the corruption allegations.

Spokesmen for both Mr. Snow and Ms. Rice said they were

meeting with Mr. Chalabi, despite past events, because he is

a powerful government figure in Iraq. State Department Iraq

adviser James Jeffery said Mr. Chalabi ``is deputy prime

minister of a critically important country at a critically

important time, he was democratically elected, and it's on

that basis that we see him.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute today to a friend and distinguished former colleague, Mr. Edward Roybal of California.

I had the honor of working with Ed for 17 of the 30 years he served in the House of Representatives. I knew Ed to be a man of integrity, good conscience, courage and passion. He always stood for what he believed was best for the country. And he helped found many institutions of importance to America's Latino community.

Ed's passion and dedication to public health and quality of life issues has benefited generations of people and helped saved lives. He and I both shared the belief that government has an obligation to invest in the public good. Ed's work to secure the first funding for AIDS research and programs at the Center's for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1982 stands out to me. Back then, we did not fully understand how serious and deadly the AIDS virus would become, but Ed Roybal did.

Consequently, I though it was a fitting honor for the CDC central campus in Atlanta and the California State University at Los Angeles Institute for Applied Gerontology to dedicate their facilities in his name. These honors, and many others given him, are well deserved.

I offer my sincerest condolences to Ed's surviving family, including his daughter, my friend and current colleague, Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard. With Ed's passing, America has lost a leader, role model, and to those of us who were fortunate enough to call him such: a friend.

Mr. Speaker, Holy Toledo, we've lost another great American voice.

Sadly, I rise today to commemorate and celebrate the life of Bill King--a close personal friend--and his legacy as a sports radio personality in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I was deeply saddened when I heard news of the death of this distinguished man. Over the course of the last half century Mr. King grew to become a regular presence in the lives of so many people in the Bay Area. His trademark phrase, ``Holy Toledo,'' remains a household expression across several generations of sports enthusiasts.

Mr. King, a native of Bloomington, Illinois, began his broadcasting career with the Armed Forces Radio Network, while he was stationed on Guam following World War II. He came to the Bay Area in 1958 and worked on the San Francisco Giants broadcast team, and also for Cal football. Throughout his career he did the play-by-play for numerous historic events.

He became the first lead broadcaster for the NBA Warriors franchise when they moved to San Francisco from Philadelphia in 1962. He remained with the Warriors until 1983 and has the distinction of broadcasting through the only championship season (1974-75) in the franchise's history since moving to the Bay Area. Starting in 1966 Mr. King began a 16-year tenure broadcasting for the Oakland Raiders.

From 1981 until his passing he was the lead broadcaster for the Oakland Athletics Baseball franchise. This era included the famous 1989 ``Bay Bridge'' World Series between the San Francisco Giants and Oakland Athletics. The series, which the A's eventually won, was delayed for 10 days after the Loma Prieta struck the region just minutes before the start of game 3.

The Bay Area and the entire Nation will truly miss Mr. King. For so many people he was the voice that brought our national pastimes to life, play-by-play, one game at a time. I extend my sincere condolences to Mr. King's family, including his wife Nancy Stephens, his stepdaughter, Kathleen Lowenthal, his stepson, John Stephens, and his grandchildren, Julia and John Lowenthal.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to the memory of a great American hero and pioneer in the struggle for equality and civil rights in America, Ms. Rosa Parks.

An old Chinese proverb says that the loftiest towers rise from the ground. So too it is with Rosa Parks. Her refusal to get up and move to the back of the bus so that a white man could take her seat was a catalyst for the national civil rights movement and a later Supreme Court decision overturning legalized segregation.

At the time, she said she was just trying to get home from work. Reflecting on the significance of her actions years later, Ms. Parks said, ``Whatever my individual desires were to be free, I was not alone. There were many others who felt the same way.''

Indeed, there were. And there are many more to this day. Thanks to the courage of a woman just trying to get home from work in 1955.

Rosa Parks founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development. Through the institute, she sponsored a program for teenagers to learn the history of our country and the civil rights movement by touring the country in buses. She received the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor in 1999 and continued her struggle against racial injustice till her passing.

And Congress is expected to approve soon an historic resolution making Rosa Parks the first woman in our country's history to lay in state in the Capitol Rotunda of the United States Congress.

Rosa Parks' courage and determination changed our country. There is, of course, too much intolerance and injustice still in our society today. No one person can change all that. But each and every one of us can and should take the lesson from the life of Ms. Parks, that we can improve our society and ourselves by standing up for what we believe is right--or, as in her case, by sitting down.

While I mourn her passing now, I join the millions of Americans throughout our great country who will celebrate the accomplishments of her rich life forever. Thank you, Rosa Parks, for your life.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to register my opposition to H.R. 1461. Yesterday, while rushing between two Committee markups I inadvertently voted in favor of H.R. 1461. I intended to vote against it.

While I supported the underlying premise of the bill, its aims of helping new homebuyers were hijacked by right-wing extremists who inserted language into the bill that will restrict non-profit organizations that apply for Federal housing grants from engaging in nonpartisan voter registration. That provision is undemocratic and completely misplaced.

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts. As the senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, he was originally a supporter of the bill. But, like me, he could not look the other way and support one aspect of the bill while ignoring other noxious provisions that are unjustified.

Rep. Frank said yesterday that, ``The restrictive language being put forward, which would say no faith-based group could participate, has never been debated in this committee. . . It was brought up in a private session between the Republican Study Committee and the then- majority leader [DeLay]. That is not an appropriate forum to be the only place where we discuss things.''

I regret the error that has occurred but wish the Record to clearly reflect my views on this bill. If given the opportunity again, I would vote to defeat H.R. 1461 in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, this morning the New York Times reported an absolutely shocking story. The Times published an internal memo from Wal-Mart written earlier this year. The contents of that memo are stunning.

The memo, penned by Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits, is concerned with employee benefits, namely how to cut the cost of benefits while improving Wal-Mart's public relations. In other words, the memo laid out a scheme whereby Wal-Mart will make life worse for working people, while appearing to do good. It focused on cosmetic improvements to Wal-Mart's image and real damage to Wal-Mart's employees.

First of all, the memo admits that Wal-Mart's critics are onto something.

The memo states that Wal-Mart's health care plan, for example, is expensive for low-income families, and Wal-Mart has a significant percentage of associates and their children on public assistance. The memo states that 46 percent of children of Wal-Mart employees are either on Medicaid or uninsured. It reveals that in 2004, 38 percent of Wal-Mart's employees enrolled in the company health plan spent more than 16 percent of the average Wal-Mart income on health care.

Next, the memo goes on to complain that too many workers are sticking around too long, driving up labor costs. The thanks that these loyal employees get from Wal-Mart is a plan by Wal-Mart to get rid of them. According to the memo, Wal-Mart is seeking to cut its labor costs by switching to more part-time employees who will not have meaningful access to the company health care plan. So while Wal-Mart announces to the public that they are going to offer the best health care plan they can for their employees, they are secretly redesigning their work force so those who work for them will not be able to take advantage of the health care plan that they have announced.

The memo also suggests that Wal-Mart can cut its labor costs by keeping less healthy employees out of the workforce. It even suggests that they should include physical lifting requirements in the cashier job, just so that the company can use that requirement as an excuse not to hire unhealthy people. The memo says that the top Wal-Mart officials received the recommendation enthusiastically. And, guess what? We are starting to see those changes take place.

Earlier this week Wal-Mart announced a new health care plan for employees, including a high-deductible plan with health savings accounts. What does the memo say about this? It recommends plans with high deductibles and health savings accounts in order to attract low utilizers, that is a euphemism for healthier people, and discourage employment of high utilizers, the euphemism for sick people.

The question is often asked, is Wal-Mart bad for America? The company's own executive vice president has answered that question. The memo speaks for itself.

Madam Speaker, what Wal-Mart is saying here is that the benefit that they have announced to their employees as being new and expansive it turns out is no benefit at all. You must work 1 year before you qualify, and yet Wal-Mart plans to get rid of those people who have worked that length of time. Wal-Mart plans to hire more part-time people so they will not qualify for the health care plan. Should they hire somebody that qualifies for it, they want to be able to discriminate in their hiring against somebody who may have a health care problem, and, therefore, they do not want to hire them, so they will make up a test that that person has to go through, go around collecting shopping carts or lifting things so that they can root those people out of the selection process for whom they would hire. So Wal- Mart then says that this is the discriminatory policy that they want to follow.

What this shows is that Wal-Mart in the last couple of days has announced a new energy policy; they announced a new health care policy; they said they support an increase in the minimum wage, that it would help their businesses; and people started to say, what is this? Is this an extreme makeover for Wal-Mart? Have they come to their senses whereby they recognize their obligations to their employees, their obligations to the Earth's environment, their obligations on energy policy? Has Wal-Mart finally become responsible?

No, this is not an extreme makeover. This is a cosmetic nip and tuck. This is a cosmetic redo of a policy that is no policy at all, because, apparently, Wal-Mart has already designed, as this memo points out, the means by which they will not have to invoke the benefits of the health policy for their employees.

This is damning evidence, but what it means, if we thought that this was going to be maybe a new Wal-Mart, a Wal-Mart that would be welcome to communities rather than fought by communities, what this means is, in fact, that that is not the case at all. Wal-Mart is going to continue their policy of everyday low wages, of everyday no health care, of everyday ruination of the environment, of everyday mistreatment of their workers. That is the Wal-Mart policy. That is the Wal-Mart policy that caused them to violate labor laws over and over again, to discriminate against their employees over and over again, to abuse the women employees over and over again. That is the record of Wal-Mart.

This was a false sunrise. This was a false sense that somehow Wal- Mart had started to accept its responsibility towards its employees. In fact, once again, it is going to abuse its employees. Sadly so, that is the case.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of millions of American working men and women who are in desperate need of a raise. It has been a disgraceful 8 years since Congress last voted to raise the national minimum wage which is stuck today at only $5.15 an hour. A person making the minimum wage today would have to work for the better part of an hour just to afford a single gallon of milk or a gallon of gasoline. It was recently announced by the Kaiser Family Foundation that the average cost of health insurance premiums for a family of four has for the first time surpassed the annual income of a minimum wage earner. That means that if you work all year long at the minimum wage and you pay your health insurance premiums, you have no money left over for anything else.

Last week, Democrats in the House and Senate sought to raise the minimum wage, but the Republican leadership in Congress defeated our efforts. Instead, Congress continues to deny America's most vulnerable workers the very basic wage necessary to help them support their families. Where is Congress' sense of decency and fairness towards those Americans who simply want, and need, to see work pay?

Now, a major player in the world economy has said that it agrees that the national minimum wage must be increased. We welcome Wal-Mart to this debate. Wal-Mart's CEO said today that the minimum wage should be raised. Here is what he said:

``The U.S. minimum wage of $5.15 an hour has not been raised in nearly a decade and we believe it is out of date with the times. We can see firsthand at Wal-Mart how many of our customers are struggling to get by. Our customers simply don't have the money to buy basic necessities between paychecks.''

Wal-Mart recognizes what most Americans have known, and Democrats in Congress have been saying, for years, that millions of Americans cannot afford even the most basic necessities of life on today's minimum wage. I don't see eye to eye with Wal-Mart on many important issues, but the company is right about the minimum wage and it deserves praise for taking this position and it deserves to be listened to in this case.

I have introduced legislation to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 in three increments over a little more than 2 years. This legislation is sorely needed. People who work full time all year at $5.15 an hour earn just $10,700 a year, putting them $5,000 below the official poverty line for a family of three. Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour would add another $4,370 to their income.

An increase in the minimum wage would directly benefit 7.5 milllion workers. Of those 7.5 million workers, three-quarters are 20 years old or older. Roughly 44 percent of minimum wage workers work full time. Nearly two-thirds of them are women. They end up at the end of the year poor and below poverty.

I welcome Wal-Mart to the table. I urge them to use the considerable power and influence it has to press hard for Congress to raise the minimum wage. Americans need a raise. Democrats know it. Most Americans know it. And now Wal-Mart knows it. When will the Republican leadership and President Bush finally get the message that it is time to treat these workers with some decency and to provide for an increase in the minimum wage?

I include in the Congressional Record an article from today about Wal-Mart's CEO calling for a hike in the minimum wage.

Wal-Mart Calls for Minimum Wage Hike

[From CNN/Money, Oct. 25, 2005]

Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said he's urging Congress to

consider raising the minimum wage so that Wal-Mart customers

don't have to struggle paycheck to paycheck.

Scott told Wal-Mart (Research) directors and executives in

a speech Monday that he believes ``it is time for Congress to

take a look at the minimum wage and other legislation that

can help working families.''

``The U.S. minimum wage of $5.15 an hour has not been

raised in nearly a decade and we believe it is out of date

with the times,'' Scott said. ``We can see first-hand at Wal-

Mart how many of our customers are struggling to get by. Our

customers simply don't have the money to buy basic

necessities between pay checks.''

Given increasing gas prices and other economic pressures on

Wal-Mart customers,

Scott went on to say that Wal-Mart shoppers will further be

challenged to ``support themselves and their families.''

``While it is unusual for us to take a public position on a

public policy issue of this kind, we simply believe it is

time for Congress to take a responsible look at the minimum

wage and other legislation that may help working families,''

he said.

Wal-Mart maintains that it pays above the current $5.15 an

hour minimum wage to its employees.

As the world's largest retailer and largest U.S. non-union

private sector employer with more than 1.3 million

``associates'' in its U.S. stores, Wal-Mart has been a

lightning rod for criticism about its wage and benefits

policy as well as lawsuits alleging gender discrimination. It

continues to draw fire for allegedly stifling small

businesses and squeezing its vendors.

Scott also discussed a new health-care package with lower

premiums for Wal-Mart workers.

The new ``Value option'' plan, which will be introduced

Jan. 1 2006, offers insurance coverage of $23 a month ``and

kids covered for less than 50 cents per day . . . no matter

how many children,'' Scott said.

``We will offer this plan for $11 a month, with children

covered for less than 30 cents per day in some markets--and

we are working to offer these savings nationally,'' he said.

Said Scott, ``We want to drive out as much as 25 percent of

the cost in the healthcare system through leading a coalition

of business, government and industry leaders in applying

standards and technologies for efficiency.''

He also touted the retailer's efforts to present itself as

a more environmentally friendly company.

Whether it is jobs, health care, product sourcing or

environmental impact, ``it is clear to me that in order to

build a 21st century company, we need to view these same

issues in a different light,'' Scott said in the speech.

``Our environmental goals at Wal-Mart are simple and

straightforward,'' he said. ``One, to be supplied 100 percent

by renewable energy. Two, to create zero waste. Three, to

sell products that sustain our resources and environment.''

In energy-saving moves that will save Wal-Mart money, Scott

said the company plans to increase the fuel efficiency of its

truck fleet--among the largest in the country--by 25 percent

over the next three years and double it within ten years.

``If implemented across our entire fleet by 2015, this

would amount to savings of more than $310 million a year.

Compare that to doing nothing,'' he said.

In addition, Wal-Mart said it will show preference to

factories in China that participate in a ``green company

program'' where the company will show preference to those

suppliers and their factories involved in such a program.

``We are also committed to reducing our solid waste from

U.S. stores and clubs by 25 percent in the next three

years,'' Scott said. ``We're replacing PVC packaging for our

private brands with alternatives that are more sustainable

and recyclable within the next two years.''

Scott delivered the speech on the eve of the company's

annual two-day conference for analysts at its Bentonville,

Ark., headquarters.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Mary Bourdette, a great champion for America's children and families took a leave from her job advocating for parents, and it is important that we take the time to mark her extraordinary career. In her 30 year career, Mary has been an ever-present voice and an unyielding force, reminding everyone around her that we must do much more for children-- especially for the most disadvantaged children in our country.

I first met Mary back in California when she was working on improving education in the state. My wife Cynthia and I have long valued Mary for her friendship as well as for her passion for her work. Mary and I worked closely together when I chaired the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families in the 1980's. She is a skilled lobbyist and negotiator and her vision and persistence were critical to my efforts on child welfare policy in addition to numerous other issues.

One of the reasons Mary is so effective in fighting for children is that she is an idealistic pragmatist. She would always fight to the end for what she knew was right. But she was just as committed to getting the different sides together and fostering communication--particularly when the situation was at its most polarized.

Mary advocated for children and families in many capacities here in Washington, DC over the past 30 years. She first fought for the Legal Services Corp. to help ensure that our poorest citizens have access to the legal system that our Constitution promises. She later worked tirelessly at the Children Defense Fund on the first major expansion of the Earned Income Credit and the original enactment of Child Care and Development Block Grant--programs that have made an enormous difference for America's poorest families. Her work with the Child Welfare League of America as Director of Public Policy also proved vital for the well- being of America's children and families. And her 8 years with the Clinton Administration allowed Mary to play a central and critical role in the many federal policies that affect children.

So I commend Mary for her impressive career and thank her both for the assistance she has provided to me over the years and on behalf of the millions of children who have benefited from her intelligence and passion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. Speaker, this week new reports from the College Board showed how much harder it is getting for families to pay for college. Since 2001, tuition and fees at a 4-year public college have risen by 46 percent. Today the maximum Pell grant is worth $900 less when adjusted for inflation than it was in 1975 and 1976. This year, students attending 2 and 4-year public colleges are already $10 billion short for paying for college, even after grants, work study, savings, and Federal loans are taken into account. As a result, millions of students will be forced to work long hours to take on additional debt from other sources or forgo college altogether.

What has been the Republicans' response? To make American students and families who are already struggling to pay for college, pay even more.

In July, during the committee consideration of the Higher Education Act, Republicans voted to cut nearly $9 billion from the student aid programs and raise interest rates and fees on student borrowers. This raid on student aid represents the largest cut to the Federal student aid programs ever, ever. As a result of these cuts, the typical borrower with $17,500 in loan debt when they graduate will be forced to pay an additional $5,800 more for his or her college loans. That is $5,800 additional that they will have to pay over the life of those loans for the college education that they are seeking.

While many of the cuts were on excessive subsidies paid to student lenders, such as the 9.5 percent loan boondoggle, the Republicans only agreed to reduce some of these excessive subsidies to large lending institutions after widespread criticism from Democrats, students, and editorial writers.

But instead of reinvesting these dollars into low-interest loans and additional grants, the majority plans to use nearly $9 billion in cuts for the alleged deficit reduction, or to pay for their tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this Nation. They are going to take $9 billion out of the student loan account to pay for the tax cuts to the wealthiest 5 percent of the people in this country. That is their idea of economic justice.

But it gets worse. Next week, the majority plans to cut an additional $7.5 billion from the Nation's student aid programs, the second largest cuts ever. The first largest cuts were several weeks ago. Now they are back. They are back for $7.5 billion to take out of student loans to again pay for the $1 trillion in tax cuts that they gave to the top 5 percent of the people in this country.

To make matters even worse, the Republican leadership has failed to provide real relief for college tuition. In fact, in their higher education bill, they would do nothing to make tuition more affordable for the first 5 years after it is enacted into law. Even after 5 years, the bill only requires colleges and universities with rapidly rising tuition to increase their reporting and disclosures.

Mr. Speaker, the public already knows how much it costs. They struggle with it every spring as they try to figure out how to pay for their children's education. What the Republicans are doing, it is not lowering the cost of tuition, not lowering the rate or the increase in the cost of tuitions; they are adding thousands of dollars, thousands of dollars in additional costs to students and to their families.

This is unacceptable. What the Democrats had was a better idea that we would cut those outlandish subsidies to the lending institutions, to the banks, and to others, and we would take that money and we would recycle it into the student loan programs so

that we could increase the Pell grant by some $500. We could take care of low and middle-income students who fall short in being able to finance their education. We would lower the cost of that debt to those students. We would make the repayment easier.

But the Republicans did not do that. They chose to take now what is almost $16 billion when they are done next week out of the student loan program, to raid this student aid and take that and transfer that to the wealthiest people in this country through the tax cuts that they have already enacted.

It is a shameful day, and it is a sad day, when we are being told that it is more important now than ever that students in America complete a college education for the sake of their economic well-being and for the sake of the competitiveness of our economy, and the Republicans have decided to make it more and more expensive for millions of American students and their families. It is a tragic day for these students and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Hulet Hornbeck, a long-time friend and strong advocate for the East Bay Regional Park District in California, on the occasion of his 86th birthday and the dedication of the Hornbeck Trail at Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline.

The East Bay Regional Park District is bestowing the honor of naming a segment of the California Hiking and Riding Trail at Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline in recognition of Hulet's many and significant contributions to the East Bay Regional Park District as well as to the environmental and trails movement throughout the United States.

Hulet Hornbeck, a Contra Costa County resident, has been a leader in the grassroots citizen's movement, which resulted in the annexation of most of Contra Costa County to the East Bay Regional Park District in 1964. He served the East Bay Regional Park District as Chief of Land Acquisition from 1965 through 1985 leading land acquisition efforts during one of the Park District's greatest expansion period. During this time the Park District grew from 8 parks totaling 13,000 acres to 46 parks encompassing 62,000 acres at his retirement in 1985.

During his tenure with the Park District and continuing over the next 20 years, Hulet was a leading force in the initiation of the East Bay Regional Park District's regional trail system as well as being an active volunteer advocate for the acquisition and development of trails locally, nationally and internationally. He has been a life-long conservationist, outdoorsman, and environmentalist who has provided leadership for such organizations as the California Conservation Council, the American Hiking Society, the National Trails Council, the Martinez Land Trust, the Trails and Greenways Foundation, American Trails, Heritage Trails Fund, Amigos de Anza, the California Recreational Trails Committee, the East Bay Area Trails Council, the American Trails Association, Solano County Farmlands and Open Space Foundation, and the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize Hulet Hornbeck for his vision and leadership in providing trails and regional parks throughout Contra Costa County and congratulate him on the occasion of his 86th birthday and the naming of the Hornbeck Trail at Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I just want to say that when the gentleman talks about a taking, that is not what his legislation does. All that has to happen is that a landowner proposes a use for his property, and if that use is ruled as a taking, the landowner gets compensated. The landowner does not show that they could do that, that they could go through the city zoning, they could go through the county zoning, that they would get those permits to build those houses or whatever else he wants to do, or he could build that commercial establishment, no showing of that. Yet, under this legislation, he is entitled to compensation. Nothing has been taken, only the suggestion in the proposal on a plan.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

The bipartisan substitute that we have introduced here in fact goes to fundamental and basic changes in the Endangered Species Act to both provide for the better protection of the species, but also to make this Act far more workable, far more definite in terms of the interests of landowners, the impacts and the timelines and the guidelines that will be offered to them to make this Act work. That is the spirit of the reform of the Endangered Species Act. That is not what is taking place in this underlying bill.

In the manager's amendment that was just introduced, it has been suggested now for the last several days that there is a recovery plan in the underlying bill. The manager's amendment, in fact, strikes that recovery plan in terms of its basic, fundamental necessity for the recovery of those species. So the difference between the substitute and the underlying bill is in the substitute, you will, in fact, have enforceable recovery plans where other actions have to be measured against the impacts on those recovery plans, the habitat that is developed under those recovery plans to make sure that the recovery of the species continues. That is no longer a requirement. That is no longer a requirement in the substitute bill.

That is why I would hope that people would understand that if you really want to provide for the reform, if you really want to provide for the reform of the Endangered Species Act, if you really want to make this Act more user-friendly, if you really want to have it based upon science, if you want to have the recovery based upon science, you want those determinations made with the best science, then that is what the substitute does.

There has been a bait and switch here. Up until just recently, with the adoption of the manager's amendment, you could argue that that is what the underlying bill does. But, with the new language that is introduced in the manager's amendment, that is no longer the case, and I would hope that people would understand you will not be able to provide for the kind of recovery that this Nation expects, that our constituents expect, and most Members of Congress expect with that legislation now with the manager's amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.