Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

I rise today in very strong support of the Veterans' Health Care Supplemental Appropriations Act. We are here tonight because the VA needs $975 million for the remaining 3 months of fiscal year 2005. Earlier today, Secretary Nicholson made it clear that the shortfall resulted from faulty, outdated and, quite honestly, unrealistic forecasting models.

I represent the highest number of veterans of any Member of this body. I have very often taken on my own party to fight for increased veterans' funding. And do you know what? They responded. We have consistently provided more than what the VA has requested over the 3 brief years that I have been here. This side of the aisle has recognized the problem, and we are acting swiftly to resolve it by passing the supplemental today. I commend the Republican leadership for their speedy response to a real need.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the other side of the aisle to stop the petty bickering and mud-slinging and ask everyone to support this very important bill. Republicans have increased veterans' funding over 43 percent since 2001. We will continue to fight to meet the needs of veterans' health care and other veterans' needs, because we provide solutions and action, not useless fingerpointing.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, another Member from Florida engaged in some political diatribe in committee and said she could not understand why veterans vote for Republicans. Clearly, they vote for Republicans because we are very quick to respond to a need and that we produce solutions, not just useless rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Keisha Cason of Brooksville, Florida.

Keisha Cason is a high school senior, who was recently recognized by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) as a 2005 NFIB Free Enterprise Scholars Award recipient.

Created in 2002, the award identifies high school seniors from all around the country who demonstrate scholarship and entrepreneurial achievement. From the 2,100 applicants nominated by NFIB members, an independent selection committee selected 378 rising scholars to each receive a $1,000 scholarship.

Keisha Cason represents the future voice of small business in America. As one of these gifted youth, she has displayed a sense of understanding of free enterprise far beyond her years. As she makes the transition to college, she will continue to perform at the highest standards.

Mr. Speaker, ambitious young men and women like Keisha Cason should be congratulated for their accomplishments. It is truly a privilege to honor Keisha Cason for her achievement as a National Federation of Independent Business Free Enterprise Scholar.

Mr. Speaker, five U.S. Supreme Court Justices yesterday strained the credibility of the court, ignored America's founding principles and denigrated the importance of the Ten Commandments and the Judeo-Christian faith in American culture and history. Allowing Texas to display the Ten Commandments on State property but disallowing Kentucky courthouses from doing the same is a poor and flawed interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

This schizophrenia departs from the clear intent of our Founding Fathers. The court must remember that the first amendment says we should have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

American government was founded on a belief and a faith in God and in doing what is right and just. I would hope that in future cases the court will interpret the U.S. Constitution with a less jaundiced eye and heed the original intent of our founders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to Bill and Claudia Grant on the birth of their child. Allison Marie Grant was welcomed into this world at 7:04 am on June 17th, 2005, weighing 6 pounds 12\1/2\ ounces. Both the mother and father's families were present to celebrate the joyful birth. The entire Citrus County Community welcomes their newest citizen. I congratulate Bill and Claudia on the new addition to their family and wish them years of continued health and happiness.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, in the UC agreement that we have before us, the wrong amendment is listed. It actually amends title I; so, therefore, it should be out of order. It was supposed to be on the Reading is Fundamental program, which is much more appropriate to this title, and I have asked the chairman if he would engage in a colloquy.

My amendment, which could not be introduced because of the error, specified that $25,296,000 in the School Improvements program be dedicated specifically to the Reading is Fundamental program. I seek assurances from the chairman that this program will receive adequate funding when the final numbers are decided in the conference with the Senate.

It is very well documented, Mr. Chairman, that a great number of children and adults struggle with reading. Thirty-seven percent of American fourth graders read below the basic level on the National Assessment of Education Progress Reading Test. Additionally, 55 percent of all fourth graders eligible for free or reduced lunch score below what is called the ``Basic.'' This sad state of affairs is perpetuated as 40 million adults in the U.S. cannot even read a simple child's story.

The Reading is Fundamental program is a time-tested program that has combated illiteracy since 1966. Reading is Fundamental is a family literacy organization that helps children discover the joy of reading. It provides new books to children in many communities; and last year alone, Reading is Fundamental provided 17 million new, free books to close to 5 million kids across the country. It engages children and their parents to utilize all aspects of a child's environment: the school, the home, the community, all to reinforce literacy.

I would like to learn more from the chairman about his views on this program and if he will assist in making sure that funding is appropriated.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Keisha Cason of Brooksville, Florida.

Keisha Cason is a high school senior, who was recently recognized by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) as a 2005 NFIB Free Enterprise Scholars Award Program.

Created in 2002, the award identifies high school seniors from all around the country who demonstrate scholarship and entrepreneurial achievement. From the 2,100 applicants nominated by NFIB members, an independent selection committee selected 378 rising scholars to each receive a $1,000 scholarship.

Keisha Cason represents the future voice of small business in America. As one of these gifted youth, she has displayed a sense of scholarship and understanding of free enterprise far beyond her years. As she makes the transition to college, she will continue to perform at the highest standards.

Mr. Speaker, ambitious young men and women like Keisha Cole should be congratulated for their accomplishments. It is truly a privilege to honor Keisha Cason for her achievement as a National Federation of Independent Business Free Enterprise Scholar.

Mr. Chairman, today we are talking about deficits, debt and tight spending. We are talking about tight veterans budgets and funding our troops. But the other side of the aisle will not let us even cut from the most obvious sources. I would like to let them know, and the other Members, let them know what PBS does not want you to know, Big Bird is a billionaire.

What they do not want you to know is that the marketing rights for Sesame Street and Barney total $1.3 billion. Merchandise from PBS can be found in every toy store across America, and yet that money does not appear on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's balance sheet. Americans should be shocked.

This is the height of absurdity, a massive corporation shielding its profits so that it can continue to feed at the Federal trough. Where is the Democratic outrage at this? If this were a Fortune 500 company, we would be hearing breathless condemnations from the other side. But there is actually more. The average household income of a listener of NPR is approximately $75,000. Guess what? This means the taxpayers are being soaked so that the affluent people can get their news commercial- free.

This debate shows that many people have truly met a government program they could not cut. Mr. Speaker, Big Bird is strong enough to fly on his own. If we cannot get this billionaire off the public trough, than I ask how can we ever hope to cut spending.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I could not agree with you more. And that exactly should be the message, that those who want to support public broadcasting should do it through their personal checkbook.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to express condolences of a grateful Nation.

I rise to honor the life of Army Specialist Stanley, also known as Stosh, Lapinski. Specialist Lapinski was a recent victim of a terrorist roadside bomb.

During his last conversation before he was killed, Sergeant Lapinski told his parents not to worry about him and he would be fine.

While Stosh did not make it home from Iraq, I am honored to join the Lapinski family for his burial at Arlington National Cemetery next week.

A grateful Nation has brought him home to the honors and accolades he well deserves.

Nothing I could say today would heal the wounds of the Lapinski family. After speaking to them, however, I can tell you that they want their son's sacrifice to be remembered for the good and honorable actions he was doing in Iraq.

His service showed the true American spirit. While the Lapinskis lost their son, they know that he died preserving and fighting for democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Americans to join me in honoring a true American hero.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the challenges women face to a safe and secure retirement. Without changes to the Social Security program, this Congress will continue to uphold outdated policies and programs that actually punish working women, divorced women, and widows.

Every Member of Congress, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on, have seen the statistics that Social Security will be bankrupt in 2041, and that if changes are not made, all Americans will have guaranteed benefit cuts of more than 25 percent. That is right; if no changes are made, guaranteed benefits will be cut by 25 percent.

However, what the media and political pundits have not touched on is the effect Social Security reform will have on women in particular.

To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress three important facts about American women and their retirement years.

First, women are more likely to live in poverty during their retirement years than are men.

Second, women are also comparatively more likely to rely on Social Security for the majority of their retirement income.

Third, Social Security's future cash shortfalls pose a heightened and disproportionate threat to women's retirement security.

Social Security is a plan that actually was designed in a much different time, in a different era, and with a different set of American demographics in mind.

In 2005, women are stuck with a Social Security program that is inherently flawed and biased against their needs and concerns for the future.

In 1935, when the program was first enacted, the great-grandmothers of today's young working women were faced with different choices and different futures. Few women actually went to college. Even fewer went to medical school or law school. Most American women, like most of our moms and grandmothers, stayed at home, raised children and had their husbands go to the traditional 9-to-5 job. Obviously, that no longer is the case.

In 1935, when Social Security was created, women were not in a position to advocate for their interests in Congress. At that time, only seven women were serving in the U.S. House and just one in the U.S. Senate. Amazingly to today's generation of women leaders, American women had only had the right to vote for 15 years.

Today times have changed and changed for the better. Today we have 69 women Members of the House and 14 women Senators. Unlike in 1935, women as a group have the opportunity to affect the terms of debate over the future of Social Security, over the future of our retirement security.

When we discuss any reform of the Social Security system, we must keep these facts in mind to guarantee that American women have their unique concerns addressed by this Congress.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) made some excellent points about the need to ensure that women are better protected in any Social Security reform package that comes before us. I commend the gentlewoman for taking the lead in the financial literacy area. I know many Members have joined the gentlewoman in that effort. And the more we can educate people, particularly women, the better chance they are of having a nest egg when they retire.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake), and I look forward to having the gentlewoman's participation in this.

Each of us brings a different view from their States. I have the highest number of Social Security recipients of any Member of Congress, and it is always good to hear about how women in their districts are affected by any changes, by the need for changes in Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the gentlewoman brought up the fact that a Realtor with an assistant is not only paying the full 12.4 percent, but also paying half of any clerical assistants or any Realtor assistants he or she may have. We often forget the small business person, and I appreciate the gentlewoman bringing that up.

Now joining us, we have the gentlewoman from the great State of Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for coming down this evening to share her views with the viewers and with the Members of Congress, because she certainly brings a very unique perspective.

This brings me to the discussion of how women are treated under the current system. Under the current pay-as-you-go Social Security system, not one person is actually guaranteed benefits. Yes, you heard me right. Not one person is guaranteed access to the money that they contributed to the program over their working life. You might ask why, and it is actually because the United States Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security is not a guaranteed benefit and can be changed at any time by an act of Congress.

As you can well imagine, this ruling disproportionately affects women, especially those women who were not in the workforce and who rely on their spouse's income and savings for their retirement. If a woman did not work and have the opportunity to save and invest on her own throughout her lifetime, she is often totally reliant on her family and Social Security for her retirement years.

In fact, Social Security is the only source of income nationwide for 29 percent of unmarried elderly women. That includes many widows. In my district, it is even higher. It is somewhere around 34 percent. Let me repeat that: in my congressional district, the Fifth Congressional District in Florida, about 34 percent of the Social Security recipients are unmarried elderly women. And that is their only source of retirement income. Social Security should certainly be there for elderly women during their golden years. It should not be taken away by the government inaction of a stubborn and hardheaded minority.

As we have heard from the previous speakers who have been here, women deserve better from Social Security than what we are promised under the program in place today. In fact, for many women who work today, they are taxed their entire life without the possibility of seeing any of their hard-earned tax dollars returned to them.

How, you ask? Well, in many families throughout the United States, both the husband and wife work outside the home, with the husband being most of the time the primary breadwinner. If the woman is a widow, once she reaches retirement, she will receive the greater of either her husband's benefit or her own, but not both. In some cases, the loss in income can be as much as a third.

Let me just demonstrate that for you on the chart next to me of two families. We have two families here. We have the Smiths and we have the Greens. The Smiths happen to be a single-earner couple. Mr. Smith earns $3,000 a month, and Mrs. Smith is a

stay-at-home mom and earns nothing. The total Smith income per month is $3,000. When it comes time for retirement, Mr. Smith's monthly benefit is $1,300 a month. Mrs. Smith's monthly benefit is $650. The Smith's total benefit is $1,950.

The dual-earner couple, Mr. Green, Mr. Green earns $2,000 a month, Mrs. Green earns $1,000 a month, so they have the same combined income as the Smiths. Their combined monthly income is $3,000. The retirement benefit, however, Mr. Green's monthly benefit is $1,000; Mrs. Green's monthly benefit is $650. The Greens' total monthly retirement benefits are $1,650.

But take these same couples, the Smiths and the Greens, to make matters worse, under our current system when one spouse dies, the remaining spouse receives 100 percent of the larger earner's benefit. So the survivor benefit is in the Smiths' case, her monthly benefit is $1,300. In Mrs. Green's case, the monthly benefit is $1,000. Because Mrs. Green worked outside the home, she is penalized by Social Security upon the death of her husband. Mrs. Green will receive $300 less per month than Mrs. Smith just for working.

It all began, actually, during World War II and Rosie the Riveter. You saw women out in the workplace and women continued to work over time. As you can imagine for a woman whose family relied on two Social Security checks before her husband's death, this can be a harsh financial burden. More importantly, though, if the husband dies and she chooses to receive her husband's Social Security benefits instead of her own, that means she will never receive the benefits of her own taxes paid over her lifetime of work.

While women certainly have made great strides toward pay parity in the past 30 years, there is still a gap in earnings between men and women in equivalent professions. Naturally, this pay inequity will mean that millions of women are forfeiting their benefits that they have paid for and deserve. More and more women are also entering the workplace. In 1950, just about 30 percent of women over the age of 20 worked either full-time or part-time. Today, that number is 60 percent. The more full-time women in the American workforce, the harsher the treatment when it comes to their retirement years.

Despite dramatic and positive changes in the workplace, women on average still receive less income, have less non-Social Security pension coverage, and are more likely to miss productive working time while raising and caring for a family. These statistics highlight the need for equitable treatment of women in the Social Security system.

Times certainly have changed since our Social Security system began, and family life has, also. Marriage in America today faces many challenges. We have seen a dramatic rise in the number of marriages that fail, and today millions of Americans divorce each year. As you can imagine, there are many divorced women who did not work outside of the home and instead chose to raise a family, which, as every woman knows, is a full-time job in and of itself. The Social Security system of the 1930s and 1940s, however, does not recognize the new world in which American women live.

Let me give you a hypothetical example. Phyllis Smith was married in October of 1995 to Jim Franklin. Jim, a successful real estate agent in the suburbs, was able to bring home enough money so that Phyllis did not have to work outside the home. After some time, Phyllis and Jim had two children and a happy life-style. Unfortunately, as the years passed, the couple grew apart until they divorced in September 2005. In this case, Phyllis is entitled to absolutely none of Jim's Social Security benefits. However, had Phyllis and Jim waited to divorce until October, a mere 1-month difference, she would have been entitled to half of his Social Security benefit. Women should ask, how is this fair to Phyllis? She has a fair claim to half of every other marital asset, half of the house, half of his 401(k), but because Social Security has not addressed this problem since its inception, her retirement is anything but secure.

Mr. Speaker, this is a clear example of why Social Security is a bad investment for women. Each year, thousands of single women who have never married between the ages of 25 and 64 pass away. We all know that heart disease is a major contributing factor along with cancer for early death among women. In 2001, according to the Census Bureau, 77,851 women in this age category died. That was in 1 year alone.

Assuming that at least three-quarters of them earned income and paid into the Social Security system, the hundreds of millions of dollars paid to Social Security by more than 55,000 women are gone. These hardworking women paid millions of dollars in taxes and their heirs will never receive a single dime for all of their years at work. Unlike income taxes, which go to general revenue and are used for building roads, maintaining an army and educating our children, today's Social Security taxes go to today's retirees. Your Social Security taxes do not get earmarked for you. As the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) said, she thought that they were in a box somewhere with her name on it, all the money that she put into the Social Security system. It is not that way. You pay in today to pay the benefits of today's seniors.

The women who pass away before they receive Social Security, for them this is nothing but a tax from which they or their family will never receive a benefit. On the other end of the spectrum, these women who do live long enough to collect Social Security face the challenge of being disproportionately dependent on the Social Security system for retirement income. Remember I cited facts of the percentage of women in our country who rely only on Social Security, and that number is much higher particularly in many areas in Florida. Women live an average of 5.5 years longer than men. Nonmarried women over 65 rely on Social Security for an average of 50 percent of their retirement income. Thirty-eight percent of unmarried women rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their retirement income.

These numbers make it clear that if a woman lives long enough to receive their benefits from Social Security that they are very likely to rely on that benefit as a major part of their monthly income. These facts are proof of the urgent need for this Congress to show some leadership necessary in a bipartisan manner to enact reforms that guarantee Social Security will be there for our future seniors and our current seniors when they need it the most.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this Congress must recognize that the issue of Social Security reform is an important issue, and they must also realize how it affects women and that it is vitally important to the retirement of millions of American families.

Offered By: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

Amendment No. 17: In title I in the item relating to

``Occupational Safety and Health Administration--Salaries and

Expenses'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.

In title III in the item relating to ``School Improvement

Programs'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

Offered By: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

Amendment No. 18: In title III in the item relating to

``School Improvement Programs'' insert before the period at

the end the following: ``: Provided further, That, of the

funds made available under this heading, $25,296,000 is for

carrying out subpart V of part D of title V of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7251 et seq.)

(relating to the Reading is Fundamental inexpensive book

distribution program)''.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 160) recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day, and expressing the sense of Congress that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Committee on Government Reform, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 160 that recognizes the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day.

This resolution, offered by my distinguished colleague the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), is a meaningful reminder of the monumental day that marks the end of slavery in the United States. Originally an African-American celebration, Juneteenth is certainly now a day for all Americans to observe the end of slavery in the United States which was, with little question, the most dreadful period in our Nation's history.

Mr. Speaker, as the Civil War raged in late 1862, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which would become effective on January 1, 1863. The proclamation declared all slaves in the Southern Confederate States free from New Year's Day 1863 forward.

Juneteenth is a celebration of June 19, 1865, on which date news of the Emancipation Proclamation finally reached Texas, which was the last secessionist State to emancipate its slaves, nearly 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. The delay was a result of there being nearly no Union presence in south Texas to implement President Lincoln's decree. Not until Union General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, on the gulf coast and read the proclamation from the docks on the original Juneteenth day did the slaves learn they were freed. The news quickly spread throughout Texas, and celebrations and unimaginable jubilation followed.

After the war ended, Congress ratified the 13th amendment to the Constitution in December 1865 which outlawed all nonpunitive slavery and involuntary servitude in any part of the

United States. While it is a wonderful event, Juneteenth Independence Day remains primarily a somber date. It is a day to honor and show consideration for those who lived and suffered through the tortures of more than 2\1/2\ centuries of slavery in America. It is a day that our Nation has gradually accepted. During reconstruction, law usually dictated that Juneteenth celebrations must be held in the outskirts of towns. Finally, June 19th became a Texas State holiday in 1979. Today, people of all backgrounds across the Nation observe Juneteenth Independence Day through a variety of activities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for authoring House Concurrent Resolution 160. This past Sunday marked the 140th anniversary of Juneteenth Independence Day, and I am pleased that this body has chosen to consider this resolution in such a timely fashion. I strongly support the purpose of this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 160, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of the Citrus County Coalition of Veterans. We just this week recognized Flag Day. I would like to recognize this very special group that provided flags to elementary and high schools in Citrus County.

Why did they do it? Because the Florida Legislature passed a law that said every classroom has to have a flag. Many parents were surprised that they did not already have flags, but I am very proud that in Citrus County, the Veterans Coalition, which is a combination of so many veterans organizations, that they actually stepped up to the plate, collected money from their members and from the community, and that they were able to provide the appropriate flags for the classroom.

Certainly having a real, tangible flag in each classroom will serve as a poignant reminder of the freedoms we enjoy in our great Nation.

Again, I would like to thank the Citrus County Veterans Coalition for their efforts to ensure that our schoolchildren truly understand the meaning of the Stars and Stripes.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for America to wake up. The United Nations is a mess, riddled with scandals. In fact, the U.N. itself is a scandal. The Oil-for-Food scheme and the sex trafficking by U.N. officials in Bosnia and the Congo are only two in a long list of egregious acts.

The Oil-for-Food program began as a humanitarian plan to soften the sanctions against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The U.N. would allow Iraq to sell a predetermined amount of oil each year, provided that the Iraqi government used the profits to buy food, medicine and other necessities for its citizens. Instead, Saddam and his cronies twisted this program. These villains got rich while the people of Iraq suffered. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's own son benefited from the Oil-for-Food program.

Only after extreme international pressure did Secretary Annan appoint former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to investigate the scandal ridden program. Volcker's report found grave conflicts of interest in the program.

The real question is, should the U.N. be above the law? It is blatantly obvious that the U.N. considers itself above the law of nations and answers to absolutely no one. Secretary Annan has said that he will waive diplomatic immunity for any U.N. official who has done wrong. However, his promise carries little meaning, because which government would prosecute the guilty U.N. officials? The officials are not U.S. citizens, their offenses did not take place on U.S. soil and none of the documents in question were required to follow U.S. law. There is no vote for U.N. leaders and no international referendum on its policies. The U.N. sets its own shabby standards for conduct.

These are some of the very reasons why so many of our constituents oppose U.S. membership in the U.N., and it is why many fear U.N. efforts to have the power to tax, field an army or create a court system. Possessing these powers would transform the U.N. into a global governing body. America must draw a line.

The United States provides large sums of money to the U.N. so that ``business as usual'' can continue. America must no longer blindly follow every policy, scheme, international conference and peacekeeping mission that the U.N. peddles.

The United Nations' greatest fear is that average Americans will no longer tolerate these international scandals and demand that America withdraw from the international organization. If this ever occurred, the U.N.'s thin veil of relevance would be completely ripped away.

Let us face it, the U.N. has failed. It has failed in its mission to promote world peace. While the U.N. claims to provide a forum where nations can air their differences and avoid the battlefield, more dictators have terrorized nations and more generations have been lost to genocide. Instead of removing threats to peace, the U.N. has encouraged, actually even nurtured, regimes that wage violence on their neighbors and oppress and torture their own people.

Instead of a peaceful, prosperous, stable trading partner, the U.N. condones brutal, murdering dictatorships that starve and torture their own people, while once-great powers tremble and use diplomatic double- talk to ignore their responsibilities. Most of these international thugs have two things in common: Each has a voice and a vote in the United Nations.

The United Nations has come under the control of outlaw nations and self-serving special interest groups. Each promotes an agenda to line their pockets with the world's wealth as they diminish the power of the United States and enslave the citizens of their Third World countries. How else could terrorist states like Libya and Syria have served on the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission, while Israel is condemned time after time? Why else would the U.N. refuse membership to a prosperous Nation like Taiwan, and give vicious brutes like Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe a prominent voice at U.N. conferences?

The U.N. scandals are not isolated incidents. The scandals are ingrained in the very structure of the United Nations. The idea that a U.N. Secretary General can act as a global representative or that the U.N. staff can function as an honest and effective international servant is preposterous.

While the time has come for America to wake up, it is also time for Congress to act. That is why just today we approved the United Nations Reform Act of 2005. Now it is up to the U.S. Senate to follow our lead and demand reforms.

I applaud the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his hard work to finally bring accountability and integrity to the U.N. However, reform in the United Nations has been long overdue and action must come soon.

Secretary Annan's task is clear: Bring in the era of integrity and accountability you were charged with, or you will lose the United Nations' single largest contributor, the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

As we debate the 2006 Defense Appropriations Act, I rise to commend the actions of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Brigadier General Casey McClain. Their swift effort to implement a tough policy against sexual assaults in the military is praiseworthy.

I became aware of the troublesome issue in the military when the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues held a hearing last spring to give voice to military women who were victims of sexual assault.

In this time of conflict, when brave young men and women are willing to put their lives at risk, it is essential that those soldiers do not fear the actions of their comrades in arms. The act of sexual assault is condemned in civilian society. It is especially unforgivable when one soldier sexually assaults another. The bonds of trust and respect unite soldiers on the battlefield. It therefore is imperative that this trust not be eroded because of insufficient policies addressing sexual assault among our troops.

After the hearing, Congress acted last year to include language in the Defense Authorization Act that required DOD to develop a definition of sexual assault that is uniform for all of the Armed Forces. That was part of the problem before. It was no small task, yet the Joint Task Force on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response led by Brigadier General McClain carried out this charge with the utmost professionalism and timeliness.

As a result of their efforts, I am pleased to report that the new policy on confidential reporting went into effect just earlier this week. The new policy provides for a confidential means for soldiers to report assaults and ensures that victims feel safe and that they are encouraged not to hide, but rather to report this violation.

It is clear that the Department of Defense places a high priority on the prevention of and response to sexual assault within the military. I commend their actions, but I remind them that this Congress will continue to exercise authority over them to ensure that this policy is continued.