Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for yielding me time and for all of his involvement over many years on the issues affecting OSHA and the workplace safety of American workers.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act has substantially improved the safety of the American workplace to the benefit of the American worker. Far fewer workers are killed or injured today than was the case before the law was enacted. Despite this progress, too many Americans continue to be sick or injured or killed in workplace accidents that could have been or should have been avoided. Fifteen Americans were killed and more than 12,800 were injured each day in 2002. This does not include the 50,000 and 60,000 deaths that occur every year as a result of occupational diseases.

None of the bills before this committee today will do anything to improve the occupational safety or health of Americans. H.R. 2728 unnecessarily and indefinitely delays the abatement of safety and health hazards in compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration citations.

H.R. 2729 unnecessarily expands the size of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and H.R. 2730 weakens the fundamental responsibilities of the Secretary of Labor. It contorts the law and confuses the enforcement responsibilities of both the Secretary and the review commission.

H.R. 2731 significantly diminishes the protections of Occupational Safety and Health by discouraging OSHA from even enforcing the Occupational Health and Safety Act and punishing tax payers unless the agency, like Perry Mason, can win every case. That is not going to happen. These bills do no good, and some of them do substantial harm. The House should not waste time considering them. If the House truly wants to address the economic needs of the American people, why not spend time on legislation raising the subpoverty minimum wage or extending unemployment benefits to the 90,000 workers a month who are losing that benefit because of the inaction of Congress or stopping the Labor Department from issuing overtime regulations that will cost middle-class workers critical amounts of their income?

Why do we not spend our time on those bills instead of this meaningless and political agenda?

Rather than hurting workers, we should be raising the minimum wage. The minimum wage has not been increased since 1997, and the real value of the minimum wage is approaching all-time historic lows. It is worth noting that the Republican Congress has increased Members' salaries six times since the minimum wage was last increased. It is time for Congress to do for others what we have repeatedly done for ourselves. Instead, we are considering bad bills to undermine worker safety and health. If we cannot do good for workers, we should at least avoid doing them harm.

We should not be encouraging employers to litigate OSHA complaints instead of correcting health and safety hazards; but two of the bills, H.R. 2728 and H.R. 2731 have exactly that effect. Tax payers should not be paying the legal expenses of employers who endanger their workers, but, again, that is what H.R. 2731 requires. It is nonsense to contend that the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission knows better what the Secretary of Labor intended than the Secretary herself, but that is not exactly the premise that underlies H.R. 2730.

Finally, our Republican colleagues argue that we should expand the size of the commission with no commensurate expansion in its responsibilities. In effect, the taxpayers should go on the hook to put two more lawyers to work for no good reason. This is the effect of H.R. 2729. This is bad legislation. It is unfortunate that we have spent time considering these bills when there is so much we could be doing to help workers and their families in this country. Let us not compound the error by foisting these bills on the other body.

Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 2660, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. George Miller of California moves that the managers

on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing

votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill

H.R. 2660 be instructed to insist on reporting an amendment

to prohibit the Department of Labor from using funds under

the Act to implement any portion of a regulation that would

make any employee ineligible for overtime pay who would

otherwise qualify for overtime pay under regulations under

section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act in effect

September 3, 2003, except that nothing in the amendment shall

affect the increased salary requirements provided in such

regulations as specified in section 541 of title 29 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated on April 23,

2004.

Mr. Speaker, I think most people recognize that California often leads the Nation in its efforts to protect the environment. It also leads the Nation as the most efficient user of energy.

There are few issues more unifying than the importance of protecting our coasts from the impacts of offshore oil drilling.

Time and again, local, State and Federal officials in both parties have supported a moratorium on offshore oil drilling. Yet, despite the campaign rhetoric claiming to oppose offshore drilling, this administration has attempted every backdoor route to weaken coastal protections. All we have to do is look at the energy bill and find numerous provisions supported by the administration that paved the way to drilling off the coast of California.

In fact, just this month Aera, a subsidiary of Shell/ExxonMobil, indicated it is moving forward with its intentions to develop several leases off the coast of Santa Barbara that are not subject to the drilling moratorium.

The President stepped in in the same situation in Florida and bought out those leases, Florida, a State where his brother is Governor, but he will not do this in California.

Further, the administration, through the energy bill, has repeatedly tried to weaken the State of California's ability to regulate the activities at the State level that might impact our coasts.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today before my colleagues in Congress and this great Nation to honor a wonderful friend and true warrior in my district upon his retirement after serving 38 years as a pastor in Richmond, California.

Rev. C. W. Newsome, pastor of the historic North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church in the humble community of North Richmond, California, is a steward in the fight for social justice and economic equality. He has dedicated his life to the service of God, extended the doors of his church to provide economic and educational opportunities to the residents of Richmond, and bravely supported our country during World War II.

I am also proud to join the rest of our community in recognizing this year the 85th anniversary of the establishment of his church.

I can remember as a child attending events in North Richmond with my father, the late California State Senator George Miller, Jr., that a young Rev. Newsome would hoist me up on his shoulders to enable me to have a broader vision of my surroundings. More than 25 years later, in the 1970s, I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Rev. Newsome and other African American faith and labor leaders on the steps of the Social Security building in Richmond. We assembled to protest discriminatory employment practices against African American workers by companies receiving Federal contracts, and I supported their demands that the Nixon Administration pay African American laborers 2 weeks in back pay owed to them for work that they performed on the Federal building project.

Acting as spokesman for the African American carpenters, Rev. Newsome was successful in receiving $18 million for the workers. In September 1975, I proudly stood at the side of Rev. Newsome as we attended the opening ceremony for the newly constructed Frank Hagel Social Security Administration building on Nevin Street in Richmond.

Prior to his path in the ministry, C.W. Newsome proudly served in the segregated United States military where he fought for equality at home and freedom abroad. When World War II began in 1937, there were fewer than 5,000 black enlisted men in the United States army. In 1943, Rev. Newsome joined more than a million black men who had voluntarily enlisted in all branches of the armed forces to join in our country's war against Nazi fascism in Europe. While serving in the U.S. Marine Corps, he sustained an injury and was honorably discharged.

Despite widespread opposition to hiring African American and women workers in the civilian defense industry, Rev. Newsome answered President Franklin Roosevelt's call for civilians to join the country's effort to produce large numbers of ``Liberty Ships'' and ``Victory Ships'' for the war industry.

He and millions of other African Americans migrated westward to California to find work in the shipyards. In 1944, Rev. Newsome settled in Richmond and worked as a clipper in the Kaiser Shipyard. His job was to groove steel for welding so that ships could withstand storms on harsh seas. The national westward migration of African Americans from the south to work in the shipyards during War II, and the contributions made by Rev. Newsome and other migrants, including thousands of women laborers, helped establish California as one of the leading industrial hubs in the world, and their efforts helped Richmond to become part of what is known today as the Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park.

Rev. Newsome received his Associate of Arts degree from Contra Costa College in San Pablo, California, and later completed studies at the University of California, Berkeley, Center for Drug and Alcohol Abuse. He studied theology at Bishop College in Dallas, Texas, and he earned his doctorate degree from Reeds Christian College--Western Theology Seminary in Los Angeles, California.

In 1954, Rev. Newsome served as organizing pastor of Holy Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church in Richmond and he later headed Community Baptist Church in Santa Rosa. In 1975, Rev. Newsome was recognized by then California State Senator James Mills for his studies and contributions in Christian education.

Rev. Newsome's relationship with the North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church formally began in 1966 when he became the church's interim pastor under the direction of the late Rev. F.W. Watkins. After Rev. Watkins' unfortunate passing, Rev. Newsome assumed the pastorship of the church and has served at its helm for 38 years. While assuming his responsibilities as pastor of North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church, Rev. Newsome also worked as a custodian in the Richmond public schools until 1967.

While working in the schools, Rev. Newsome witnessed first-hand how illegal drugs were being brought into high schools and the devastating effect that drugs were having on young people and their families. He understood that drugs and poverty were obstacles to learning for many children attending public schools in Richmond. Therefore, Rev. Newsome began a mission to keep students safe by fighting to close school campuses to drug dealers, and, in 1977, he successfully convinced the Richmond school district and the community to designate Kennedy High School as a closed campus.

For his valiant leadership on behalf of Richmond's children, he was named ``Man of the Year'' by the Richmond Unified School District.

Rev. Newsome's church has a proud and long history that I also rise to honor. Back in 1921, a small group of parishioners laid the cornerstone for what was to become the very first ``Negro Baptist Church'' in Contra Costa County. Today, North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church is a lighthouse for residents living in the City of Richmond as well as the unincorporated community of North Richmond. Rev. Newsome opened the doors of his church to the community in many ways. Under the leadership of Rev. Newsome, North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church has amply opened its doors to serve the community.

Identifying the need to provide job training to residents in North Richmond, an economically depressed community, the church opened the North Richmond Career Center. The church served as a national model by providing residents with job skills and successfully putting over 200 young people into meaningful jobs. Several years ago, Rev. Newsome and his congregation helped to establish the North Richmond Clinic and the North Richmond Senior Apartments. Recently, church leaders are working with other faith-based groups to end blight by constructing affordable housing for low-income residents living in North Richmond and other areas of the City of Richmond.

Rev. C.W. Newsome's wife, Alice, serves as first-lady of North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church and is a great member of our community. Rev. Newsome is a loving husband and father and a beacon in our community.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and my privilege to call him a friend and a colleague in our shared struggles on behalf of the people of North Richmond and Richmond. I rise to show my respect and offer my heartfelt appreciation to the Rev. C.W. Newsome for his lifetime of service to the ministry, to our community, and to our Nation, and to recognize the 85th anniversary of the remarkable community church in which he has served, the North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church.

Mr. Speaker, I see in the morning papers that the Republicans have a problem with Senator Kerry's characterization of this administration as arrogant in its foreign policy.

Arrogance. What do you call it when they ignore their economic advisers that tell them the real cost of the war will be $200 billion, and not a couple of billion paid for by the Iraqis?

Arrogance. What do you call it when they ignore their military advisers on the number of troops that will be necessary, not only to win the war, but to keep the peace and protect our troops from harm?

Arrogance. What do you call it when they send their troops into combat without the proper equipment to protects those troops, such as bulletproof vests and armored Humvees, and still have not done it today?

Arrogance. What do you call it when they ignore the advice of the State Department that we have to have international support for the war and international participation in the keeping of the peace? We had neither.

Arrogance. What do you call it when they rush to war, and the Pentagon says that rush to war prevented us from being able to protect our soldiers in a proper way, and now one out of four casualties is because we were improperly prepared to keep the peace?

Arrogance. That is what you call it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to support this resolution encouraging all Americans to observe the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education with a commitment to continuing and building on its legacy.

Brown v. Board of Education is one of the most important decisions our Supreme Court has ever made. It's important to celebrate the progress that has been made over the past 50 years in eliminating discrimination and inferior education for low-income and minority children--but it's also important to take a good, hard look at how far we still have to go.

Sadly, we are still light years away from providing the equal education envisioned by Thurgood Marshall and Earl Warren. Today, as in 1954, the quality of a child's education is still all too often linked to the color of his or her skin.

Just as the United States has the best health care in the world for those who can afford it, we have one of the best public education systems in the world if you happen to grow up in a predominantly white or wealthy community. But what if you don't?

If you are one of the millions of children who attend predominantly minority schools, our society continues to fail you. And that shortchanges not only the children, but the future of this nation.

It is shameful that poor and minority children are often assigned to less-challenging classes and less qualified teachers. The best teachers are often across town, a virtual world away from the students who need them desperately.

Black students are assigned disproportionately to special education, and low-income students are less than half as likely to be assigned to ``college prep'' courses. Overcrowded classrooms and dilapidated school buildings also send a powerful message to poor and minority students about what is expected of them.

Just yesterday, a judge with a sense of history in Kansas reminded us of the importance of school equity by ordering schools closed for not adequately serving the needs of poor, minority, disabled and non- English speaking children.

This lack of access to an equal education affects academic achievement. Seventy-four percent of white 4th graders read well, nearly twice the rate of the black classmates; and their Latino and Native American classmates are only slightly better. It is a national shame that half a century after this Nation committed itself to equality in education, fewer than half of minority children can read proficiently.

And that failure plays out in high school graduations. When millions of students get their diplomas a few weeks from now, only about half the minority children who began high school will graduate. That is an unacceptable rate of failure that in most cases, dooms those young people to a life of second class opportunities. That was not the lesson of Brown v. Board of Education.

It was to end that two-class education system once and for all that we passed No Child Left Behind three years ago, to end the racial and economic disparities that divide our schools and divide our country.

The No Child Left Behind law--if fully funded--would put a qualified teacher in every classroom. If all students were assigned highly qualified teachers for 5 years, evidence shows that test-score gaps separating poor and middle-class students would disappear. Not just narrow, but disappear.

But the President has turned his back on this law and underfunded it by nearly $27 billion. And our children are paying the price for yet another dream deferred.

The foundation of the civil rights struggle of 2004--as in 1954--is in the classroom. Civil rights pioneer Dr. Dorothy Height said it well: ``The surest path to success is through education.''

Like Dr. Height, we must keep fighting and keep fighting so that 50 years from now--when our grandchildren celebrate the 100th anniversary of Brown--they will be able to point with pride to an education system that lives up to the ideals of Brown v. Board of Education once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I thank him for all of his leadership on this legislation.

I was wondering why we were here today, but I guess we are here today to demonstrate that we are working on behalf of the American people. It is an interesting definition of work, that we are going to repeat something that we have already done earlier in the year that has already been completed, but we are going to go through it again, so you think we are working for you. I thought they called that featherbedding or something in the old days, when you looked like you were working but you were not working.

But anyway, what is interesting here is that once again we see the Republicans offering another piece of legislation that just continues an assault on middle-income Americans. They did it with overtime pay: cut it, will not let us consider it; comp time, ended; unemployment insurance assistance, terminated; job training, slashed; negotiations for cheaper prescription drugs, prohibited. When is it the middle class is going to get to win one with this Republican leadership in the Congress?

Now we come to this health care plan which is to basically give an offer to people of health care that is unregulated, that is opposed by all of the State Attorneys General and the National Governors Association and so many others who have experience with these plans in trying to make sure that people are not cheated out of the money that they pay and the benefits that are offered.

But they are not going to allow us to have the amendments that would substantially change this bill, because they do not want to vote on those amendments. They do not want to vote on amendments that would improve this legislation. That is unfortunate, because as they do continue their assault on the middle class, at least those of us 206 Members on the Democratic side ought to be able to reflect the voices of the people that we represent. We ought to be able to offer the amendments to provide for their protection and for their expanded health care, but that is not the way they run the House nowadays. Nowadays you either have to take their idea or no idea.

And that is just unacceptable when we are considering a problem as complicated and with the absolute sense of urgency that the Nation has about health care.

So this is very unfortunate, that we would take these 4 hours that we will probably consume on this legislation and simply go through a charade that was already acted out in the House of Representatives last year in this Congress. The Senate can consider it anytime they want. But we are going to go through this charade rather than allowing amendments that could be offered to substantially improve this legislation, amendments much like the effort we made yesterday on overtime, to offer a chance to vote on overtime, we would prevail on a bipartisan basis, but the Republicans are so concerned that they would rather choke off the debate and not allow those amendments to take place.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if a motion to table this motion on overtime pay prevails, will it have the effect of prohibiting the House Members from even discussing the administration's overtime pay rules at this time?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, so to be clear, that means that the body will not be debating overtime pay today; is that the impact of the motion to table, to deny us a vote on the overtime pay?

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 2660, the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS appropriations bill.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. George Miller of California moves that the managers on

the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing

votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill

H.R. 2660 be instructed to insist on reporting an amendment

to prohibit the Department of Labor from using funds under

the Act to implement any portion of a regulation that would

make any employee ineligible for overtime pay who would

otherwise qualify for overtime pay under regulations under

section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act in effect

September 3, 2003, except that nothing in the amendment shall

affect the increased salary requirements provided in such

regulations as specified in section 541 of title 29 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated on April 23,

2004.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Delphine Metcalf-Foster on the occasion of her election as State Commander of the California Disabled American Veterans.

Delphine Metcalf-Foster was recently elected Commander of the California Disabled American Veterans, the first female to hold this position in the organization's 81 year history. Before that she was the Senior Vice Commander and Junior Vice Commander of the California Disabled American Veterans; again the first woman to hold these positions. As you will soon understand, Ms. Metcalf-Foster is a remarkable woman, a remarkable American and a great asset to her community and our country.

Ms. Metcalf-Foster retired from the Army Reserve as a First Sergeant after 21 years of service, including as a combat veteran in the Gulf War/Desert Storm/Desert Shield 12 years ago. She is a recipient of a Bronze Star. Delphine retired from the Department of the Navy at the Alameda Naval Air Station as a Quality Assurance Specialist after 20 years. She has an Associate of Arts degree in psychology and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Liberal Studies from Sonoma State University (SSU). She is also active with the Women's Army Corps (WAC) and a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

First Sergeant Metcalf-Foster has been awarded the following decorations and medals: Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal (10c), National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Bronze Star, NCO Professional Development Ribbon-3, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Ribbon, and the Army Label Button.

Ms. Metcalf-Foster's work with the Disabled American Veterans includes positions as the Past Chapter 21 Commander, the Past District 1 Commander, the Past Department Commander's Aide for the North, and the Past National Commander's Aide.

In 2003 Ms. Metcalf-Foster agreed to join a Veterans Advisory Board that I formed with Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher to help us stay in close contact with veterans in our districts. Delphine has been very helpful to us in that role.

In addition to her current position with the California Disabled American Veterans, Ms. Metcalf-Foster is also Adjutant for Chapter 21, attends Graduate School at Sonoma State University, volunteers as a mentor for teen mothers, speaks at history classes at SSU regarding women in the military, and is the annual speaker at Solano College during Women's History Month. She is married to Jimmie S. Foster Sr., is the mother of three, grandmother of six including Sgt. Jacare Hogan who just returned from Iraq after a 13-month tour, and great- grandmother of two. She lives in Vallejo.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we recognize Ms. Metcalf-Foster for her service to her country, her many remarkable contributions to her fellow veterans and her community, and that we wish her well in her new position as Commander of the California Disabled American Veterans.

Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney has told the Nation that people ought to get off Secretary Rumsfeld's case and let him do his job. President Bush has called him ``really good'' and ``superb'' in the last week alone.

There are many reasons why Mr. Rumsfeld should resign from his position as Secretary of Defense. It is not just because he engaged in a cover-up in keeping the atrocities at the Abu Ghraib Prison from the Congress of the United States when he had full knowledge about it, but it is also his incompetency to appreciate and understand the political firestorm that would be set off across the Islamic and Arab world by the humiliation that was taking place, or even the suffering and the humiliation that Americans would feel when they saw these out-of- control soldiers engaging in that conduct.

But it is also because he is reigning over the most incompetent and mismanaged occupation of the country of Iraq, because his arrogance would not allow him to pay attention to those prestigious institutions and people who had actual experience in peacekeeping and restoring democracy to countries, who had done it without taking casualties of American soldiers. They pushed ahead with an inadequate number of resources in terms of soldiers and equipment; they pushed ahead with inadequate resources in terms of paying for this, and for the force protection, his number one responsibility, the force protection of our soldiers.

Because of his actions and because of his rush to war, as the Pentagon Joint Chiefs of Staff study tells us in Lessons Learned, they failed to provide for the protection of these soldiers. More recently, that failure has been translated by the Pentagon to say because of improper equipment for the personal protection of soldiers, because of the improper kind of mix of equipment in terms of non-armored Humvees, one out of four of the casualties was unnecessary, had we been properly prepared with the proper equipment, the training, for our soldiers. One out of four of the casualties was unnecessary, according to the Pentagon, another reason why Secretary Rumsfeld should resign.

Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 2660, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004

The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2660 be instructed to insist on reporting an amendment to prohibit the Department of Labor from using funds under the Act to implement any portion of a regulation that would make any employee ineligible for overtime pay who would otherwise qualify for overtime pay under regulations under section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act in effect September 3, 2003, except that nothing in the amendment shall affect the increased salary requirements provided in such regulations as specified in section 541 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated on April 23, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans throughout this country share my growing concern about the alarming language being used to demean anyone raising questions about American policy in Iraq. But we have been there before.

We have endured the excesses and the shame of the Palmer Raids, of McCarthyism, of J. Edgar Hoover, and Nixon's Enemies List. It is a sad, but historical, fact that in these times of national crisis and stress, some resort to challenging not merely the ideas of our fellow citizens, but their character, their integrity, and even their patriotism.

Some would prefer that we ignore such blasphemy, that we treat such exaggerated rhetoric with the indifference it deserves. I respectfully disagree. I believe that we have learned a sad lesson from history of this and other countries that ignoring vicious political slurs encourages further abuse and undermines free speech and open debate.

We have substantial disagreements about the wisdom of our course in Iraq. Those who disagree with our policies include highly decorated veterans, intelligence experts, some of our closest allies and millions of our constituents, a growing number every day.

And yet, when a widely respected Member of the House, an honored veteran who has been a staunch supporter of the defense community through 30 years of congressional service, offered a somber analysis about the misdirection of our Iraqi effort, he was denounced by other Members as conducting ``a calculated and a craven political stunt.''

Now, the author of that statement has a tendency towards loose language and personal invective, and most people do not take his words too seriously. I do, because he is the majority leader.

He was speaking about our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha.) He called him ``craven.'' The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), craven?

Craven is a strong word. It means gutless. It means spineless. It means cowardly, weak, fearful. It is a word that should never be used by a Member of Congress to describe another, and could never be used to describe the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) joined the Marine Corps during the Korean War. He volunteered to serve in Vietnam, while those who accuse him managed to avoid military service. He is the first combat Vietnam veteran elected to Congress. He retired from the Marine Corps Reserves in 1990 and has been awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal and the USO's Spirit of Hope Award for his many services to the men and women in the military.

To even suggest that his impassioned and difficult statement about the course of the war in Iraq was a ``political stunt'' is to insult a distinguished veteran and Congressman, and I denounce it in the strongest terms.

But the voices of hysteria did not stop there.

Now we are told that those expressions of concern about the misdirection of the Iraqi campaign demonstrated that ``the national Democratic Party declared its surrender on the war on terror.'' Democrats were accused of giving ``aid and comfort to the enemy,'' according to another Republican Member who never served in combat.

Let every American understand the meaning of these words: It does not matter who you are, if you have worn the uniform of your country, if you have risked your life in combat; to those who use these words on the floor of the House, it does not matter. Challenge the policies of the Bush administration and House Republicans in Iraq, and you are ``giving aid comfort to the enemy.'' You are surrendering to terrorism.

In other words, you are a traitor. That is what these Republican Members would suggest about Members of Congress.

Well, according to the latest poll, 60 percent of the American public think the situation in Iraq is out of control. Have we become a Nation of traitors in the eyes of the Republican leaders of this institution?

Mr. Speaker, this disgraceful, demeaning, and insulting rhetoric has no place in the Congress, it has no place in America, and it should be denounced by every Member of this House, regardless of party and regardless of one's position on Iraq. The day we lose our ability to voice our heartfelt views without having our patriotism demeaned is a dangerous day for democracy.

Some may argue that these are just the voices of an extreme, though powerful few. Some say it is just partisan politics. That is not the case. We have been here before.

Two years ago, the patriotism of Senator Max Cleland was challenged, a man who served in Vietnam and left three of his limbs there; a man who served honorably as the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs and as a United States Senator. Apparently he did not lose enough limbs to prove his patriotism to those who attacked him, those who sought multiple deferments in the same war that cost Max Cleland his limbs. Those attacks cost him an election, too.

This year, the vicious attacks are leveled, as we knew that they would be, against Senator John Kerry, who volunteered in Vietnam while others used their connections and deferments to avoid service. Senator Kerry earned three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star, but now his patriotism is also challenged. Evidently, Senator Kerry's wounds were not deep enough for some of his critics.

And now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) is the target of this disgraceful, venal slander.

It is time to stop.

Americans deserve, and they want, an honest discussion on the issues, not a vicious assault on the integrity and the patriotism of distinguished men who carry their wounds of war.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from several days of meetings in Vientiane and Luang Prabang not only with our own very able Ambassador Doug Hartwick but his excellent embassy staff and also with Lao Government officials and many private citizens, Americans and others, who are living and working in Laos. There is a more complex and changing pictures than the wording of this resolution portrays.

Our discussions covered a wide range of topics, including the government's deficiencies in addressing human rights and political transparency issues as detailed in H. Res. 402, and I was very clear in my conversations with the Lao leaders about the urgency of meeting international standards particularly with respect to the Hmong and other indigenous people who have been the subject of ill treatment and repression.

I share the concerns of the authors of this resolution that Laos, like many other countries in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, should make substantial improvements in the openness of their political and judicial processes and comply with internationally recognized human, religious, and labor rights and promote economic reforms that will raise the standard of living of its citizens through improved investment and trade.

This resolution addresses those issues, and I do not think that many would argue with the historical record. My concern, however, is that the resolution fails to take into account the many significant developments of the U.S.-Lao relationship as well as the internal changes that are not only noteworthy, but address some of the issues raised in this resolution. We are involved in major efforts, and we are getting major cooperation in antidrug efforts in Laos through the cooperation of the Lao government aimed at reducing opium and amphetamine trade that reaches from Southeast Asia to the streets of the American cities.

Our people report a strong cooperation in this effort with the Lao authorities. In the areas of POW/MIA, hundreds of Americans from the Vietnam era are still missing in Laos, and we are sending forensic teams to Laos

several times a year to locate and repatriate the remains of those service people. Again, according to our government, we are receiving strong cooperation from the Lao government, but this resolution has been silent on that important effort.

Certainly the issue of human rights and the Hmong population, as well as other minorities, is a particularly sensitive subject in the Lao- American community in the United States, and I imagine that is the issue pushing this resolution to the forefront at this time. This resolution fails, however, to note that for a variety of reasons, some having to do with international pressure and some having to do with internal economics and politics, the Lao government has been urging Hmong and other dissidents to come out of the mountains where they have been hidden for many decades. The government has pledged to assist in the relocation and settlement of these groups, and I would note that Secretary of State Powell has told the Lao government the United States would like to offer assistance in these efforts.

While there is reason aplenty for hesitation given the fate of others throughout the world who have acquiesced in ``resettlement'' campaigns, the reports I received while in Laos, across the board, testified to the positive response of the refugees. Moreover, there were few, if any, reports of abusive or unhelpful treatment by the government. There is no mention of that in this resolution.

The concerns that this resolution raise about conditions in Laos are justified, and we should be clear that virtually identical situations exist in far too many countries. I would also like to make it very clear that the Lao government fully cooperate with the opinion of the international community that has long been concerned with the treatment of minority groups within their country and make sure they, in fact, are open to allowing our ambassador to travel to the areas in question where people are engaged in coming out, the Hmongs and others, to make sure that the resettlement issues are occurring, that these people are being treated properly, and that there is no action taken against them.

So I would hope that the Lao government would be more open to the request of Secretary Powell, of our ambassador, of the international community. But again, I would state for those who have been there, for the international community, the international press, the suggestion is that this resettlement is going very fairly well, given the tensions that have existed for over so many years.

So I appreciate this resolution coming forward. I would hope that it would have given a little bit more recognition to those areas that we are getting cooperation, and that we will continue to work on opening this relationship with the Lao people, and clearly the support of the normal trade relations that we may have an opportunity to vote on later would go a long way in terms of improving the economy and some of the human rights issues within the Nation of Laos.

Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from several days of meetings in Vientiane and Luang Prabang with not only our own very able ambassador, Douglas Hartwick and his excellent embassy staff, but also with Lao government officials and other private citizens--American and others-- who are living and working in Laos. There is a more complex and changing picture than the wording of this resolution portrays.

Our discussions covered a wide range of topics, including that government's deficiencies in addressing human rights and political transparency issues that are detailed in H. Res. 402, and I was very clear in my conversations with Lao leaders about the urgency of meeting international standards particularly with respect to Hmong and other indigenous groups that have been the subject of ill-treatment and repression. I share the concerns of the authors of this resolution that Laos, like many other countries in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, should make substantial improvements in the openness of their political and judicial processes, comply with internationally recognized human, religious and labor rights, and promote the economic reforms that will raise the standard of living of their citizens through improved investment and trade.

This resolution addresses those issues, and I do not think many would argue with the historical record. My concern, however, is that this resolution fails to take into account very significant developments in the U.S.-Lao relationship, as well as internal changes that are not only noteworthy, but that address some of the issues raised in the resolution.

This is a delicate state in U.S.-Lao relations. We are deeply involved with that government in a range of initiatives that are critical to our own national security. I met with several U.S. personnel, for example, involved in major anti-drug efforts in cooperation with the Lao government aimed at reducing the opium and amphetamine trade that reaches from Southeast Asia to the streets of American cities. Our people reported strong cooperation from the Lao authorities and progress in turning Lao citizens against the drug trade, but this resolution ignores this cooperation.

We are also deeply involved in POW-MIA efforts in Laos, as was documented last week in the New York Times. Hundreds of Americans from the Vietnam War era are still missing in Laos, and we are sending forensic recovery teams to Laos several times a year to locate and repatriate the remains of servicemen. Again according to our government, we are receiving strong cooperation of the Lao government, but this resolution is silent on this important initiative.

Certainly the issue of human rights and the Hmong population, as well as other minorities, is a particularly sensitive subject in the Lao- American community in the United States, and I imagine that is the issue pushing this resolution to the forefront at this time. The resolution fails, however, to note that for a variety of reasons--some having to do with international pressure and some having to do with internal economics and politics--the Lao government has been urging Hmong and other dissidents to come out of the mountains where some have hidden for several decades. The government has pledged to assist in the relocation and settlement of these groups, and I would note that Secretary of State Powell has told the Lao government that the United States would like to offer its assistance in these efforts. While there is reason aplenty for hesitation given the fate of others throughout the world who have acquiesced in ``resettlement'' campaigns, the reports I received in Laos, across the board, testified to the positive response of the refugees; moreover, there were few if any reports of abusive or unhelpful treatment by the government. But there is no mention of that cooperation in this resolution.

It is also important that the House understand that there have been some very serious incidents of violence and threats of violence with the Lao-American community in recent weeks, including assaults on those peacefully demonstrating in support of expanded trade with Laos, arson, and threats of assassination on certain radio stations. Members of the House should be helping to defuse this situation, not adding to the ill-feelings. So it is very important that what we say and do regarding Laos and the Lao community not be misunderstood or mis-stated.

The concerns that this resolution raises about conditions in Laos are justified, but we should be clear that virtually identical statements could be made about many other countries in the region or elsewhere in the world, including those with which we have very extensive economic and political relations. We want improvements and we should continue our efforts both bilaterally and through the U.N. and N.G.O.s to build a free and open society in Laos. One important step would be for more Members of Congress to visit the country and deliver the same message I did; yet only one other Member of the House has been to Laos in the last 5 years, I am told.

One important way for us to improve our relationship and encourage the kinds of reforms we would like to see in Laos is to grant Normal Trade Relations to that country. Laos is one of only three countries in the world with which we do not have NTR, and the only country with which we have full diplomatic relations lacking that status. Laos is far too small and poor to have an impact on the U.S. economy or jobs, but granting NTR will have a significant impact on the economy in that impoverished nation, allowing it to participate in the kind of positive economic improvements that have begun to transform Vietnam and Cambodia. Now that this resolution has been brought to the floor, I would hope that NTR for Laos would similarly be scheduled for House consideration.

I have many Lao-Americans in my own district, and I have had a close working relationship with them for a number of years. Most are refugees themselves from the repression of the post-war Lao government. They have built families, businesses, social and political organizations, and productive and cooperative lives in the United States. And together with many other Lao-Americans, they have begun to re-engage in a relationship with the country of their birth.

Members of the USA-Lao NTR Coalition, including the Lao-American Exchange Institute, the Laotian-American National Coalition and the Laotian-American Chamber of Commerce visited Laos last year and produced the important ``Citizen Initiative Report.'' I would like to

recognize in particular Mr. Sary Tatpaporn, the Coalition's coordinator and vice president of the Laotian-American Chamber of Commerce, along with Dr. Richard Chansombat of the Lao-American Exchange, who authored the report on the trip detailing their meetings with government and private leaders. Many of these Lao-American leaders have reversed past opposition and now are urging the passage of NTR so that the economy of their former country can grow and more of their former countrymen can share in the prosperity that investment, trade and modernization can bring.

Our relationship with Laos is long and complex, and it is changing for the better. We should be encouraging the positive steps Laos is taking on a wide range of issues, and we should be expanding our cooperation with that country as we have with other nations whose domestic policies we continue to question. We also need to recognize that some of the suspicion and distrust within the Lao leadership is due to continuing threats against that government from opposition elements within the United States, as was acknowledged during the recently held conference of Lao-American leaders at the State Department.

At the same time, the Lao government must fully cooperate with the opinion of the international community that has long been concerned with the treatment of minority groups within the country, and wish to ensure that current resettlement effort comport with internationally recognized standards. As I have noted, our own Secretary of State has offered assistance in the resettlement efforts, and our Ambassador has requested permission for his staff to visit the areas where resettlement is occurring to assure that these citizens are being treated fairly. International relief agencies also are interested in monitoring the efforts. I would hope that the Lao government would fully cooperate with these initiatives and allow for independent observation of resettlement activities. That government should understand that a well-conducted, independently verified resettlement effort will dramatically affect the perception of Laos in the world community.

Consideration of this resolution today should mark the beginning of a renewed interest and engagement in Laos by the House, not a one-time venting of opinion that ignores positive developments that are taking place and jeopardizes a longer agenda we should continue to pursue, including passage of NTR later this year. I look forward to working constructively with my colleagues towards a closer relationship with Laos which will encourage the kinds of reforms we all hope will be implemented in that nation.

Mr. Speaker, there is a new section in

libraries and in bookstores all across America. It is called the ``credibility gap and the leadership problems of President George W. Bush.'' There are so many books being published now that maybe the Dewey decimal system will have to be revised for America's libraries.

I recommend this new section to my colleagues and to the general public.

Last week, the latest edition to this collection was published, raising again serious questions about the President. I predict that rather than directly confront the substance of Ambassador Joe Wilson's criticism in his book, ``The Politics of Truth,'' the White House will instead, as they have in the past, attack his motives, his character, as they have done with the critics before him.

Recent history is littered with the Bush White House smear campaigns against good and brave people, all of whom share one simple characteristic, loyalty to the truth.

Let us start with John DiLulio, the White House's director of faith- based programs in 2001. He said that the Bush administration was more focused on politics than on good policy, and he is gone.

If that sounds familiar, it is because it is the same thing the former Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, said in his book, ``The Price of Loyalty.'' O'Neill rightly warned that the massive Bush tax cut would wreak havoc with our fiscal system, and remember what the White House did after Paul O'Neill's book came out. They launched an investigation and tried to smear his credibility and his reputation. Of course, that investigation went nowhere and the book stands for what it says.

How about Richard Clarke, a trusted, lifelong bipartisan public servant who was devoted to protecting Americans against terrorism? He wrote this book, ``Against All Enemies,'' which says the war in Iraq has diverted needed resources from the war on terror. He felt this Nation had a right to know.

Do my colleagues know how the White House responded? With a shock and awe media campaign to try and discredit Clarke. They said Clarke was just angry because he wanted a more prominent position, that he was essentially a Democrat or that he was out of the loop. Out of the loop? He was the administration's top anti-terrorist official on September 11.

If we cannot trust Richard Clarke, why not General Anthony Zinni? Zinni served in Vietnam, commanded the troops in Somalia, directed strikes against Iraq and al Qaeda, and served as the Bush administration's Mideast peace envoy. He had the audacity to agree with Clarke that the war in Iraq undermined the war on terror. He has not been asked to serve on any more diplomatic missions.

Then there was Larry Lindsey, former economic advisor to the President, who was fired when he correctly said that the war in Iraq would cost as much as 100 or $200 billion, but the President did not want to hear it. The administration did not want to hear it, and they certainly did not want Congress to hear it. Today, we are fast approaching $200 billion, all of it borrowed, all of it borrowed, for the war in Iraq. Too bad for his career, because the facts were important to him. Larry Lindsey is gone.

General Eric Shinseki apparently had the same problem. He said that we might need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq to secure the peace, to secure the peace and provide for the force protection of our soldiers. The White House did not like that. Soon enough, Shinseki had stepped aside, but now we have 150,000 troops and asking for more to try and secure a peace that has been so badly compromised because of the lack of preparation by this White House. Too bad that General Shinseki decided that he had to tell the truth and was compelled to let the American people know.

But there is more. The White House threatened to fire the Health and Human Services actuary, Richard Foster, if he revealed his higher estimates of what the Medicare prescription drug bill would really cost. Instead of having an honest debate in the Congress on the real cost of the prescription drug benefit, they said, no, keep the figures from Congress. Of course, Congress voted for the bill, and now we find out it is going to cost $140 billion more than we had anticipated. It is too bad. It is the law of the land, but it was done because of the intimidation by somebody in the administration who wanted to tell the truth.

Are you starting to see a pattern here, Mr. Speaker? Others have weighed in, too. Historian and political analyst Kevin Phillips says that Bush's self-interest trumps the national interest in his book ``American Dynasty.'' Kevin Phillips is not a liberal, or a Democrat, he simply wanted to explain what was going on inside of the administration in terms of the self-dealing special interests, which brings us back to Joe Wilson.

As Members will recall, in the President's State of the Union address in 2003, President Bush said that Saddam Hussein had tried to obtain nuclear material from Africa, even though he was told it was not true; but he came to the halls of Congress to tell the American people that is what happened. Wilson heard the speech and blew the whistle. Unfortunately for Wilson, his allegiance to the truth did not just result in the character assassination of Joe Wilson. In a particularly insidious and dangerous move, someone in the White house publicly revealed that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent, putting her life at risk, ending her career, and the people she worked with. That is what happens when you try to tell the truth in the Bush administration.