Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act.

I believe every Member in this chamber agrees that our country faces a potential energy crisis if we do not act quickly to establish a new national energy policy. We need to make major investments in energy self-reliance, infrastructure, and new technologies. However, where we differ is on how best to achieve those goals. When I look at the provisions of this bill, I do not see a clear vision for America's future. Instead, I see a policy that promises more of the same and that does not end our nations' dependence on foreign oil. It astonishes me that the nation that mobilized to put an American on the moon is not leading the world in developing new, clean and renewable energy sources. Such an effort would revitalize our economy, improve our environment, and strengthen our national security. However, this mission can be successful only with the leadership of Congress and the President, and I regret that we have not pursued that goal here today.

Instead, this bill clings to the incorrect assumption that our nation can drill and dig its way to energy independence. Although transportation is the largest source of oil consumption in the nation, H.R. 6 authorizes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge rather than making modest improvements to automobile fuel efficiency standards. Instead of investing in renewable energy sources, 93 percent of its $8.1 billion in energy production tax incentives are targeted toward gas, oil, and other non-renewable sources.

The measure also includes some very disturbing provisions that can damage the health and safety of our citizens. H.R. 6 includes a liability exemption for manufacturers of MTBE, the fuel additive that has contaminated the groundwater of communities throughout the nation, including in Pascoag, Rhode Island. It also strips states of their ability to provide for the safety of their citizens by granting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission almost unlimited authority in siting new liquefied natural gas facilities. A recent study by the Department of Energy noted a deliberate attack on a LNG tanker could result in a deadly fire reaching as far as a mile away. Nevertheless, FERC is considering an application for a LNG facility in Providence, in proximity to Interstate 95, schools, neighborhoods, and Rhode Island Hospital, the only Level trauma center in the state. A broad, bipartisan group of state public officials, including the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Mayor of Providence, and the Congressional delegation, have expressed their united opposition to the proposal, but the provisions in this bill would place the decision solely in the hands of FERC without the consent of those elected to protect the people of Rhode Island.

Last week, right before the April 15th tax filing deadline, this Congress passed an estate tax bill that benefited only the wealthiest one-third of one percent of Americans while adding massive debt to burden future generations. Today, the day before Earth Day, we are considering an energy bill that provides massive tax breaks to the oil and gas industry instead of investing in cleaner renewable sources and energy efficiency. Again, Congress has identified a problem and responded in a fashion contrary to the long-term interests of our nation. I am deeply disappointed in this measure and urge my colleagues to vote against it so that we can refocus our efforts on an energy policy for America's future.

Today I rise in support of the Pomeroy substitute to H.R. 8, the Estate Tax Repeal Permanency act, and in opposition to the underlying bill. As the son of a small business owner, I know firsthand the tax burden placed on entrepreneurs and working families, and I support efforts to responsibly protect small business owners.

The Pomeroy substitute provides needed relief by eliminating estate taxes for assets totaling $3.5 million per individual or $7 million per married couple. Increasing the exemption to this level would mean that 99.7 percent of all estates will not pay a single penny of the estate tax. Small businesses and farm owners should not be penalized for their success, nor should they need to worry about their ability to pass the family business on to future generations, and the substitute addresses these concerns.

H.R. 8 goes far beyond providing fair tax relief to small businesses and family farms. While the benefits overwhelmingly go to the wealthiest 0.3 percent of estates, Republican leaders fail to mention that their proposal actually raises taxes on thousands of estates, including those not previously affected by the estate tax. This is because their legislation increases capital gain taxes owed on inherited property. The Department of Agriculture estimates that this change will raise taxes on more farms than would benefit from repealing the tax.

The Republicans' call for repealing the estate tax comes at a time when our government is already in fiscal crisis. Ending the estate tax will reduce revenues by $290 billion over ten years, and by 2021, this legislation will have added a total of more than $1 trillion to our debt. With a $400 billion deficit projected this year, now is not the time to add trillions in debt to the tab that future generations must pay. These added costs also come as the President proposes to privatize Social Security at a cost of up to $6 trillion. In addition, the House recently passed a budget that cuts $20 billion from Medicare and underfunds critical priorities including veterans' health care and homeland security. We must work to meet our existing obligations rather than cutting taxes for the wealthiest 0.3 percent of families in America.

Based on Internal Revenue Service data for 2004, out of approximately 10,000 deaths in my home state, only 312 Rhode Island decedents filed estate tax returns. This number would be much lower with the $3.5 million exemption under the Pomeroy substitute. Under our Democratic alternative, most small business owners and family farmers would receive estate tax relief.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting permanent reform of the estate tax, but not irresponsibly repealing it. Our small business owners are in need of relief, and we must provide it without leaving future generations to pay the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I join my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), this afternoon to address matters of importance to Democrats on the House Committee on Armed Services.

I was fortunate enough to visit our men and women overseas in Iraq about a year-and-a-half ago, and I appreciate the amazing job that they are doing. Despite the complexity of their mission, our troops have performed ably and professionally; and they are, without doubt, the strongest and best-trained fighting force in the world.

However, we must ensure that they have the appropriate equipment to continue their record of success. We often overlook the impact that the high operations tempo in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on our equipment. 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 frequent use of Humvees, trucks, and aircraft, coupled with the harsh climate conditions, has caused them to wear down faster than expected.

The Army estimates that trucks are being degraded at three to five times the normal peacetime rate, with the Congressional Budget Office suggesting that it could be as much as 10 times the recent average. We see similar trends in our aircraft and tanks, with wear rates ranging from two to five times the normal. Meanwhile, National Guard and Reserve units that deploy with their own equipment have left it in theater when they return, creating shortages in the United States for training and other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot ignore the potential impact of this trend on the long-term readiness of our military. Our worldwide prepositioned stocks, which are intended to give our troops rapid access to equipment when needed, are severely depleted, with the Army estimating that we would need 3 years to fully restore them. Also, the Department of Defense estimates that it has $12.8 billion in unfunded maintenance costs, with the CBO projecting the numbers could be as high as $13 billion to $18 billion. At the current rate of operations, it will take years to reset the force to where it needs to be.

Now, we make these points, Mr. Speaker, not to be alarmists but to raise awareness of the state of our military and to emphasize that Congress must remain committed to our troops, both in theater now and in the future. We must pledge not to send our men and women into harm's way with substandard equipment, while actively seeking to rebuild our forces to meet future needs.

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, our commitment to our troops does not end when they return home. There is growing evidence that the combat stresses on our troops may contribute to higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder. We must improve our PTSD counseling programs as well as our veterans' health care system.

I was disappointed that, during consideration of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, the House voted down the Democratic motion to recommit, which would have provided more funding for veterans' health programs. Mr. Speaker, our veterans' health system is strained as it is, and I can think of no greater disservice to those men and women serving now than having them return to a nation that refuses to provide appropriate support for their needs.

I know many members of our committee have fought to meet our obligations to our service members and our veterans, and I would particularly like to thank and recognize the efforts of our Ranking Member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), as well as the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans). Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) for his dedication, and I urge all of my colleagues to remain committed to guaranteeing sufficient military readiness and veterans' services.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in proud recognition of the 184th anniversary of Greek Independence. On this special day for Greece, we commemorate the strength and determination of its people to restore their democratic roots and identity.

The political philosophies of both the United States and Greece have been challenged by oppressive powers, and both nations have proudly defended their right to self-government and individual freedoms. Greece endured eleven long years of war to succeed in gaining independence from the Ottoman Empire. American and Hellenic cultures greatly respect this tradition of independence and recognize the importance of democratic principles.

The United States and Greece have always enjoyed a friendship and alliance in international and cultural endeavors. Hellenic principles resonate in our culture and politics, since the United States was founded on the principles of democracy developed thousands of years ago in the city-states of ancient Greece. The beauty of Greek architecture can even be found while taking a walk through our beloved Capitol building. Likewise, our country's influence on Greece can be seen in their first Constitution, which was based on our Declaration of Independence and the principles behind the American Revolution.

On a cultural level, I would like to commend Greece on the great success of the Olympic Games in Athens last August. Since Greece resurrected the Olympics in 1896, they have symbolized peace and excellence for people around the world. The Olympics show that great athletic skill and spirited competition can bring nations together despite their differences. Greece served as a gracious host of the Games, and the 25th Summer Olympics proved again to the world how Hellenic ideals such as equality and friendship have stood the test of time and continue to flourish at a global level. Hellenic culture, whether through its development of democratic government or its espousal of friendly competition, encourages people to come together amicably even during the most difficult of times.

Mr. Speaker, it would be hard to imagine the United States of America, or the world for that matter, without the great contributions of Greece. I will continue to work in Congress to support Hellenic causes, and I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating Greece on the anniversary of its independence.

I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating this anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Evans for properly labeling the atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as genocide and to urge the President to follow his example and accurately characterize this crime against humanity in his commemorative statement next month.

Ambassador Evans recently completed his first U.S. visit to major Armenian-American communities to share his initial impressions of Armenia and our programs there. During his public exchanges with Armenian-American communities throughout the United States late last month, Ambassador Evans declared that ``the Armenian Genocide was the first genocide of the twentieth century.''

By employing this term, the Ambassador is building on previous statements by Presidents Reagan and Bush, as well as the repeated declarations of numerous world-renowned scholars. In effect, Evans has done nothing more than succinctly name the conclusions enunciated by those before him.

In 1981, President Reagan issued a presidential proclamation that said in part: ``like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it--and like too many other persecutions of too many other people--the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten . . .'' President Bush, himself, has invoked the textbook definition of genocide in his preceding April 24th statements by using the expressions ``annihilation'' and ``forced exile and murder'' to characterize this example of man's inhumanity to man.

Furthermore, Evans' remarks correspond with the signed statement in 2000 by 126 Genocide and Holocaust scholars affirming that the World War I Armenian Genocide is an incontestable historical fact and accordingly urging the governments of Western democracies to likewise recognize it as such. The petitioners, among whom is Nobel Laureate for Peace Elie Wiesel, also asked the Western Democracies to urge the Government and Parliament of Turkey to finally come to terms with a dark chapter of Ottoman-Turkish history and to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

The Ambassador's declarations also conform to the summary conclusions of the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) when it facilitated an independent legal study on the applicability of the 1948 Genocide Convention to events that occurred during the early twentieth century. The ICTJ report stated that ``the Events, viewed collectively, can thus be said to include all of the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians, politicians, journalists and other people would be justified in continuing to so describe them.''

The Armenian people's ability to survive in the face of the repression carried out against them stands as a monument to their endurance and will to live. Therefore, it is critically important that the United States speak with one voice in condemning the horrors committed against the Armenians. Only by working to preserve the truth about the Armenian Genocide can we hope to spare future generations from the horrors of the past.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I join the Armenian Caucus Co-Chairs, Representatives Frank Pallone and Joe Knollenberg, in applauding the statements of Ambassador Evans and others, and in urging the President to reaffirm the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Spratt Substitute and in opposition to H. Con. Res. 95, the House Republican budget. A budget is a blueprint of values and priorities--a road map for where we want to move the country. It is no surprise that the Republican budget for fiscal year 2006 is more of the same: continued tax cuts for the wealthy paid for by slashing programs that Rhode Islanders depend on. However, the Spratt Substitute contains thoughtful policies to balance the budget by 2012 without individual tax rate increases or harmful cuts to security, health care, education, veterans' benefits, and other programs that improve the quality of life for Rhode Island's working families.

While the Republicans claim that budget cuts are needed to return to fiscal discipline, they forget their own policies caused today's financial problems. Without the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans enacted since 2001, our nation's fiscal health would be much rosier, and the neediest and most vulnerable Americans would not be forced to sacrifice. Their fiscal year 2006 budget proposal continues to move in the wrong direction, and next year's deficit will likely be the largest in history, with at least $400 billion added to the national credit card.

How does this blueprint make us safer? While the Department of Homeland Security receives an overall increase in funding, the budget largely follows the President's request, which cuts needed resources for the first responders who risk their lives every day to protect us. The Spratt Substitute contains $1.1 billion more than the Republican budget for vital law enforcement programs such as COPS, FIRE grants, and Byrne Grants. These programs provide Rhode Island's police and fire departments with the equipment and training to keep us safe.

How does this blueprint make us healthier? The Republican budget requires $20 billion in cuts to Medicaid. This reduction will jeopardize a critical health care safety net for seniors, children and people with disabilities and shift more of the burden to states. Medicaid cuts would result in $80 million less for Rhode Island. The loss of federal funding places an enormous burden on states like Rhode Island, by pressuring them to cut eligibility for Medicaid. My state has successfully leveraged federal Medicaid dollars and currently offers coverage to many vulnerable, low-income pregnant women, parents of young children, and other groups not included in the federal mandate. Without Medicaid, these people would likely join the increasing ranks of the uninsured. Lacking proper preventative care, these patients will be forced to go to emergency rooms, leading to long waits and higher costs for everyone. These cuts will also threaten programs such as Rite Share, an employer buy-in program, funded in part by Medicaid. The Republican Medicaid cuts are restored in the Spratt Substitute.

How does this blueprint prepare children for the future? Again, the Republican budget matches the President's proposal to eliminate 48 education programs that provide assistance with vocational education, education technology, civic education, and school counselors. In contrast, the Spratt Substitute provides $4.5 billion in additional funding for No Child Left Behind and other valuable programs such as student loans and school lunches, giving students the resources to succeed.

How does this blueprint honor those who serve our country in uniform? Perhaps most egregiously during this time of war, the Republicans want to cut veterans' health care by $14 billion over five years, impose new fees, and increase copayments for veterans' health care, adding an undue burden to those who have served their country so bravely. The Spratt Substitute provides $17 billion over five years to provide veterans the services they have earned through their patriotism and sacrifice.

The Republican blueprint does not make us safer or healthier, prepare children for the future, or honor veterans. By continuing failed tax policies while cutting effective programs that Rhode Islanders depend on, their proposal is a misguided and unjust starting point. As Democrats show, it is possible to create a realistic blueprint that is fiscally responsible and builds on the needs of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt Substitute and reject H. Con. Res. 95.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1268. I would like to thank the committee leadership for their efforts to provide our men and women in uniform with the equipment that they need to succeed. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have worked with my colleagues to provide much-needed force protection equipment to our troops. H.R. 1268 includes $75 million for body armor, $51 million for up-armored Humvees, and $611 million for add-on armor kits for vehicles. Having visited our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, I know that we can prevent further injuries by funding this important equipment, and I appreciate the committee's efforts in this area.

Furthermore, the bill raises the military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 and increases subsidized life insurance benefits from $250,000 to $400,000 for families of service members who died or were killed on active duty, retroactive to October 7, 2001. As a cosponsor of legislation to increase the military death gratuity, I believe we must appropriately honor those that have made the ultimate sacrifice, and these benefit increases are one small gesture that Congress can make to demonstrate our respect. This legislation also demonstrates our nation's commitment to aiding those in dire need throughout the world. H.R. 1268 includes $656 million for disaster relief to the victims of the tsunami as well as essential peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance to Darfur.

However, I was deeply disappointed that the House leadership used a procedural move to attach the language of the REAL ID Act, which I opposed when the House considered it in February. The REAL ID Act would significantly alter our nation's asylum and immigration laws in the name of homeland security, though its provisions went far beyond the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The Senate has already registered some opposition to the REAL ID provisions, and I fear that their inclusion in the House's supplemental bill will slow down the process and prevent us from sending assistance to those who need it most.

Our primary responsibility should be to assist our men and women in uniform and to fulfill our promises to the nations that were devastated in the December tsunami. I urge my colleagues to move swiftly to pass this measure and to drop any extraneous provisions that would hinder this important funding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Student Council of Cranston High School West for their participation for the third consecutive year in ``The Feinstein Youth Hunger Brigade Program.'' Through this year-long community service project, these students will raise awareness of hunger in Rhode

Island by distributing a newsletter to elected officials and by collecting and distributing non-perishable food items to a local agency of their choice. The students have chosen St. Vincent de Paul's Emergency Food Center to be the beneficiary of this year's donations.

Already, the students of Cranston High School West have far exceeded the goals they initially set. Originally planning to collect an impressive 2,260 items for donation, the students worked together to collect an astounding 3,163 non-perishable food items throughout the course of their first food drive in December. The students are currently working on a second drive set to take place in April. They hope to surpass their previous record during this spring's drive.

The non-perishables that the students have delivered to St. Vincent de Paul are crucial to the fight against hunger in Rhode Island. Many of our local shelters and food centers find themselves continually dependent upon the goodwill of students like those at Cranston High School West to be able to provide for those in need. The contributions by this very generous group of students will certainly put St. Vincent de Paul in a position to meet the needs of those less fortunate in the community.

I am thrilled and honored to recognize these individuals today. It is through the efforts of students like those at Cranston High School West that we not only fight the current hunger epidemic, but provide hope for the future as well. The students at Cranston High School West have nobly taken on a serious problem in their community and are facing it head on. I am confident that these students will serve as an inspiration for other Rhode Island young people and that leaves me optimistic about the future fight against hunger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope our colleagues will join me in commending the Student Council of Cranston High School West.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about reports of China's intention to pass an anti-secession law, which appears to permit China to punish Taiwan for what it perceives to be movements toward independence or separatist sentiments. At a time when we should be encouraging greater cross-strait cooperation, this effort by the Chinese could further heighten tensions and possibly move the region toward armed conflict.

When I traveled to Taiwan last year, I saw a vibrant democracy, a strong economy, and citizens appreciative of their high standard of living and ability to enjoy basic human rights. Most importantly, I met people who want to engage in the world community. Yet, the anti- secession law would permit China to decide for itself what constitutes an independence movement in Taiwan. Such carte blanche authority would be chilling in Taiwan, which has supported civil liberties and free speech rights.

I hope that Chinese leaders will use their better judgment and abandon this ill-conceived plan. We, as Americans, must do what we can to promote peace and cooperation across the Taiwan Strait. Despite our commitments in Iraq and elsewhere, we must remain engaged in this matter. Our silence could be interpreted as tacit permission for China to escalate its rhetoric and possibly initiate action against Taiwan, with whom the U.S. has a strong relationship. We must encourage our friends in Beijing to build on their history of cooperative efforts with Taiwan, economically and culturally, to enhance their relationship. I know the people of Taiwan look forward to greater engagement with the mainland and a peaceful coexistence with their Chinese brothers and sisters.

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

I rise today in opposition to this legislation and am disappointed we are taking up this measure again when we should be debating this issue in a more thoughtful and comprehensive manner. Many of my colleagues, including the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) have tried to encourage dialogue on this matter, but this bill simply does not address many of the concerns raised by Members and outside experts during the last 3\1/2\ years.

If under H.R. 841 the House experienced the deaths of more than 100 Members, the Speaker could direct States to conduct special elections now within 49 days. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the authors of this legislation had all the good intentions in the world, but unfortunately we find in the real world, in practice, it does not always work out as we had intended. As a former Secretary of State, I have run numerous elections, and I can tell you that the 49-day limit would constrain election officials' ability to prepare ballots, train poll workers, select polling locations, and inform the voting public about the process.

Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, under this limited time frame, there would be voters who would be disenfranchised. The mail ballot process itself can be very cumbersome, and I can guarantee you that very potentially the elderly, people with disabilities, and most especially, our men and women in uniform who are overseas would potentially be disenfranchised by this shortened time frame.

Now, at a time when our Nation would be looking to its government for answers, it will instead face confusion and uncertainty about how its leaders are elected. Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me to be reasonable to support the gentlewoman's amendment to extend the time period to 60 days. At the very least, if we are going to do this, I believe we need to do it the right way, and this would allow us the extra time we would need.

But, Mr. Chairman, my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) really said it right. Whether it is 49 days or the 60 days, it is really both too long and too short. Even if we were able to hold special elections within the 49 days, that would still be too long for Congress to remain inactive. I want to remind everyone that in the 6 weeks after the attacks of September 11, Congress passed legislation authorizing the use of military force, an airline assistance measure, an economic stimulus bill, the Defense Authorization Act, numerous appropriation bills, the farm bill, legislation pertaining to bioterrorism, victims assistance, and terrorism financing.

H.R. 841 would leave important decisions to a greatly diminished and possibly unrepresentative House. Worse, in the case of widespread incapacitation, the House would be unable to achieve a quorum and become inoperative during a time of crisis. A recent change in House rules tried to circumvent this problem by creating a provisional quorum, which would permit a smaller number of Members to constitute a quorum in emergency circumstances. However, one must question the constitutionality and public support of laws that would be passed by a handful of Members during a time of national crisis.

The House is attempting to address this complex issue over congressional continuity, Mr. Chairman, by passing feel-good legislation and tweaking our internal rules. But I am disappointed that H.R. 841 does not take a comprehensive approach to continuity nor does it address a priority of mine, deciding how Congress could communicate and function if terrorist acts prevented it from meeting in one location.

Mr. Chairman, these matters warrant greater discussion than the limited bill before us, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 841 so that we can have the full debate that this Congress and our Nation deserves.

Mr. Speaker, soon I will be joined by my colleague from Rhode Island in reintroducing the ``Foam Fire Safety Act'' to reduce the injuries, deaths, and property damage that result from fires fueled by products containing polyurethane foam. This sensible legislation directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to implement a rule within one year that ensures that mattresses, bedding, furniture, and other products containing polyurethane foam meet a new open flame standard. The new level of protection will decrease the destructiveness of fires in homes and buildings around the country and prevent unnecessary tragedies.

Polyurethane foam is found in mattresses, upholstered furniture, carpet padding, soundproofing insulation, and many other products found where we live and work. Polyurethane foam is also one of the most flammable consumer products, and firefighters refer to it as ``solid gasoline.'' Between 1980 and 1998, mattress, bedding, and upholstered furniture fires killed almost 30,000 people in the United States. During the same period, these fires injured more than 95,000 people.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) first began looking into creating stricter flame retardancy standards for foam in 1993. Twelve years later, the process continues without result, and all Americans are left without common sense standards similar to those already in place in California and Great Britain.

My legislation, which is endorsed by the National Association of State Fire Marshals, requires polyurethane products to meet a new ``open flame'' test, which is equivalent to having a candle right next to the foam. Currently, mattresses and furniture must only be able to withstand the equivalent of a lit cigarette. While the CPSC has begun a rule making process for an open-flame test for mattresses, we cannot afford to delay any longer.

Polyurethane foam serves as kindling for fires, and a stricter standard would prevent deaths and property damage. In my district, polyurethane soundproofing foam contributed to the deaths of 100 people at the Station nightclub fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island, on February 20, 2003. Because of the abundance of foam, the building was engulfed in flames within 3 minutes, and firefighters who were located just down the street could not arrive in time.

As the 2 year anniversary of the Station fire approaches this weekend, Rhode Islanders are reminded of this horrific event. Unfortunately, we are frequently reminded of our own inaction to prevent future disasters as similar fires continue to occur around the world. On New Year's Eve, ceiling foam ignited in a nightclub in Buenos Aires, Argentina, killing

nearly 200 attendees. We must act now before another tragedy strikes.

I urge my colleagues to join me and the other co-sponsors of this bill to reduce the risk of polyurethane foam fires. Passage of this responsible measure will make American homes and workplaces safer.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. For decades, immigrants arriving at Ellis Island were greeted by the Statue of Liberty, beckoning with the words, ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.'' Today's legislation would render this motto obsolete, as the United States would turn its back on those escaping genocide; rape, or persecution around the world.

Contrary to the claims of the bill's sponsors, this legislation does little to prevent future terrorist attacks within our borders, while eroding civil liberties. Most troubling to me are the provisions making asylum nearly impossible for those who flee their countries to find a safe haven. Terrorists are already prevented from receiving asylum in the United States under current law, and none of the September 11 hijackers had even applied for asylum.

However, H.R. 418 raises the already difficult burden of proof on legitimate asylum-seekers, requiring that they provide corroborating evidence of persecution due to one's race, religion, national original political opinion, or social group. Can we imagine sending a refugee back to face genocide in the Sudan because he or she does not have a letter from the government explaining that religion was the reason his or her family was murdered? This legislation presents a nearly impossible hurdle for asylum seekers.

In addition, I am disappointed in Section 102, which allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any Federal, State, or local law to ensure construction of physical barriers to deter illegal border crossings. This overly broad provision would give unprecedented power to the Secretary to undertake large construction projects without any accountability or judicial review. Under this legislation, the Secretary could waive labor laws such as the minimum wage, public health laws like the Clean Water Act, or eminent domain laws requiring repayment for property seized, all in the name of homeland security. While I understand the need to prevent unauthorized border crossings, this provision grants far too much power without any oversight, setting a dangerous precedent for the future.

H.R. 418 also contains new national driver's license standards, which completely overhaul the bipartisan requirements unanimously recommended by the September 11th Commission and signed into law just a few months ago. These new Federal standards for issuing state drivers' licenses could result in a flurry of privacy and civil liberties concerns.

Most disturbingly, the provisions in H.R. 418 go far beyond the recommendations of the bipartisan September 11th Commission, disguising an assault on our Nation's freedoms and principles with a false claim of security. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this egregious and unnecessary bill.

Mr. Speaker, the President's budget is a blueprint of his priorities. A way of showing what direction he wants to move the country. Based on the last four years, it is no surprise that the President's budget is more of the same: continued tax cuts for the wealthy paid for by slashing programs that Americans depend on.

While the President has urged a return to fiscal discipline, he has been more of a culprit than a savior. This year's budget continues to move in the wrong direction, and the FY 2006 deficit will likely be the largest in history. The President's projected deficit is not even a credible accounting, as the budget completely omits the President's own plans for tax cuts, Social Security privatization, and fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These programs

alone will cost trillions of dollars over the next decade.

The President says spending cuts are necessary to keep the deficit from increasing even more. This is only half accurate. Without the tax cuts enacted since 2001, our nation's fiscal health would be much rosier, and the President would not be asking the neediest and most vulnerable Americans to sacrifice.

With control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, this blueprint shows America the real Republican agenda. They want to cut Medicaid by $60 billion over ten years and put more of the burden on states and the 45 million Americans who do not have health insurance. They want to eliminate 48 education programs that provide assistance with vocational education, education technology, and civic education. And they want us to fall $12 billion further behind in our commitments under No Child Left Behind, handing an unfunded mandate to states and shortchanging our teachers and students.

While the Department of Homeland Security receives ark overall increase in funding, the President proposes cutting FIRE grants by 30 percent and first responder funding by 10 percent, in addition to a 42 percent cut for the hugely successful COPS program. How does this budget make us safer?

Perhaps most egregiously during this time of war, the President wants to impose new fees and increase copayments for veterans' health care, adding an undue burden to those who have served their country so honorably.

I urge my colleagues to join me in returning fiscal responsibility to the budgetary process and creating a realistic blueprint that meets the needs of the American people, not just the President's wealthiest supporters.

Mr. Speaker, on January 6, 2005, I was in my district and unable to vote. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote number 7.

Madam Speaker, today I join my colleagues to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. On January 27, 1945, Soviet troops entered the Nazi concentration camp and freed the prisoners held there. From the survivors, we have heard heartbreaking tales of cruelty and oppression and now consider Auschwitz a symbol of the brutality of the Nazi regime--a place whose horrors test the bounds of imagination.

The liberation of Auschwitz was a pivotal moment in ending the Holocaust, during which more than 12 million innocent civilians were murdered, including 6 million Jews. These people were singled out not because of any wrongdoing, but rather because of their religion, beliefs, birthplace, or personal characteristics.

Sixty years after the end of this attempt to exterminate an entire religion, anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobia continue to plague humanity. Despite the lessons of history, the world has witnessed genocide in Armenia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and even recently in Sudan, among other places. Furthermore, we continue to hear anti- Semitic sentiments coming out of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, and even here at home in America. Now more than ever, we all must work to understand those of different cultures, races, and religions. Mutual respect for our differences will lead to the end of hostilities, and only then will the opportunity for world peace exist.

One of our colleagues, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, survived the Holocaust and knows firsthand humankind's potential for cruelty. However, he has dedicated his entire life to combating the forces that permit such atrocities, thereby demonstrating humankind's potential for compassion. His tireless efforts to fight racism, anti- Semitism, and hatred in all of its forms remind us of our responsibility to protect those in need, both in the U.S. and throughout the world.

On this important anniversary, I solemnly remember and honor all of those who lost their lives in the Holocaust, thank those that worked for their freedom, and pledge to do all in my power to prevent such evil from ever occurring again.