Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I commend her for her leadership on this very important issue.

Madam Chairman, as communities across the Nation begin to welcome home members of our Armed Forces who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to honor those who continue to serve in our ongoing war on terrorism, we are, at the same time, turning America's brave servicewomen into second-class citizens. So long as this Congress continues a policy that fails to afford servicewomen their constitutional right to comprehensive health care, regardless of where they serve, we continue to do them serious harm.

Since 1989, and except for 2 years early in the Clinton administration, Congress has barred a woman's access to necessary health care services at overseas bases, even when paid for by their own funds. When I served on the Committee on Armed Services, way back when, I sponsored this same amendment to restore the rights of servicewomen serving overseas. And before me, our colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), courageously fought this battle.

I have long believed that the current policy is unconstitutional and, if challenged, would be overturned as a violation of Roe v. Wade. In practical terms, the policy exposes our servicewomen serving in austere locations overseas to unsanitary and unsafe medical facilities, and it requires that a woman violate her right to privacy by requiring that she secure permission from a superior officer to travel back to the United States to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, a requirement that violates her rights under Roe v. Wade.

Today, this body has another opportunity to right this obvious wrong. As the sponsor pointed out, we do not ask that the Federal Government pay for abortions overseas. Women who want this procedure will have to pay for it. Nor do we compel medical professionals to provide the procedure. There is a conscience clause. As servicewomen and female dependents deploy abroad, it is time to send the right message. As they protect our constitutional rights to life and liberty, we need to protect theirs.

Vote for the Sanchez-Harman-DeLauro amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our former colleague Congressman Stephen Horn and his wife, Nini upon the occasion of tomorrow's dedication of the Steve and Nini Horn Center at California State University Long Beach.

As a member of Congress for 10 years and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, Steve distinguished himself in Congress by improving accountability and management practices in the federal government. Each year, the Debt Collection Improvement Act and the Travel Reform and Savings Act of 1996 that Steve authored save the taxpayer millions of dollars.

My association with Steve began in the 103rd Congress, when we co- lead the bi-partisan coalition that saved the McDonnell Douglas/Boeing C-17 program, which employs 9,000 workers in our area through 2008. Our efforts led to the Air Force's multi-year purchase of what has proven to be one of the most versatile cargo aircraft in the military's inventory.

A long time resident of Long Beach, Steve Horn has contributed to the community in many other ways; as President of Cal State Long Beach, Chairman of a successful $6 million United Way Campaign Fund, Vice Chairman of the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, and as a Founding Member and Secretary of the Long Beach Economic Development Corporation.

I have known Steve and his wife, Nini, to be long-time passionate supporters of the arts. I can recall Steve's strong defense of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities as co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Arts Caucus. So it is more than fitting that the Steve and Nini Horn Center should house a museum, and equally appropriate that it should include a vast computer lab, since the Chairman successfully led the effort to prepare government and industry to make the year 2000 computer conversion.

Mr. Speaker, never one to falter in his congressional duties or to toe the party line, Steve Horn served in Congress with courage and independence, and I am proud to have served with him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life and career of my friend, Air Force Lt. General Roger DeKok.

General DeKok died suddenly last week while on a business trip. My heartfelt condolences, and those of the many individuals in the South Bay he commanded and who were his friends, go to his wife, Carol, and family.

I first met General DeKok when he assumed command in August 1996 of the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) at Los Angeles Air Force Base in my district. SMC is the Air Force's pre-eminent procurement center for space-based systems, including the nation's sophisticated surveillance satellites and technology to track and intercept enemy missiles.

Commander of SMC for only two years, General DeKok excelled in motivating people. His loyalty, warmth and kind personality are virtues for which he will be remembered. Under his leadership, SMC continued its tradition of excellence and continued to produce many of the high quality space-based systems necessary for the war fighter of the 21st century.

General DeKok's activities and passion centered on the frontiers of outer space. He served in numerous space plans and operations positions, from detachment level to space policy work in the White House, and commanded two space wings.

While serving at the Pentagon in 1983, he coordinated the Air Force Space Plan. During his assignment to the White House National Security Council, he helped develop and coordinate the U.S. National Space Policy that was signed by President Reagan in January 1988. Prior to assuming his last position as vice commander of Air Force Space Command at Peterson AFB, he served as deputy chief of staff for plans and programs at Headquarters U.S. Air Force, where he was responsible to the secretary of the Air Force and the chief of staff for planning, programming and manpower activities within the corporate Air Force.

General DeKok retired from the Air Force in April 2002 after 34 years of service and joined TRW Inc., which was later acquired by Northrop Grumman Corp. At the time of his passing, he was vice president and deputy general manager of Northrop Grumman's Command, Control & Intelligence Division.

Roger DeKok deserves the thanks of a grateful nation. He will be sorely missed by his family, friends and the communities he served.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in recognizing National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day.

As others have said, America's former POWs are national heroes. Their service to our country placed them in dangerous situations and led to their capture and imprisonment.

Many suffered brutally at the hands of their captives. Many died.

During this time of hostilities in Iraq, we particularly remember the service members held prisoners there and ask for their humane treatment as we seek their immediate release. We also ask for an accounting of all the missing.

We take great pride in the successful rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch. We hope for her swift recovery.

Mr. Speaker, we shall never forget the tens of thousands of Americans who endured the hardship of enemy confinement--individuals like Bob Brigham of Torrance, California.

An Army private during World War II, Mr. Brigham was captured by the Nazis July 27, 1944 at St. Lo, France.

Nine months to the day, he was liberated from the camp at Memmengin, Germany, but not after hard labor digging air raid shelters under the camps railroad tracks.

Brian Ward of San Pedro was captured by the North Vietnamese when his F-4 bomber was shot down 2 days after Christmas 1972 while on a combat mission northeast of Hanoi.

Both he and his pilot suffered broken arms and back injuries as a result of their ejection. They were immediately captured, stripped of everything but their underwear, and transported to the ``Hanoi Hilton''. Two weeks later, they were transferred to a prison known as the ``Zoo'' a few miles southeast of Hanoi.

Mr. Ward was returned to the United States on March 29, 1973 as the next-to-last prisoner released from Hanoi.

There are other former POWs among the residents of my District. I salute them all. Their physical and emotional scars remain a reminder of the high price of liberty.

Mr. Speaker, I also join my colleagues in remembering those whose fate in time of war remains unknown.

While patriotic ceremonies and speeches will commemorate this day, for the families of the missing, the war is never over. Their loved

ones are still unaccounted for. Their hearts have a very big hole that will never be filled.

The POW/MIA flag is posted in my federal offices and on the wall behind my desk. I am proud of the role I played in authoring legislation to require that flag to be flown at federal facilities on patriotic holidays.

POW families will not forget their loved ones. Nor will this Nation. Wherever it takes us, for as long as it takes us, we will work to bring them home.

Mr. Chairman, is there someone here today who can tell me why it is worth destroying forever the remarkable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for a few months' supply of oil--oil that is a decade away from recovery? Some 95 percent of Alaska's North Slope is already open to oil and gas exploitation.

Is there someone here today who can tell me why it is smarter for this country to exploit ANWR for a miniscule amount of oil than it is to increase CAFE standards and make all vehicles more fuel efficient? A small increase in fuel efficiency creates a large decrease in the amount of oil we import.

Is there anyone here today who can tell me why, at the same time it talks about hydrogen-powered automobiles and fuel cells, this administration is throwing its support behind the big automakers' lawsuit against California's clean car law?

Is there anyone here today who can tell me why it's better to drill in ANWR than it is for this country to promote and invest in clean energy-producing technologies and renewable sources of energy?

True national security is defined by more than staggering military superiority. Our standing in the world is measured by more than our muscle. A healthy planet, clean water and clean air go hand-in-hand with a healthy economy.

This country, the wealthiest and most powerful in history, can and must do more to set an example for the rest of the world. Protecting ANWR is a good start.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the thoughtful comments just presented by my colleague from California and with comments made earlier in this debate by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Turkey is a democracy, as our Secretary of Defense often points out approvingly, Turkey is a NATO ally, and Turkey is a courageous supporter of Israel. I too regret the recent action by Turkey's Parliament, but I am pleased to see that what has followed is more promising. And I applaud our Secretary of State for visiting Turkey these past days to mend relations.

This is a good debate to have, Mr. Chairman, and an important vote to make on this floor. In that spirit, I wish the rule had permitted us to have a good debate on the amendment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had planned to offer, and a good vote on the proper level of homeland security funding for our first responders.

On that subject, I want to point out briefly that it is not just the level of responder funding, it is not just the top line that matters, it is the front line.

It is as important that Federal funds are delivered quickly to local police and fire departments, public health officials and other first responders on the front lines of our hometowns. When an earthquake or other natural disaster strikes in California, first responders rush in to secure the scene, render medical assistance and provide a hot meal and a cot. FEMA has programs in place to reimburse communities promptly for the costs they incur.

The point is this: The FEMA system has been thoroughly tested. We know it works and it serves our communities well.

A similar kind of system should be in place in preparation for possible acts of domestic terrorism which can have the same or worse impacts than a natural disaster. It is up to the Federal Government to make sure emergency response programs are extremely effective and efficient. After all, we are obligated by the Constitution to provide for the common defense, and part of the war theater is our hometowns.

Last week, Secretary Ridge put it this way in testimony before the Congress. ``I would like to engage both Chambers in a bipartisan way to see whether or not I can convince you that the formula we have used in the past shouldn't be the formula we use in the future.'' He continued: ``It doesn't take into consideration some of the special needs that certain communities have and certain States have that are substantially greater than others.''

Secretary Ridge has it right and I commend him for his willingness to acknowledge the problem and offer to work with Congress to fix it. The Secretary is saying what many of us have known for some time. It is not enough for Congress simply to write the check. The check needs to be delivered and cashed. And as of today, the dollars are not flowing.

There is a better way to do this, and I think it is the FEMA way. Secretary Ridge can and should exercise his authority to streamline and expedite his Department's funding process the FEMA way.

FEMA has long used emergency funds to support communities, individuals, and families in the face of a natural disaster. Under prior leadership, FEMA streamlined its assistance to individuals and families, cutting checks within 3 to 7 days of a disaster.

As a first step, Secretary Ridge should move the Department's Emergency Management Preparedness Grant program from the Office of Domestic Preparedness back to FEMA where experienced officials can process requests more quickly. Our emergency unpreparedness is a disaster waiting to happen, and we need to support our communities.

There are other steps to consider as well. All Federal first responder funds that have not yet been made available should be released, including $100 million available to Secretary Ridge for high- threat urban areas. He should determine where these areas are and get those funds out immediately. America's major metropolitan areas know their needs and can take steps to increase security now. We should not have to wait for a full-blown interagency process to tell us that a city like Los Angeles has critical infrastructure or a large population.

I not only represent that large urban area, but many small areas, where small amounts of dollars can make a big difference. And those dollars are needed now.

Wartime is not a time for business as usual. The war on terrorism is being fought on a number of fronts, including our hometowns. We would not send our troops to war in Iraq without the support, training, and equipment they deserve. We should do nothing less for those on the front lines here at home.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Speaker, ``let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan,'' so Abraham Lincoln reminded the Nation at his second inaugural.

Regrettably, Congress is poised to forget those who bore the battle, the widow, the widower and the orphan.

To finance a huge and ill-timed tax cut, the House recently passed a budget resolution that calls for cutting the Veterans Affairs budget by $15 billion in benefits and health care. It also calls for huge cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, two health programs critical to the well-being of many veterans and their spouses.

This is not the appropriate way to honor the men and women who bravely defended our freedom nor is it the way to honor the men and women currently in Operation Iraqi Freedom, nor those like 22-year-old Marine Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez from the small town of Lomita in my district who was killed in action there.

Madam Speaker, honoring our veterans is a lifelong commitment, beginning with the warm welcome upon their return from war. It continues when we fly the POW-MIA flag, when we care for our veterans and their families and, ultimately, when we lay them to rest with appropriate remembrance and tribute.

Madam Speaker, deeds must match words. Our budget resolution must restore funding for valued veterans programs. To honor these veterans, our deeds must fund their services.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my vote on House Resolution 153, a resolution ``recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home''.

Like all Americans, I strongly support our nation's Armed Forces and hope for the successful completion of their mission in Iraq and their safe return home. But, upon taking the oath of office, each Member of Congress has sworn to uphold the Constitution. As such, we must carefully differentiate the intent of the resolution we vote on from its language.

House Resolution 153 has the laudatory goal of protecting our troops and our citizens from harm. But, despite the sponsor's intentions, the actual language calling for prayer and fasting and asking for the intercession of Providence violates, in my view, our Constitutional obligation to respect the separation between church and state.

The resolution may reflect the religious views of some of our citizens as well as some of our Members. But, it may also offend the religious views of others and, consequently, be divisive rather than unifying--a concern clearly anticipated by our Constitution. Thus, I cannot vote yes in support of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Marine Corps Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez, who was one of the first Americans to give his life in battle during Operation Iraqi Freedom. I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the heroism of this young man.

Corporal Gutierrez was a symbol of America's promise. Born in Guatemala, Jose lost his parents at a young age and spent years on the streets in his home country. He came to the United States seeking a better life, and after moving around a bit, found a home with foster parents in Lomita, California, a small town in my congressional district.

Jose attended local schools--North High School in Torrance and Harbor College in Wilmington--playing soccer and hoping one day to study architecture. His foster brother told local newspapers that ``he joined the Marines to pay back a little of what he'd gotten from the U.S.''

Mr. Speaker, it makes me proud to learn about the passionate feelings this young man had for his adopted country. Undoubtedly, they are feelings shared by hundreds or perhaps thousands of the other young men and women who volunteered for military service and are now participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I am proud too of the citizens of Lomita, who immediately began to organize tributes to Corporal Gutierrez, including plans to add his name to the memorial to fallen soldiers adjacent to the local post office, requesting that post office to fly its flag at half-mast, and launching a drive to fly 82 U.S. flags in honor of all of Lomita's fallen soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Corporal Gutierrez's ultimate sacrifice underscores for us how fragile and how precious are the freedoms we enjoy. He died to keep us free.

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am guessing that most Americans are watching events unfold in Iraq on their television sets. These are the events they should be watching, not this debate on a budget that does not even include expenses for the war and the reconstruction effort in Iraq. If I had my way, we would be talking about that war all day today, or if we were debating a budget, we would be debating a wartime budget that called on us to make real sacrifices. That is not what we are doing. We are debating a set of resolutions, the best of which by far is the Blue Dog resolution, and I rise to support it.

I represent smart constituents. They know that money does not grow on trees. They do not want a tax cut, and they are not asking for it. They do not want trillion-dollar budget deficits, and they certainly are not asking for them. Indeed, in contrast to the yawn of a response the administration gave to projected deficits, my constituents understand the serious fiscal consequences of hemorrhaging red ink.

Rather than punt this issue to future generations as the Committee on the Budget proposes, families in my district, like families everywhere, expect Democrats and Republicans to sit down together and make tough choices on what our government can afford now and what we must defer.

That is where the Blue Dogs come in. Frankly, the Blue Dogs are one of the few groups around this place that have the integrity and expertise to present a credible budget alternative. The Blue Dog budget makes reasonable and fiscally prudent assumptions about spending and tax policy and achieves a budget surplus by 2009. It is fair and fiscally responsible, and I am very proud to support it.

The Blue Dogs have long been leaders in the fight for a balanced and fiscally responsible budget. They have made the hard decisions expected of policymakers, and we have the welts to show for it. I urge my colleagues to support the Blue Dog budget proposal which will be offered later in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, as I vote for this resolution tonight, I am mindful that many of my constituents remain opposed to United States action in Iraq, and believe it reflects an abuse of United States power which unnecessarily risks human life and sets us on a dangerous path for the future.

I want to explain to those constituents, whose views are heartfelt and well intended, why I respectfully disagree.

The President's decision to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power and eliminate his WMD was, indeed, controversial. I had hoped diplomacy would succeed, and that, even if it failed, the threat of imminent force would cause the Iraqi regime to seek exile.

One day, when we look back to write the history of these past months, we will undoubtedly conclude that there were many mistakes--some by the United States, many by our allies in the United Nations, and critical ones by Hussein and the leadership of Iraq. And we will learn from those mistakes.

But this resolution does to debate the issue of whether we should have gone to war. It merely expresses support and appreciation for those commanding the war, including the President as Commander in Chief, and for our young heroes, those in uniform,

who are courageously and skillfully carrying out their assigned missions.

Mr. Speaker, we must not make the mistake we made during and after the Vietnam war. This time, let's support the women and men serving in our Armed Forces--and, as importantly, welcome them home with open arms.

Mr. Speaker, I support California's MICRA, but H.R. 5 is not MICRA and I rise with some reluctance to oppose it.

As the daughter and sister of medical doctors, I understand better than most the chilling effect unlimited medical liability awards have on the practice of medicine.

Indeed, my father, who had a practice in Culver City, California, retired from practicing medicine in the mid-1970s because of the alarming increase in premiums. Only after his retirement did California enact its Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act--or MICRA.

MICRA is an experiment in limiting non-economic and punitive medical liability damage awards--and it has succeeded. For medical doctors, MICRA has provided stability in insurance premiums. For patients, it reduced meritless claims and accelerated the time in which settlements can be reached.

I strongly support MICRA, although before extending it to the entire nation, I would proposed adjusting the $250,000 cap on punitive and non-economic awards, first enacted in 1975, to reflect its current value.

Though H.R. 5 adopts the structure of MICRA, it is weighted down by dubious procedural and substantive roadblocks for a variety of causes of action against HMO's, nursing homes, and insurance companies--areas where the California legislature has enacted significant protections for patients. California's medical professionals oppose the inclusion of these provisions under H.R. 5's MICRA-like caps and procedures.

Last year, I voted for H.R. 5--with the hope and expectation that improvements would be made in conference with the Senate to narrow its egregious provisions. This did not happen, and constructive amendments offered in the Energy and Commerce Committee were opposed on near-party line votes.

The closed process by which we are considering this important bill today belies any desire by the majority to make the improvements I believe are necessary.

I cannot support the bill again in its present form. Hopefully, changes will be made in the Senate to align it more closely with California's MICRA, with the modification of the caps I noted earlier. If this happens, I will support the conference report.

Medical professionals should be able to practice in a climate of certainty, and patients

should be charged reasonable rates for quality care. This is what I support for every community in the country. This is not what H.R. 5, in its present form, delivers.

Mr. Speaker, the tragic loss of the Shuttle Columbia is a sobering reminder of the risks of space exploration. We mourn the loss of the dedicated crew, but are grateful for their courage and commitment to exploring new frontiers.

As we search for answers, we must keep in mind that the U.S. space program has had many successes. In little more than a generation, we have pursued some of humankind's grandest dreams.

Space exploration has always been a source of excitement and awe. It has allowed us to marshal our Nation's determination, resources and tremendous talents--nowhere more so than in Southern California's South Bay, which I proudly represent.

Thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians and others in my district have dedicated their lives--first to President Kennedy's goal of sending a person to the moon and back--and then to the myriad of inhabited-flight, satellite and space exploration programs.

Having dedicated such talent and ingenuity, my constituents are all the more heartbroken when the space program suffers such a shocking and sudden loss. Poignant is the fact that one of the astronauts aboard the ill-fated Challenger in 1986 was a resident of Hermosa Beach, in my district. Such events make the sky a lot darker.

Shakespeare wrote in ``Romeo and Juliet:''

When he shall die take him and cut him out into stars

and he shall make the face of heaven so fine that all

the world will be in love with night and pay no worship

to the garish sun.

The Shuttle Columbia astronauts undoubtedly would have urged us to carry on--neither disheartened nor undaunted. To their family, friends and space community colleagues, my staff and I extend our heartfelt condolences. In the same spirit in which they carried out their mission, we rededicate ourselves to the goal of the peaceful exploration of space--to the technological and intellectual challenge it presents--and to the benefits such adventure brings all human kind.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend Tim Hannemann on his retirement as vice president of Northrop Grumman and president of its Space Technology sector.

Prior to the recent Northrop Grumman merger, Tim was president and CEO of TRW Space and Electronics of El Segundo, having been named to that position in 1993--coincidentally when I was first elected to Congress.

Indeed, even before my first election, Tim and TRW helped educate me about the challenges facing the industry. Well-respected by his South Bay peers, Tim co-chaired my aerospace advisory committee and often hosted policy discussions with other local aerospace representatives as we worked to address tough economic times following sharp cuts in defense spending in the early 90's.

During the course of more than a decade, Tim and I worked on a strategy to diversify the local industrial base. TRW, for example, excelled in space science and became lead contractor on a number of important space-based satellites programs, including Mission-to-Planet- Earth, which helped map our globe, anticipate climatic changes, and identify weather patterns.

TRW was also a leader in developing commercial applications for technology it originally developed for the country's defense needs. To that end, I was proud to join Tim at the launch last year of Velocium, which designs and fabricates high speed components for fiber optic and wireless telecommunication applications. The company's products make use of advanced semiconductor manufacturing processes developed at TRW.

Tim joined TRW in 1969. From the start, he distinguished himself as a leader of TRW's technical and management team and should be especially proud of the talented and diverse organization of engineers, scientists and technical staff he assembled during his tenure. His employees are committed to the community in which they work and live and many actively participate in local chambers of commerce, school districts and environmental projects.

Every recent visit or phone conversation includes glowing reports about his grandchildren. Justin, the oldest, turns six this weekend and Tim's retirement will be a big present for that special boy.

Thanks, Tim, for your gifts to a fabulous company, to our community, and to me personally.