Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the Democratic budget for fiscal year 2008. This measure provides robust funding for our most important programs, while maintaining our firm commitment to fiscal discipline.

Last year, Democrats promised to move the country in a new direction, and that is exactly what this budget does. This budget restores many programs the President proposed to cut, while achieving balance by 2012.

It meets our commitments to defense and homeland security by implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations and funding port security and first responders. It also recognizes those who have served our country with significant increases for veterans health care.

The resolution meets our domestic priorities by blocking proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, while providing funding to cover millions of children without health insurance, something particularly important to my constituents in Rhode Island.

It boosts funds for education programs such as Pell Grants and promotes investment in programs that helps us move closer to energy independence and improve our environment.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the Democratic budget so that we can meet the needs of all Americans and restore fiscal responsibility through this process.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to commend him on his outstanding leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act, H.R. 1401, which will significantly strengthen the safety of our Nation's rail and mass transit systems.

Mass transit systems worldwide have long been terrorist targets.

Within the past few years, terrorists have exploited security vulnerabilities to carry out attacks on mass transit systems in London, Madrid, and Mumbai. We are fortunate to have escaped attack here in the United States, but make no mistake about it, the threat continues to be very real.

Each day, over 11.3 million Americans utilize our Nation's rail and public transit systems. Therefore, we must strike a delicate balance between tightening security and allowing for the free flow of passengers heading to school, work, and recreational activities.

One of the ways we can make a difference is in training our mass transit and railway personnel. Rail and mass transit security workers are our first line of defense in identifying abnormal activity and protecting passengers from potentially harmful situations. It is therefore vital that we equip them with the training that they need to be effective. Now, this legislation will create mandatory security training programs to prepare all front-line railroad and public transportation workers for potential threat conditions.

I am also pleased that this bill finally authorizes additional funding for enhanced security efforts. On average, Mr. Chairman, we spend $9 per air passenger annually on security but only 1 penny per rail and mass transit passenger. This is clearly an unbalanced approach to our transportation security.

Now, while we should continue to allocate sufficient funding to secure our aviation sector, we must also increase the resources we dedicate to rail and mass transit. I am confident that H.R. 1401 will bring us another step closer to achieving this goal.

Mr. Chairman, we have certainly come a long way in making our Nation safer since September 11, but we are still not yet safe. This bill, combined with other homeland security measures passed in recent months, will close many of the existing gaps and make our Nation safer.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. Again, I commend the chairman for his leadership in bringing this important bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1591, legislation that would chart a new course for the United States in Iraq. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, for their leadership and for drafting a measure that answers Americans' calls for real change.

Four years after our nation initiated military operations in Iraq, America demands a new approach to this open-ended conflict that has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,200 service members, including at least 25 with strong ties to Rhode Island. Our operations in Iraq have endangered the ability of our armed forces to respond to other crises, distracted from efforts to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban, and damaged our international reputation. Our military now finds itself in the middle of a civil war, and it is time to bring our troops home.

Despite calls by the Iraq Study Group for a new approach to the ``grave and deteriorating'' situation in Iraq, President Bush has proposed escalating military operations, sending more troops to prosecute a war mismanaged from the start by the civilian leadership. Fortunately, we have another choice. The House of Representatives will vote today on an emergency spending bill that would, for the first time, set a clear deadline to end U.S. combat operations in Iraq. As one who originally voted against giving the President authority to invade Iraq, I will proudly support this Democratic measure as the first real step to end the war.

Last November, an American public dissatisfied with President Bush's Iraq policy elected a Democratic Congress that promised a new direction. Having heard frustration from so many Rhode Islanders, I have worked with the Democratic leadership to develop a better strategy. I spoke of my conversations with military families and advocacy groups to underscore the sincerity and passion of Rhode Islanders' call for change. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders consulted with an array of current and former military commanders, foreign policy experts and advocates, with committees holding more than 100 hearings on operations in Iraq.

The bill before us is the direct result of those efforts and reflects the will of the American people. Not only does it demand accountability by establishing clear benchmarks for Iraqis to take control of their own security, but it also sets a deadline to bring our troops home--no later than August 2008. This measure sends a clear signal to the President and the world that we do not intend to remain an occupying force in Iraq.

The bill also addresses other serious problems facing our military andf their families. President Bush has recommended sending more troops into harm's way, but has not provided the resources they need upon their return home, as demonstrated by reports of substandard care at facilities such as Walter Reed Medical Center. With nearly 25,000 American troops--among them 93 Rhode Islanders--injured in Iraq thus far, the House spending bill provides an additional $2.8 billion for military health care and $1.7 billion for veterans' health care to ensure that those who have sacrificed for our nation get the support and treatment they deserve.

Furthermore, the bill adds critical funds to restore our military readiness and re-equip National Guard and Reserve forces, which face major shortages as a result of operations in Iraq. Lt. General H. Steven Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, has stated that 88 percent of Army Guard units and 45 percent of Air Guard units are unprepared for deployment as a result of equipment shortages. We depend on our National Guard to protect us in the event of catastrophes or natural disasters, and we must ensure they are fully prepared to defend the Nation they serve.

In Congress, I have constantly strived to protect our national security and to support our military, which has served valiantly in some incredibly challenging missions. At this point, though, the Iraqis' problems no longer require a U.S. military solution. The underlying causes of violence are primarily political and must be addressed as such. Unlike the President's plan, which promises more of the same failed policy, the Democratic approach will support the political process to end sectarian divisions in Iraq, help rebuild the economy and infrastructure, and promote maximum diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the violence.

Some have argued that the bill does not go far enough. Like them, I support an even earlier exit for our troops and have co-sponsored legislation to redeploy them out of Iraq by December 31, 2007. However, there is no question that the Democratic measure being offered marks a major turning point and answers Rhode Islanders' pleas by setting a firm deadline for withdrawal. This is a tremendous step--one which serves our troops, our constituents, and our conscience--and I will wholeheartedly support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007.

Today, the House of Representatives has a chance to correct an injustice that affects the nearly 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia. These citizens pay Federal taxes, serve in our military and the Federal Government and graciously host millions of American and foreign tourists every year, yet they remain unable to have their views represented in Congress. It is indeed ironic that the capital of our Nation, where our government and many non-governmental organizations work to promote freedom and liberty in other countries, is not representative of the ideals that we urge others to value. We have the chance to rectify this glaring problem today.

One of the primary justifications of the American Revolution was our forefathers' opposition to ``taxation without representation.'' Indeed, in my home town Warwick, angry Rhode Islanders attacked and burned the British customs ship H.M.S. Gaspee in 1772 to demonstrate their opposition to British rule--one of the earliest acts of rebellion leading to the American Revolution. Fortunately, the residents of the District of Columbia have not resorted to such extreme tactics to achieve justice, but they have been more than patient, waiting more than 200 years for a right that is enjoyed by 300 million other Americans.

The bipartisan legislation before us today would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House, as well as create a second new seat for Utah, thereby raising the number of Members in the House to 437. It would finally grant Washingtonians a voice in Federal legislation involving health, governance, budgeting, taxes, gun control and other matters directly affecting their lives and livelihoods. Our current system of disenfranchisement for District residents does not befit a nation as noble as the United States, and it is time for change.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1433 so that we may grant fair representation to the residents of Washington, DC.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate March 6, 2007, as the 17th annual National Sportsmanship Day.

National Sportsmanship Day serves as an opportunity for athletes and sports fans of all ages to recognize and discuss the need for ethics, fair play and sportsmanship in athletics. Parents, teachers, students, and school administrators are encouraged to engage in thoughtful and constructive dialogue to promote self-control, nonviolence, and honesty on and off the field. With increased pressure to succeed placed upon today's athletes and students, the importance of integrity and fair play have never been more evident.

In today's society, students face heightened demand in all areas of life, including athletics. As a result, the drive for success can foster unhealthy competition. Sadly, the principles and participation of sport are lost when students are forced to adopt a ``win at all costs'' mentality. National Sportsmanship Day strives to promote sportsmanship through the defeat of gamesmanship, the practice of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective. Through activities and discussions, more than 13,500 schools throughout the United States and around the world will participate in these events to spread integrity in athletics.

Each year, National Sportsmanship Day recognizes a number of athletes who offer a tribute to their respective sport and enhance their skills with their desire to play fairly. This year, the Institute for International Sport has selected their Sports Ethics Fellows based on recommendations from a number of players, coaches, and school administrators at the high school level. With their simultaneous pursuit of both academic and athletic excellence, they model and promote the virtues of the student-athlete in the truest sense.

I hope that my colleagues can join with me on this day in celebrating and promoting the continued success of National Sportsmanship Day. With their moral, ethical and fitness components, today's activities can promote a healthy and more active community amongst our nation's youth, and support a team-oriented future for our nation of sports enthusiasts.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my outrage at the horrific conditions uncovered at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center by Washington Post reports last month. As a frequent visitor to this facility, I was appalled to read about a part of the center I did not see--overused outpatient housing in disrepair, patients confused about where to go after serious operations, and a tangled bureaucracy that service members and their families had to endure.

These conditions are not only unacceptable, but also indicative of the Bush administration's failure to plan for the Iraq war and its aftermath. We owe our wounded service members, who bravely served our country, so much more than what they have received. Many promises are made to our service men and women before they deploy, and when these promises are not met, we have failed this distinguished group. Not only does this affect current service members, but it affects those that may look at a future career in the service. What message are we sending them?

Madam Speaker, these past few years we have found ourselves in a fiscal bind. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on the war, and we are now faced with difficult budget decisions so that future generations do not have the burden of a deficit. But we should all agree that what cannot be sacrificed is the well-being of our wounded service members. As Members of Congress, it is our duty to do everything in our power to make sure that these vulnerable men and women do not slip through the cracks without proper counseling, adequate care or a safe place to live.

I am committed to ensuring that our men and women in uniform receive unfettered access to competent and coordinated care in safe, clean facilities. It is clear that administrative policies need to be revised, not only at Walter Reed, but across the system at locations both here and abroad. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1268, the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act of 2007, which was introduced by my colleague from Arizona, Congressman Harry Mitchell. This bill will establish oversight and accountability of the Nation's military medical centers and housing facilities and reduce the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy for recovering service members and their families by establishing an electronic clearinghouse. This measure will also establish support services and rights for recovering service members and their families, as well as the Oversight Board for the Wounded.

While we must provide the best possible medical care to service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, we also must pay heed to those that served our country previously. We cannot forget that the VA will play a larger role in the coming years as more service members return from ongoing conflicts. We must promise both service members and veterans that we will seek accountability and work towards eliminating these problems completely. They have given too much to our Nation to expect anything less.

What we need now is accountability, honesty and oversight. I fully support my colleagues on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the Armed Services Committee and the Veterans Affairs Committee that have held hearings on this matter. I am also encouraged by the creation of a bipartisan presidential commission led by former Senator Bob Dole and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, that is charged with looking into the care of wounded service members.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and forging solutions to correct our military care structure and give our wounded service members the care that they earned and deserve.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 46th anniversary of the Peace Corps. For more than 4 decades, services donated by Peace Corps volunteers have played an integral role in developing countries, while fostering friendships and improving U.S. relations with their host countries. The Peace Corps' goals ultimately include promoting democratic values, peace and prosperity. More than 187,000 Americans have served worldwide in 139 countries, promoting an ethic of international stewardship and peace.

The Peace Corps was created by President John F. Kennedy on March 1, 1961, as an international volunteer organization dedicated to serving the United States and promoting peace around the world. During that time in history, the United States was deep into the Cold War, and President Kennedy saw the need for an organization to serve as a non- military response to the perceived threat of communism. President Kennedy invoked the spirit of American service in his 1960 inaugural address where he famously encouraged Americans to ``ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.'' The program has since provided volunteers who train workers in the areas of education, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, small business development, agriculture, health care and public works.

While the world has changed dramatically since the 1960s, the challenges to peace and cooperation remain. I wholeheartedly support the current mission of the Peace Corps and its role in promoting cross- cultural relationships with our global neighbors. It is a tremendous educational tool and an opportunity for professional and personal development. Americans take as much away from their experiences as do the people in other nations whose lives they touch. It is my hope that the Peace Corps remains steadfast in its mission to foster peace and knowledge around the world and preserve the vision of President Kennedy.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to acknowledge the importance of the Peace Corps organization and the commitment made by these volunteers. The Peace Corps volunteers' selfless dedication to this nation and the international community is an example to us all.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Biosurveillance Enhancement Act of 2007.

Biointelligence and biosurveillance provide the early warning systems necessary to detect the spread of disease, whether natural or intentional. To date, these systems have not yet been adequately developed, although progress is being made. The Biosurveillance Enhancement Act of 2007 will further their development by building upon past efforts in order to provide the United States with a truly effective biosurveillance capability.

The legislation I am introducing today authorizes the National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC), which will be the primary nexus of the Federal Government's biosurveillance efforts. The NBIC will serve as a centralized system for consolidating data from biological surveillance systems and will be staffed by an interagency group of biosurveillance experts. Relevant data feeds will be brought together and analyzed to monitor any unusual health activity, including human, animal, agricultural, food, and environmental health problems. This analysis will enable federal, State, and local governments, and private sector entities, to quickly detect and respond to a biological attack or an outbreak of any natural disease.

My legislation requires the Director to develop, maintain and operate the NBIC and ensure data is integrated from relevant surveillance systems to identify and characterize biological events in as near real- time as possible. This bill will also ensure that the Director continually enhances the NBIC's performance by regularly adding new data feeds, improving statistical and analytical tools, establishing procedures for reporting suspicious events, and providing technical assistance to State and local Governments and private entities.

This legislation will now give us the capability to integrate data from biosurveillance systems with other intelligence information to provide a comprehensive and timely picture of all existing biological threats. Information assembled within the NBIC, such as incident or situational awareness reports, will be shared with the heads of other agencies via information sharing networks.

The NBIC is designed to be a beacon of interagency partnering. Participating agencies will integrate biosurveillance information through the NBIC, provide timely information and connectivity of data systems, detail personnel to the NBIC, and participate in shaping the NBIC's operating practices. In addition, the Director may invite officials of other government agencies, including interagency partners, to participate in a working group to advise and steer the activities of the NBIC.

Situational awareness and early detection can mean the difference between an outbreak and an epidemic, or between a foiled and a successful biological attack. A strong biosurveillance capability will help protect our citizens and will enable us to more effectively respond to the worst-case scenarios. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in support of H.R. 884, the ``Promoting Antiterrorism Cooperation through Technology and Science Act.''

While touring the northeast United States in 1955, President Eisenhower spoke of the importance of international diplomacy and cooperation to solve the rising problems posed by communism in the Far East. It was Eisenhower who said ``Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg.'' Just as Eisenhower envisioned the role of international cooperation to address the communist threat in the 20th century, so too must we solicit international cooperation to solve the terrorism threat in the 21st century.

The United States must embrace the concept of bilateral cooperation in order to win the war on terrorism, and I believe that this bill is an important step in that direction. H.R. 884 will establish a Science and Technology Homeland Security International Cooperative Programs Office to facilitate international cooperative activities throughout the Directorate of Science and Technology.

This legislation does not seek to duplicate other efforts underway. Rather, it will strengthen ongoing partnerships with homeland security allies such as Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Singapore, while encouraging new ones. The United States currently participates in similar bilateral programs such as the Binational Industrial Research and Development, or BIRD foundation, in which the United States and Israel cooperate on defense-related R&D. The office would conduct similar activities, but would be run by the Department of Homeland Security rather than a private foundation.

This office within the Department of Homeland Security will foster partnerships with foreign governments and businesses by requiring that the foreign partner equitably match U.S. funding expended through direct funding or funding of complementary activities, or through provision of staff, facilities, material, or equipment.

This country has a proud history of recognizing the value of and promoting international cooperation, particularly in the field of technology. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, and encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 884.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 556, the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act. This legislation strikes the delicate balance between the need to encourage foreign direct investment in the United States and the ability to critically review potential investment deals that threaten our national security.

I am particularly pleased that this bill formalizes the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) membership and designates the Secretary of the Treasury as the Chair. It is crucial to our economy that we continue to encourage foreign countries to freely invest in the United States, and the legislation before us will do just that.

It is, however, equally important to ensure that in cases where potential investment deals could impact our national security, we have a stopgap measure allowing us to critically review the potential ramifications and to proceed with caution. I am therefore also pleased that this legislation designates the Secretary of Homeland Security as the Vice Chair of CFIUS. The United States has historically been open to foreign direct investment and has provided foreign investors with fair, equitable and non-discriminatory treatment, and I believe this legislation will be implemented within this context.

Foreign direct investment continues to provide benefits to our economy in terms of jobs, technology, management expertise, and capital. The legislation we are considering today will continue to encourage such investment while strengthening the process through which we can ensure that none of these arrangements hinder our national security interests. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800). This bill will help give workers the leverage they need to negotiate for a better life for themselves and for their families.

Despite several years of economic growth, many of America's middle class families still struggle to make ends meet. Every day, workers throughout the country face difficult choices about their family's basic needs as wages stagnate and the cost of living continues to rise. By restoring workers' freedom to join together to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions, we will help ease the burden that too many working Americans face.

Collective bargaining is one of the best tools working men and women have to restore economic fairness and rebuild America's middle class. The benefit of unionizing also helps workers with low-wage jobs such as janitors, cashiers, and childcare workers to raise their earnings above poverty levels. Union workers tend to have more of the freedoms and rights that ultimately lead to greater opportunity. And members of unions traditionally enjoy higher earnings and better access to healthcare and retirement benefits than their non-union counterparts.

Under current law, workers often face uphill battles when attempting to unionize. All too often pro-union employees are intimidated, threatened, and in extreme cases, they may even lose their jobs. The Employee Free Choice Act will help restore fairness to the collective bargaining process by imposing stronger penalties for employers that utilize these tactics. This legislation will also increase the amount of back pay employees receive when they unfairly lose their jobs for attempting to unionize.

Furthermore, the Employee Free Choice Act will increase the United States' ability to compete in a global economy. The benefits of collective bargaining go far beyond helping individual workers. By giving workers the tools they need to bargain effectively for the benefits that come with unionizing, we strengthen the economic security of each worker and their families, which ultimately leads to a more secure and prosperous America.

In passing this legislation today, we will be giving hardworking Americans the tools they need to negotiate for better wages and benefits in an open, honest, and fair way. Strengthening the security of American families strengthens our economy, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Employee Free Choice Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment with the President's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2008. The President has said repeatedly that he wants to work with the new leadership in Congress, but his budget request tells a different story. It is clear evidence that he has little interest in making the hard choices facing our Nation and that he continues to favor tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of working Americans.

One of the most notable changes in this budget as compared with those of previous years is the inclusion of supplemental spending requests for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do appreciate this development, as it will enhance Congressional oversight, which has been sorely lacking in the past. However, this improvement does not alter my deep opposition to the President's plan to augment existing force levels in Iraq by 21,500 troops, a number that could increase significantly once additional support forces are considered. It has become evident that the problem in Iraq cannot be solved by more U.S. troops. As the Iraq Study Group and other experts have concluded, it requires a diplomatic and economic solution, as well as a renewed commitment by the Iraqi government to take greater control of its own security situation. Consequently, Congress will carefully scrutinize the supplemental funding request so that we continue to provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to remain safe and effective while moving toward a swift conclusion of our military operations in Iraq. The American people have asked us to act, and we will do so in the coming months.

Sadly, the remainder of the budget demonstrates the President's misplaced priorities and inability to operate within realistic expectations. Once again, the President claims he can have it both ways by making permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest while reaching a balanced budget by 2012. However, the numbers just don't add up. The President doesn't balance his budget through responsible decisionmaking; he does it by hoping for economic growth that may or may not occur. In fact, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the President has overestimated revenue projections in 2012 by more than $150 billion, and that his budget would actually result in yet another deficit. One hundred and fifty billion dollars is more than a rounding error; it is wishful thinking.

What does the average Rhode Islander get from all of that deficit spending? Unfortunately, it's not much. The President's decision to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue, necessitating drastic cuts to important services and resulting in a massive middle-class tax increase. By choosing to extend certain tax cuts expiring in 2010 instead of fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax, the President has made clear that his priorities are with the richest Americans and not the middle class.

Our Nation's most vulnerable populations would also be harmed by the proposed budget. The President has called for $78 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, venerable programs that provide vital health care services to the elderly, the disabled and the poor. Part of those cuts would come from an 8 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates to physicians. Congress has blocked such cuts in the past because we know how devastating they would be to our health care system, yet the President appears oblivious to how dangerous they would be. When I am in Rhode Island, I hear constantly from doctors about how proposed cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates would result in their inability to treat Medicare patients. My State's 16 hospitals would not be able to meet the needs of the community, and our senior citizens would suffer as a result. While I agree that we need to address the long-term solvency of Medicare, any reforms should be implemented in a way that benefits, not damages, our Nation's health care system.

The budget would also threaten to repeal health insurance for Rhode Island children. Rhode Island is one of 18 States that have implemented the State Children's Health Insurance Program to exceed minimum federal standards. Rhode Island's program, Rite Care, has leveraged SCHIP funding to provide health insurance to children in families up to 250 percent of the poverty level, as well as to additional populations such as pregnant women and parents. We have worked hard to bring our insurance coverage rate for children to 94 percent--above the national average of 88 percent. The President's budget would penalize States that are succeeding under SCHIP and increase the uninsured rate among children when we should be going in the opposite direction.

As chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology, I am concerned that the budget proposal does not invest appropriately in important homeland security initiatives. Despite tragedies experienced in Madrid and London, we continue to ignore the importance of rail security; the Transportation Security Administration budget contains only $41 million for surface transportation security. The Bush Administration has also proposed cutting biodefense-related programs and the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate, both of which will help protect our Nation from emerging threats. Additionally, the budget would reduce funding for programs important to State and local law enforcement in Rhode Island, including the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which awarded $45.2 million to Rhode Island from 2003 to 2006, and the Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program, LETPP, from which Rhode Island received $11.5 million in funding from 2004 to 2006. Despite their proven effectiveness in reducing crime in our communities, the Community Oriented Policing Service, COPS, and Justice Assistance Grants, JAGs, would also experience cuts in this budget proposal. The COPS program helps Rhode Island's law enforcement agencies hire police officers, enhance crime fighting technology, and support crime prevention initiatives, while JAG supports State and local drug task forces, community crime prevention programs and prosecution initiatives. In 2006 alone, Rhode Island received $1.6 million in JAG funding and $790,000 in COPS funding that helped keep Rhode Island families safe. An important component of homeland security includes providing our state and local law enforcement with the resources they need to be effective, and I will fight to block these proposed cuts.

A budget is more than a simple ledger of revenue and spending. It is a demonstration of priorities. In this case, the President's priorities are out of touch with what the American people want. The new leadership in Congress is ready to craft a budget that will support strengthening our national defense and will

carefully examine our ongoing commitment in Iraq while not losing sight of those priorities that need to be met here at home. Our budget will reflect the values and needs of working Rhode Islanders. I will fight to properly fund SCHIP so that Rite Care can continue to support our state's most vulnerable patients, and I will fight the drastic proposed physician payment cuts under Medicare so that we do not jeopardize the health and well-being of our Nation's seniors.

Working to put our Nation back on solid financial footing will take time and dedication, and I am up to the challenge. I will fight for a fair budget that benefits all Americans. I look forward to advocating for all Rhode Islanders in the coming months.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Project BioShield Material Threats Act of 2007.

The BioShield Program was created to develop and procure medical countermeasures against dangerous chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) agents, The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for determining threats posed to our country by these agents, and for taking specific steps to protect the nation's citizens from these harms. While I fully support the mission of BioShield, the program has encountered several problems since it was enacted nearly three years ago.

One major shortcoming of the program is a lack of efficiency in the assessment of threats. Rather than examining each threat individually, we should be looking for ways to properly group these threats together, so we can develop appropriate countermeasures to combat multiple threats. My colleagues and I are introducing this legislation to improve and expedite the Department's conduct of Material Threat Determinations (MTD) and the more in-depth Material Threat Assessments (MTA). These MTDs and MTAs will promote a more strategic use of our Nation's resources when procuring medical countermeasures and will ultimately lead to a safer and better-prepared public health infrastructure.

To date, DHS has completed fifteen MTDs. It took well over one year to complete the first six, but the pace picked up considerably since a shift towards less in-depth risk assessments of twenty-nine top threat agents listed by the Centers for Disease Control. The Department leveraged those risk assessments to more quickly complete the next round of MTDs. Soon the Department plans another round of risk assessments that will include more chemical agents. I hope this bill sends a clear message to the Department that we in Congress want to support and improve upon their recent efforts.

Risk is assessed based on a combination of threat, vulnerability, and consequences, and we should encourage the Department to use threat information contained in existing risk assessments to inform and expedite the MTD/MTA process. This bill promotes the use of existing risk assessments if those assessments are considered credible by the Secretary.

Another way to both accelerate and leverage assessments is to conduct them in groups, either by the physical or genetic similarity of the agents themselves or the symptoms they cause. Countermeasures that address more than one threat agent are commonly referred to as ``broad spectrum medical countermeasures,'' and these should be the gold standard for efficient use of BioShield resources. We must move beyond the current ``One Bug, One Drug'' approach we currently use to the ``One Drug for Many Bugs'' model that broad spectrum countermeasures offer.

Finally, we all know that time is of the essence as we work to address those agents we already know and ensure we are prepared for emerging threats. The legislation I am introducing today requires all MTDs for CBRN agents that the Secretary determines to be capable of significantly affecting national security to be completed by December 31, 2007.

Madam Speaker, this bill will aid the Department of Homeland Security in conducting threat and risk assessments, which is the first step to countermeasure procurement. We must address those agents--known and emerging, natural or engineered--that present the highest risk to our citizens, and we must do it quickly. Passage of this measure will help advance and improve that process, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in appreciation of our troops' exceptional service and sacrifice, and to voice my opposition to President Bush's plan to send more forces into what amounts to a civil war.

As a former member of the House Armed Services Committee and a new member of the Intelligence Committee, I recognize that our next steps in Iraq present one of the greatest security decisions our Nation has faced in decades.

The Iraq Study Group called the situation grave and deteriorating and said it requires a new approach. I agree. We can all conclude that an unstable Iraq, torn by sectarian conflict, would lead to continued violence and civilian casualties, provide combat training opportunities to those who would do us harm, and pose increased challenges to the region.

Yet I disagree with President Bush's misguided belief that sending more Americans into combat will solve the problem.

Our military has served valiantly for nearly 4 years, particularly in some very challenging and nontraditional missions, in some cases for which they were never trained. However, we have done all that we could do militarily to help the Iraqi people, and their problems no longer require a U.S. military solution. The underlying causes of violence are primarily political and must be addressed in that framework. Sending more troops would simply be a continuation of the same failed strategy.

In October of 2002, I expressed my concerns that President Bush's approach to Iraq could have dangerous ramifications in the region and America's own efforts in the war on terrorism. For those reasons and many others, I voted against authorizing use of force against Iraq, a war that was mismanaged by civilian leadership from the start.

Now, to address our troops' lack of protective gear and up-armored Humvees, I supported legislation to provide additional funding for proper equipment, as well as other efforts to assure our forces would be safe and effective. Now, however, we can best support our troops by changing our mission in Iraq and adopting a new strategy that reflects the realities on the ground. The Iraqis must now take the lead in providing for their own security, and we must reduce our presence to let them do so.

The President's claim that by adding 21,500 additional combat troops we can force a greater stability in Iraq is an argument that ignores some basic truths. Not only have past surges of U.S. forces proved unnecessary in reducing sectarian violence among Iraqis, but the addition of more troops would further inflame anti-American sentiment and turn popular opinion even more against us in our efforts. We have no proof that another surge would lead to a different outcome than in the past, but we do know that it would have negative consequences.

Now, perhaps of greatest concern is the impact of the surge on our military readiness. The President's estimate of 21,500 more combat troops does not count the additional 15,000 to 28,000 support troops that would be needed, spreading our military even more dangerously thin.

Madam Speaker, we have asked much of our forces, included repeated deployments, and a surge will only exacerbate that problem. Operations in Iraq have also taken their toll on our equipment.

According to the Government Accountability Office, 40 percent of the Army's and Marine Corps' equipment is now located in the Central Command theater of operations. Our National Guard/Reserve units are underequipped to deal with emergencies, and we have depleted our preposition stocks, which we need to respond quickly to other contingencies.

Now, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in January, General Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, noted that an increase in forces in Iraq would increase our strategic risk and possibly lead to slower and less effective response to another potential threat.

Madam Speaker, sending more troops to Iraq is a dangerous gamble with our national security, and we need a new approach. A number of experts, including the Iraq Study Group, had made important recommendations, and they must not be ignored.

It is clear that the President's plan for escalation would harm our national security and ignores the will of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution so that we can promote a new strategy for Iraq and bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 20, the Joint Funding Resolution that will complete action on the remainder of the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills. This measure is not perfect, but it addresses the most urgent funding needs of federal programs while remaining within the tight budget constraints imposed by the previous Congress.

We are fixing this funding problem today because the former Republican leadership in the House and Senate failed to complete nine of the 11 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2007 before the 109th Congress adjourned in December 2006. The funding resolution we are voting on today will finally give federal programs a blueprint for their spending until September 30, 2007; however, it is not an ideal solution. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have rightly talked about challenges faced by certain programs that will see no increase over fiscal year 2006 levels. I cannot help but wonder where their concerns were when they controlled the fate of those programs last year?

The Democratic leadership faced many hard decisions in funding the remainder of the appropriations bills, and my colleagues rose to the occasion. This endeavor required a careful analysis of many important programs, as well as a great deal of compromise. To start, this measure does not contain any earmarks or a cost-of-living pay increase for Members of Congress. I wholeheartedly agree that any congressional pay increase should not be passed until the minimum wage increase passes Congress. We all must move forward together. That is also why I am pleased that this measure will increase Section 8 funding, which will help renew vouchers for individuals and families that cannot afford exorbitant housing prices on their own.

I am proud that my colleagues were able to increase funds for other high priority needs as well, such as veterans and military health care. We must make sure that service members wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan have the services they require, as well as anticipate the increasing number of returning veterans who have earned their promised benefits. This measure will also fund an increase in programs for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as local law enforcement programs, such as the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, which are critical to keeping our communities safe. At both the state and federal level, our work on intelligence and security must not be threatened by a lack of resources.

The funding resolution will also increase the maximum amount of a Pell grant so that more than 5.3 million students can help pay rising college expenses. I am especially pleased that this increase, the first in 4 years, will strengthen a program first introduced by an esteemed Rhode Islander, Senator Claiborne Pell. This measure also helps the youngest and most vulnerable group of students in our country by increasing Head Start funding to prevent a drop in enrollments.

Finally, this resolution also highlights areas where we need to move our country forward like health care and energy security. We are providing increased funding for community health centers, as well as scientific research; both the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation will be funded over last year's level. The Department of Energy will also receive additional resources for research and development activities for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.

After completion of H.J. Res 20, I look forward to working toward timely passage of a Fiscal Year 2008 budget that provides the necessary funding for some of our nation's most critical programs. The Democratic leadership has reinstated the pay-as-you-go budget rule, so that new spending has to be offset by a decrease in spending elsewhere in the budget. This promise was made last year, when we told the voters that we would bring this Congress in a new direction and demand fiscal responsibility. The measure we pass today, as well as the work we will do in the coming months, will show Americans that this Congress can be responsive to the public, enhance support for federal programs vital to our working families, and be careful stewards of taxpayer dollars.