Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1815, and thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their hard work. Once again the committee has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring the security of our nation and the safety of our men and women in uniform.

I am extremely pleased that we were able to consider this measure without extraneous and controversial provisions that would have endangered its passage. Our troops and the civilian employees in the Department of Defense have performed valiantly and made enormous sacrifices to safeguard the United States, and H.R. 1815 recognizes their commitment by providing much-needed assistance to them and their families. The conference report includes a pay raise of 3.1% for military, increases certain enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses, and allows certain members of the reserves to buy into the TRICARE health care program for themselves and their families. The measure also increases the endstrength of the Army and the Marine Corps, which should help relieve some of the stress on troops who have experienced repeated deployments.

The legislation also contains $50 billion in supplemental funding to provide force protection equipment, such as up-armored Humvees and jammers for improvised explosive devices, to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to replace equipment that has been degraded by the high operations tempo. Though the military has accomplished a great deal with what they have, we have clear indications that we are wearing down our equipment, perhaps faster than we can replace it. The investment in this bill is an important step, but we must not forget that it will take billions more to completely reset and recapitalize our force.

This bill also contains important language to ensure that Department of Defense does not contract out existing government work without realizing actual cost savings. Earlier in the year, I drew the committee's attention to DOD's practice of reorganizing or reclassifying existing government work in order to circumvent required contracting rules without demonstrating savings. The language in this measure closes that loophole and goes much farther by establishing much clearer standards about how DOD can contract out work. I thank the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, Mr. Hefley, as well as the committee staff, for working with me and my office to address my original concern, and I will continue to work with the committee to monitor the implementation of this new language to ensure that all parties involved are treated fairly and that taxpayer dollars are used as effectively as possible.

Finally, H.R. 1815 demonstrates its interest in maintaining a strong Navy through a continued commitment to the next-generation destroyer, DD(X). It also includes language affirming the committee's support of the VIRGINIA-class submarine and directing the Navy to initiate a program to improve future submarine technology in a cost-effective manner. This provision should be welcome news to Electric Boat, a major employer in my district, which has announced as many 2,400 layoffs in 2006, primarily due to insufficient submarine design and construction work. To prevent our submarine force from shrinking to dangerously low levels, I will continue my efforts to integrate cutting-edge technology into VIRGINIA-class submarines and to increase procurement of these ships to two per year. Given other nations' investments in their navy and undersea capabilities, we cannot afford for the United State to lose its undersea dominance.

Again, I commend the Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton and my colleagues on the committee for a well-balanced bill, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to fund the functions of our Nation's military and our brave men and women in uniform, but am deeply opposed to the Republican leadership's decision to attach unrelated and controversial language, including drilling in the Arctic and school vouchers.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I know how vital the Defense Appropriations Act is for the security of our Nation and the safety of our servicemembers. I

would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Young, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, for their steadfast support for our military and for supporting a number of initiatives important to our Nation and to my constituents in Rhode Island. The measure contains important force protection funds, including $1.2 billion for gear such as body armor; $8 billion for equipment such as up-armored Humvees, tactical wheeled-vehicles, and night-vision devices; and $363 million for improvised explosive device (IED) jammers. The legislation also includes much-needed assistance to areas devastated by this year's hurricanes--funds that are sorely needed by our Gulf Coast communities.

However, I must admit that I am greatly disappointed by the House Republican leadership's decision to attach controversial provisions to this essential legislation, most notably Arctic drilling. Since I was elected to Congress in 2000, I have consistently opposed efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration, and I have repeatedly cosponsored legislation to designate lands within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness to prevent the destruction of this environmentally fragile area. Despite claims that we have heard tonight, drilling in the Arctic would have no appreciable effect on gas prices nor would it improve our Nation's energy independence. We cannot drill, dig, or mine our way out of the problem we have created for ourselves. Instead, we should be encouraging energy conservation efforts, including an increase in vehicle fuel efficiency standards and the development of clean and renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind power. The American public recognizes the value of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and has consistently opposed endangering it by opening it to oil and gas exploration. However, since proponents have never been able to muster the votes to pass the bill on its own merits, they have attached it to this vital piece of legislation, demonstrating their desire to win at any cost, as well as potentially jeopardizing the ability of this bill to be signed into law.

Furthermore, this legislation is reported to contain controversial language regarding education assistance for Hurricane Katrina victims-- including the implementation of a national voucher program--as well as liability exemptions for the pharmaceutical industry in the section intended to guard against avian flu. As the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Subcommittee for the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I understand our Nation's vulnerabilities with regard to pandemics and have been working with my colleagues to shore up our Nation's defense. However, rather than address these questions in the light of day, we must vote on them in the dead of night with limited ability to debate the specifics of the measure. I am disappointed and frustrated by the majority's refusal to conduct its business in an open and forthright manner, instead opting for midnight backroom deals.

It is one of Congress's greatest responsibilities to protect our Nation by establishing a well-trained and well-equipped military. For that reason, I must support this measure despite my objections to some of the extraneous provisions. I will vote for this legislation, but do not condone the process that directed it to the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report on H.R. 4241. This will be the third time this year I have voted against an irresponsible Republican budget plan to cut spending on programs important to the poorest Americans in order to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest. Frankly, I'm tired of it, and Rhode Islanders are too. We need to return our budget to balance, but not on the backs of those who can least afford it.

The Republicans claim this bill is necessary to offset the enormous costs of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, but their actions show the majority's true motives. Shortly after H.R. 4241 passed the House in November, Republicans voted for more than $50 billion in tax cuts, much of which benefit the top earners in the country. These tax cuts cost more than the savings in this bill. However, these paltry savings will come at a high cost, namely higher costs for health care, education and other important services.

I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this irresponsible conference report and instead focusing on real debt reduction based on fairness and shared sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to unequivocally condemn Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent declaration that the Holocaust was a myth. Such outrageous comments dishonor the memory of the 6 million Jews and many others who perished under the Nazi regime. To suggest that such a tragedy was imagined as a justification to create the state of Israel, as President Ahmadinejad has done, demonstrates a disconnect from reality and complete ignorance of history. Numerous world leaders have already condemned his comments, and I encourage my colleagues and the entire international community to do the same.

Unfortunately, the denial of the Holocaust is only the most recent in a series of disturbing statements made by President Ahmadinejad. He has also declared that Israel should ``be wiped off the map,'' suggesting that its people should be relocated to Europe. Furthermore, despite efforts by our European allies to negotiate an agreement to end Iran's nuclear ambitions, Ahmadinejad has declined compromise, stubbornly insisting that Iran has a right to develop its own nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad's disgraceful statements and fervent opposition to engaging with other nations have even earned him condemnation from leaders within his own nation and run the risk of further alienating Iran from the world community. I ask my colleagues to condemn Ahmadinejad's statements about the Holocaust and Israel and demonstrate that there is no place for such intolerance in global political discourse.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to reflect upon the public service of my friend, Alan Reich, who passed away on November 8, 2005.

In 1962, Mr. Reich was 32 years old, a former athlete and Army officer. That year, a swimming accident left him a quadriplegic. Despite this life-changing event and the challenges that quadriplegia brings, he returned to

his job as an executive at Polaroid Corporation where he worked for 11 years. Mr. Reich's return to work demonstrated to his colleagues, in the most basic way, that life with a disability can be productive and fulfilling. In the years following the accident, he went on to pursue his career goals and was appointed to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs at the State Department.

It is important to note that Mr. Reich's accident and his recovery took place decades before the Americans with Disabilities Act. At that time, people like Alan Reich, who overcame personal obstacles to move forward with their lives, sent an important message to the world that people with disabilities have gifts and talents to contribute. This message was the foundation of the movement to pass the ADA in 1990, and declare for the first time that disabled Americans have a right to fully participate in all aspects of our society.

Mr. Reich became involved in advocacy for people with disabilities, initially as a volunteer. He later went on to devote his professional life to the cause, serving as the President of the National Paraplegia Foundation--known today as the National Spinal Cord Injury Association--and founding the Paralysis Cure Research Foundation, the National Task Force on Disability and the National Organization on Disability. His vision and work lives on through these organizations, which he fostered and developed.

I arrived in Washington, DC, in 2001, as the first quadriplegic Member of the House of Representatives. My own service in this body would not have been possible without the commitment of leaders in the disability community, who fought to pass the ADA. Alan Reich was one of those people and he was among the first leaders in the disability community here to greet me. I am tremendously grateful for his personal determination and his dedication to creating opportunity for others with disabilities. His work made this country a better place for future generations of individuals with and without disabilities to succeed and thrive. His passing leaves me with personal sorrow, yet as we reflect on the life of this extraordinary individual, I am inspired and honored to have called him a friend.

I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to pay tribute to my friend, and I urge them to support H. Res. 592, a resolution celebrating the life, achievements and contributions of Alan Reich.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4437, the Border Security, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. This bill is not about border security or terrorism prevention, as the name implies. H.R. 4437 is a one-sided, mean- spirited approach that will not solve our nation's immigration problems. The Republicans are so fearful of real reform that they did not even allow a vote on the President's own guestworker program or a bipartisan comprehensive border security and immigration plan, such as the Kolbe-Gutierrez bill. Instead, we are stuck voting on a bill that is opposed by almost every reasonable business, labor, civil liberties, and religious advocacy group in the country, and which has no chance of passage in the Senate.

For our own security, it is of vital importance to know who is entering our country and who is here. Our current border policy of ``catch and release'' is not working. We need real security, but we also need to address the eight to fourteen million undocumented immigrants currently in our country.

I am disappointed that this bill veers away from the bipartisan approach that we took in the Homeland Security Committee. While our bill was not perfect, Chairman King and Ranking Member Thompson were able to draft a proposal the entire Committee could support. During markup, I was pleased the Committee accepted my amendment to require radiation portal monitors to be installed at ports of entry within one year. This is an example of a common-sense measure that protects all Americans from the risk of terrorists smuggling nuclear weapons across our border. While this provision is included in H.R. 4437, the bill before us today also includes several egregious provisions that do very little to keep us safe from terrorists.

Should this bill become law, millions of undocumented immigrants, including young children, already in our country will automatically become felons, subject to imprisonment. Aside from the cost of tracking down these newly charged felons, who will be entitled to a government funded public defender, and jailing them, we must also consider the economic and social costs to our country.

Many undocumented immigrants play an important role in certain industries that depend on temporary or seasonal work. Their vital role in the economy explains why this bill is opposed by every major business group. For this reason, Democrats and the President support a temporary guestworker proposal, but this bill contains no such acknowledgement of our country's economic needs.

Instead, under H.R. 4437, these immigrants would never be eligible for any guestworker program like the one requested by the President. People who have been living, working, paying taxes, and raising families in our country for 20 years, will now be pushed into a new underclass. Many of these families have children who are U.S. Citizens. Not only will this bill tear families apart, but by defining illegal immigrants as felons, this legislation could also create a backlash against anyone who appears to be of foreign origin, most of whom are here legally.

In addition, the bill criminalizes assistance to undocumented immigrants, even if provided by church or non-profit volunteers. Now, if a person shows up at a church's doorstep hungry, the church will provide that person something to eat. However, under the terms of this bill, if that person happens to be an undocumented immigrant, the person who provided the food will be subject to up to 5 years in prison, and the church would have its property seized and sold to the highest bidder. These kinds of punitive responses do not represent the values of the American people.

We need comprehensive immigration reform in the mold of H.R. 2330, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, which I am proud to support. This bill would secure our borders, require immigration status verification by employers, and create a path to citizenship for currently undocumented workers, while not penalizing those who are patiently waiting for legal entry to our country. This type of reform addresses the fact that it is unrealistic to track down and deport every undocumented immigrant, but it others from entering our country illegally in the future. Unfortunately, the House leadership did not permit so much as a vote on this measure, as they knew it would likely pass, and their conservative base would be upset by real reform.

This bill before us today is a farce. The leaders of the House know that this bill will never see the light of day in the Senate. They have given us an unrealistic proposal to gain favor with their most vocal supporters. Their bill is so outlandish that it is opposed by nearly every advocacy group in the country: from the AFL-CIO to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and ACLU to Americans for Tax Reform. I cannot think of another measure where these groups were united. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 4437 and instead support comprehensive immigration reform.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization. While I do not advocate permitting many of these important terrorism- fighting tools to expire at the end of the year, the American people would be better served by a bill that strikes a more reasonable balance between protecting civil liberties and fighting the war on terrorism. I am disappointed that the conference report does not closely mirror the bipartisan compromise that unanimously passed the Senate. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report and take a bipartisan approach to protecting Americans' lives and liberties.

Since the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted shortly after 9/11, I have met with many constituents and countless groups to discuss the details of this controversial legislation. Last year, I hosted a town hall meeting to hear what my constituents thought about the USA PATRIOT Act. While some agreed that the act was necessary to prevent another terrorist attack, most of the crowd, as well as most Rhode Islanders, believed we have already ceded too much ground with respect to our civil liberties. In my State, seven cities and towns have passed resolutions opposing parts of the USA PATRIOT Act, and my constituents understand what this bill means to them and their freedom.

Last week, the 9/11 Commission released a report card on the implementation of the group's recommendations. For ``balance between security and civil liberties,'' the government received a ``B,'' which is a high grade considering they were given more ``Fs'' than ``As.'' However, the report card cautioned that ``robust and continuing oversight, both within the Executive and by the Congress, will be essential.'' We should strive to move closer to A than F, but this conference report does not accomplish that goal. By making 14 of the 16 expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act permanent, I worry that Congress will be less likely to engage in vigorous oversight to protect the civil liberties of law abiding Americans.

The Senate proved that it is possible to protect both lives and liberties. Their legislation made permanent the less controversial portions of the act, but implemented commonsense changes to add a layer of protection for liberties while keeping America safe. Unfortunately, most of these improvements were not incorporated into the conference report. For instance, the Senate version required the government to show that a person is connected to terrorism or espionage before investigators could obtain medical, library or business records. The bill before us permits the government to go on fishing expeditions to look for information without probable cause. In addition, the Senate required new, strong protections for ``sneak and peak'' searches and roving wiretaps. These improvements are also absent, from the conference agreement. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the motion to recommit, which asks conferees to adopt the bipartisan Senate language.

I recognize the need for our laws to keep pace with new technology and a changing world, and I am committed to ensuring our law enforcement has the tools they need to keep our Nation safe. However, providing these tools need not come at the expense of the liberties and freedoms that we hold so dear. If we cede these, we have already given up the very values the terrorists are trying to destroy.

I am disappointed that conferees have decided to once again place partisanship over sound policy. Working together, we make America stronger, but Congress has again divided the American people. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 3199 and instead working to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act in a way that protects both our liberties and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations conference report before us. One month ago, the House of Representatives voted this bill down because it failed to address the priorities of the American people. I am disappointed that the conferees have sent it back to us without significant changes.

Before we voted on this bill in November, my constituents told me what was important to them. Rhode Islanders, like all Americans, are concerned about health care and the economy. I believe the public sentiment on these issues accounted for the failure of this bill last month. With more than 45 million uninsured Americans and 7.4 million unemployed Americans, now is not the time to cut health professions training grants by 51 percent or take $229 million away from the unemployment insurance and service programs. Yet, this second conference agreement once again proposes to do just that.

The consequences of ignoring these societal problems are far- reaching. Major cutbacks in the areas of education and health care will have a tremendous economic impact on our Nation. However, the Republican leadership set the stage for cuts in these critical programs. When Congress passed H. Con. Res. 95, the Budget Conference Report, they made it clear that tax cuts for the wealthy will continue to be paid for by slashing programs that Rhode Islanders depend on.

Last month, I outlined my concerns about specific aspects of this bill--cuts for No Child Left Behind, an already underfunded mandate; the failure to increase the maximum Pell Grant as included in the original House bill; and providing insufficient funding for the National Institutes of Health, which would decrease the number of federal research grants for the second year in a row. As these concerns have not been addressed in the second conference report, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3010--again.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the Rangel Substitute to H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation Act and in opposition to the underlying bill. Instead of stopping a tax increase for the middle class in 2006, Republicans have chosen to keep taxes low for the wealthiest Americans in 2009. What kind of priorities favor the wealthy in the future over working families today? We can ill afford the continued ``tax cut and spend'' mentality that has marked the House during the last few years. Without a change in fiscal policy, future generations will be buried under a mountain of debt created by Congress.

The bill before us today has many provisions I support, including the extension of the research and development tax credit, small business expensing, the deduction of higher education expenses, and brownfield sites expensing. In fact, I am a cosponsor of a bill to make the Research and Development Tax Credit permanent, as it keeps American companies competitive and provides a strong incentive for businesses to invest in the future and create jobs. I also support other provisions in this bill that help make college more affordable to millions of students and allow teachers to deduct out-of-pocket expenses.

Unfortunately, the Republicans did not stop there. H.R. 4297 also includes a two year extension of the capital gains and dividend tax cuts, which are not scheduled to expire until 2008. Nearly half of these tax cuts will go directly into the pockets of the 1 in 500 taxpayers who earn more than $1 million per year. The contrast is stark: those who earn less than $40,000 will see an average tax cut of $7, while those earning more than a million will save an average of $32,000 in taxes.

While Republicans claim that the dividend tax cut boosts the economy, the facts are not on their side. The Federal Reserve Board recently released a report declaring that the dividend tax cuts of 2003 have not boosted the stock market. To quote the report, ``We fail to find much, if any, imprint of the dividend tax cut news on the value of the aggregate stock market.'' There you have it: the Nation's top economists have determined that dividend tax reduction does not boost the stock market or increase wealth for shareholders.

Most disingenuous is the fact that just three weeks ago, the House voted to cut Medicaid, student loans, foster care assistance, and food stamps under the guise of deficit reduction. However, today, we are voting for tax cuts that cost more than the money saved from the spending cuts. The Republicans have exposed their real agenda: they are robbing the poor to pay the rich.

This year, we have a projected deficit of more than $300 billion. In addition, we will spend billions more in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as rebuilding the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. We simply cannot afford all of these emergency expenses while cutting taxes for the richest Americans.

Thankfully, there is an alternative. The Rangel Substitute includes all the noncontroversial tax extensions I mentioned earlier and also contains three important provisions not found in H.R. 4297. First, the substitute drops the capital gains and dividend tax cuts in order to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The substitute would eliminate AMT liability for individuals who earn less than $100,000 and joint filers with incomes below $200,000, cutting taxes for 16 million families. Without this provision, more than half of all families with two children and incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will be saddled with the AMT. This tax increase hits the middle class, and the Republicans are content to sit idly and let it happen. The Democratic AMT fix is similar to the Senate-passed tax reconciliation legislation, which would ensure a speedy conference and protect taxpayers before the provision expires at the end of the year.

In addition, the substitute extends the tax-free status of combat pay. While our military personnel are risking their lives abroad to keep us safe, the least we can do is prevent burdening them and their families with a huge tax increase.

Best of all, the substitute is fully offset, and will not add a dime to the national debt. The Rangel substitute will revive the economy, relieve the tax burden on working families, encourage companies to invest in the future, and create jobs. The Republican bill will hand out money to rich people and increase the deficit.

The Rangel Substitute is a common-sense alternative that prevents a tax increase on working families, honors our troops, and does not cost a dime. We need responsible tax policies instead of the reverse Robin Hood approach taken by Republicans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Rangel Substitute and opposing the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to recognize the death of LCpl Nickolas D. Schiavoni--a brave Marine who served with dignity and honor in Iraq. I join his family and the people of Rhode Island in mourning this great loss.

On Tuesday, November 15, Lance Corporal Schiavoni was killed by a suicide bomber near Karmah, Iraq, while conducting combat operations with his unit. He served with the 2nd Battalion, Second Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, out of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Lance Corporal Schiavoni, age 26, was raised in Haverhill, Massachusetts; his mother, Stephany Kern, resides in Westerly, Rhode Island. This was Lance Corporal Schiavoni's second tour of duty in Iraq. He joined the Marines after meeting his wife, Gina Howe Schiavoni, who now lives with their two children, Marissa, 5, and Alex, 3, in North Carolina.

Lance Corporal Schiavoni's service as a Marine demonstrates his commitment to our nation's freedom. He was awarded a Purple Heart during his first tour of duty and died supporting a fellow member of his unit in an investigation of a suspicious vehicle. The humility, dedication and courage that helped him to flourish in the service are also visible in his life at home--those who knew him well highlight the deep reverence he held for his wife and family.

His loss causes us to reflect on the bravery demonstrated by our men and women in uniform as they carry out their obligations in the face of danger. When their nation called them to duty to preserve freedom, liberty and the security of their neighbors, they answered without hesitation. We remember those who have fallen not only as soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, but also as patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. May we keep their loved ones in our thoughts and prayers as they struggle to endure this difficult period and mourn the heroes America has lost.

We will continue to hope for the safe and speedy return of all of our troops serving throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4241, the Reconciliation Spending Cuts. This bill attempts to reduce the Republican-created budget deficit on the backs of those who can least afford it. H.R. 4241 does not reflect the values of Rhode Islanders and it takes from the poor to give tax cuts to the rich. As early as tomorrow, the same people who are voting to cut Medicaid, student loans, and food stamps will offer $57 billion in additional tax cuts for the richest Americans.

While Republicans claim this bill is necessary to offset the costs incurred by Hurricane Katrina, their actions do not match their words. Months before Hurricane Katrina struck, Republicans in the House voted for a budget that cut $15 billion more than the bill we are voting on today. The programs the Republicans are attempting to cut, like Medicaid and food stamps, are the very programs that benefit those who have been affected by the hurricanes. Not a single dollar cut in H.R. 4241 will actually go towards offsetting hurricane costs and reducing the deficit. Instead, today's cuts will fund the upcoming tax cut, but in typical Republican fashion, the spending cuts won't even cover the entire cost of the tax cuts they have planned.

While I am disappointed that we are voting on this bill at all, I am especially upset by a few specific provisions. First, this budget reconciliation will have a devastating impact on millions of low-income seniors, children, and people with disabilities across the country. This bill proposes billions in cuts to Medicaid, and Rhode Island alone will lose more than $66 million. Ultimately, these cuts are paid for by raising prices for those on Medicaid. Imposing cost sharing requirements on people who simply can't afford them will not save money. Instead, these cuts will result in patients waiting longer to seek care, longer lines in our emergency rooms, and greater burdens on doctors and hospitals, who will struggle to provide for this population. In the end, we will all pay for this mistake in some form. The Medicaid program provides access to health services for more than 51 million Americans--most of whom are among the most vulnerable members of our society. Now is the time to strengthen America's safety net, not weaken it with arbitrary and harmful cuts.

I am also appalled by the message this bill sends to the millions of American students

who rely on financial aid and federal student loan programs to gain access to higher education. By cutting spending on student loan programs by more than $10 billion, we are reneging on a commitment to these young Americans. At a time when college costs are rising faster than inflation, the bill proposes the largest cut in the history of the student loan programs.

Food stamps are an important layer of protection to ensure the very poor are able to feed themselves and their families, the most basic necessity. However, today's bill will reduce food stamp assistance by approximately $800 million over five years, and more than 200,000 people will lose their eligibility.

I am pleased to see that Republicans have removed the provision permitting drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. However, this was not a response to the public's overwhelming opposition to ruining this pristine wilderness area. Rather, it is a cynical ploy to gain a few votes from Members who would not otherwise vote for this bill.

I have outlined only a few of the many reasons every Member should oppose this legislation. So many of its other cuts would have negative impacts on our communities, such as reduced child support enforcement, which means more than $50 million in lower payments for Rhode Island's single parents.

If Republicans want a balanced budget, which this bill does not even begin to provide, they should learn from the past and reinstate what works: PAYGO budget rules and responsible tax and spending policies. Together, America can do better. We should be working together to address true priorities, like access to health care and soaring energy prices. I urge my colleagues to reject this travesty and instead focus on meaningful deficit reduction based on fairness and shared sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in opposition to this resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It is a shame that some members of the House leadership have decided to turn one of the most pressing issues facing our Nation into a political stunt.

This resolution is not offered in good faith; it is a blatant effort to confront, to embarrass, and to chide anyone who has legitimate questions about how this war is being prosecuted. It is cynical and mean-spirited, and most tragically, it is a disservice to our troops who are serving valiantly and sacrificing their lives every day to accomplish the mission they were given.

Our Nation's future role in Iraq is a serious matter that affects the lives of all Americans. Consequently, the American public have legitimate questions--not necessarily about the value of our mission there, but about how we expect to achieve our goals. They want to know what victory will look like, the steps we will take to get there, and the appropriate time for our forces to leave safely. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, their families here at home, and all Americans deserve those answers.

Yesterday, my friend and colleague, Jack Murtha, a patriot and a decorated veteran, attempted to start that dialogue. However, instead of having a frank discussion about the potential consequences of immediate troop withdrawal or addressing the burning questions in the minds of most Americans, the Republican leadership disingenuously twisted Mr. Murtha's words, making a mockery of the democratic principles that we hope to instill throughout the world.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the right to oversee the operations of the military. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, it is a responsibility I take very seriously. Instead of seeking a plan for victory, the Republican leadership has given the American people silence and the status quo. If we do not endeavor to provide the answers that so many demand, we will have failed in our responsibilities.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and to demonstrate that we will not play politics on an issue of such magnitude.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Labor, Health & Human Services and Education Appropriations bill before us. This bill quite simply fails to address the priorities of the American people.

My concerns about specific cuts in this bill are many. It cuts funding for No Child Left Behind, an already vastly underfunded mandate; it fails to offer even the small increase in the maximum Pell Grant that was established in the House bill; and it sets a funding level for the National Institutes of Health that would decrease the number of federal research grants for the second year in a row. The consequences of this bill are far-reaching. Major cutbacks in the areas of education and health care will have a tremendous economic impact on our Nation.

I would like to speak briefly about what my constituents have told me is important to them. Rhode Islanders, like all Americans, are concerned about health care. I have heard from many of them in recent weeks, in opposition to the devastating cuts to the Title VII health professions programs. While the Administration has made it clear that Community Health Centers are a priority to them, this bill nearly eliminates the very programs that health centers rely on to recruit nurses to work in areas that are facing acute professional shortages and train medical students to work with underserved populations. With 45 million uninsured Americans, we cannot afford to eliminate programs targeted at meeting the needs of the uninsured or remove the support systems that exist for those doctors and nurses who are serving in areas where there is a shortage of professional health services.

Rhode Islanders are also concerned about unemployment. With 7.4 million unemployed Americans, this conference agreement cuts critical services for the unemployed, including job training grants and unemployment insurance offices. Adult Training Grants, which provide training and related education and employment services to economically disadvantaged adults, are cut by $31 million--providing the lowest level of funding for these training grants in a decade. Youth training grants, which offer states the opportunity to develop on-the-job training and provide exposure to a wide variety of promising career paths for disadvantaged youth are cut by $36 million, offering 12,000 less at-risk youth the opportunity to earn a high school diploma and find meaningful employment.

When Congress passed H. Con. Res. 95, the Budget Conference Report, the Republican leadership set the stage for these devastating cuts. This legislation makes it clear that tax cuts for the wealthy will continue to be paid for by slashing programs that Rhode Islanders depend on.

I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3010.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Citizens Financial Group, recently chosen as a recipient of the 2005 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. The award recognizes employers that were nominated by their employees who voluntarily serve in the National Guard and Reserve, for exceptional support above the requirements of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. This is the highest national award a company can receive for its support of the National Guard and Reserve.

Citizens is the first Rhode Island employer to win the highest national award for their outstanding support of colleagues serving in the National Guard and Reserve and their families. Citizens is one of only 15 employers in the United States to receive this prestigious award from among 1,492 nominees.

The Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award reflects the exceptional support, leadership, and devotion provided by employers to our brave men and women of the Reserve Forces. The importance of employers who are supportive of our enlisted men and women should never be underestimated, and Rhode Island is proud to have employers like Citizens Financial Group hard at work in our community. On behalf of my home state, I would like to thank Citizens Financial Group for their dedication, and I wish them much success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3893, which pretends to be a response to our Nation's exorbitant energy costs, but which is actually a giveaway to oil and gas companies that doesn't help America's struggling consumers. In fact, many of the provisions in this legislation are not new; we have seen them before, but they have proven so controversial that they were excluded from the energy bill that Congress passed earlier this year.

Rhode Islanders are paying an average of $2.86 for a gallon of gasoline, and high home heating oil and natural gas prices are causing families to wonder how they will be able to afford to stay warm in the coming winter months. In recent weeks, Rhode Islanders have learned of two utility rate increases for both electricity and gas. These proposed increases come at a time when the average price of gasoline at the pump is up 51 percent, compared with last year, and home heating oil is up 57 percent in the same period.

Congress must take swift action to reduce the cost of energy, but this bill benefits only the oil and gas industries, which have been reaping record profits in recent months. We have heard legitimate questions about how much of the recent increase in energy costs is the result of price fixing, yet this legislation's provisions to combat price gouging are insufficient and amount to no more than a slap on the wrist. Furthermore, it would reverse long-standing health and environmental protections, despite strong opposition nationwide to these proposals. In fact, one of the bill's original provisions-- expanding loopholes for refineries and power plants to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act--was deemed so controversial that it was removed in the dead of night.

I support the Democratic plan to establish strong federal laws and new penalties to crack down on price gouging. The Stupak-Boucher substitute empowers the Federal Trade Commission to combat price gouging for gasoline, diesel, natural gas, home heating oil, and propane. Unlike the Republican bill, the Democratic proposal includes real penalties for price gouging and energy market manipulation--up to $3 million per day. Additionally, the Democratic plan would create a Strategic Refinery Reserve, which like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, would improve our Nation's ability to prevent oil and gasoline shortages in the wake of a natural disaster such as a hurricane.

Our Nation needs a new, long-term energy policy that encourages the use of renewable fuels and energy conservation efforts. To this end, I have cosponsored legislation to increase automobile fuel efficiency standards and have strongly supported Congressman Inslee's New Apollo Energy Act, which would establish a nationwide commitment to developing and promoting new energy sources for the future. This strategy is important not only for our economy, but also for our national security.

Unfortunately, the Republican bill considered today does nothing to move us toward that goal, but instead offers us more of the failed policies of the past. I urge my colleagues to support the Stupak- Boucher substitute and to oppose H.R. 3893.