Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Kind/ Andrews substitute and in strong opposition to H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. We have the opportunity to give small business owners and employees meaningful

access to affordable and comprehensive coverage by adopting the Kind/ Andrews substitute. Or, by passing H.R. 525, we can give access to cheap, flimsy insurance policies that will not provide meaningful protection and leave those who need better coverage far worse off.

All of us are concerned about the high cost of health insurance, particularly for small businesses. We all agree that we need to allow small businesses to band together to achieve economies of scale in purchasing coverage. The Kind/Andrews substitute would give small businesses the ability to pool together through a Small Employer Health Benefits Plan. It would provide premium assistance to make coverage affordable for small business employers and employees. The Kind/Andrews substitute will guarantee that insurance policies are not worthless paper but provide meaningful access to benefits.

What the Kind/Andrews substitute will not do is preempt State consumer protection laws--laws that have been enacted by State legislatures on a bipartisan basis in response to real-life problems in the insurance market. The Kind/Andrews approach would benefit employers and consumers. The so-called Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005 would not. In fact, this ill-conceived bill would make the current situation worse--adding to the ranks of the uninsured, reducing benefits, and leaving small business workers with insurance policies that do not provide the care that they and their families need.

There are three fundamental problems with this bill--all of which stem from the decision to preempt State laws and leave no other protections in their place. First, the bill will not significantly reduce the number of uninsured and may actually make this crisis worse. It would preempt State insurance regulation--allowing association health plans to cherry pick healthy small businesses. Small businesses with older workers, persons with disabilities or chronic conditions, and women of child-bearing age would face higher premiums. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 620,000 uninsured workers would buy these new, barebones policies but that 75 percent of currently insured small business employees--20 million-- would see their premiums increase. National Small Business United--a group whose reason for being is to promote the interests of small businesses--opposes the bill because it would increase health ``insurance premiums for small employers by up to 23 percent and cause some to drop coverage altogether. A Mercer Consultants study in 2003 found that it would actually increase the number of uninsured by 1 million. The CBO says that up to 100,000 of the most medically needy workers--those with chronic, ongoing conditions or disabilities--would be among those losing coverage.

Second, the bill would take away protections from consumers victimized by fraud and abuse. All 50 States and the District of Columbia have passed tough laws to stop abuses in the small group health insurance market. Again, these laws would be preempted. The U.S. Department of Labor is not going to have the will or the resources to respond when consumers are injured by benefit denials, AHPs go belly- up, or fraud is committed. AHP policy holders and health consumers would be left in a regulatory blackhole--with no place to turn if they are defrauded, cheated, or denied benefits. That's why the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and 41 attorneys general oppose this bill.

Third, the bill would preempt basic benefit requirements and patient protections, allowing AHPs to drop coverage for preventive services, screening, mental health and other critical services. CBO estimates that 8 million workers with health coverage today would lose benefits under H.R. 525.

In Illinois, we have enacted benefits that include mammograms, pap tests, minimum mastectomy stays, colorectal screening, diabetes education and supplies, pre- and postnatal care, mental health parity that goes beyond inadequate federal requirements, and access to cancer drugs. We have a prudent layperson rule to ensure access to emergency services, direct access to OB-GYNs, and a ban on HMOs ``gagging'' doctors in their communications with patients. We have prompt payment rules for providers and fair marketing requirements. We require that insurance companies cover newborns. Those protections would be preempted under H.R. 525.

Many of us who previously served in State legislatures fought for those benefits because private insurance policies refused to cover items like mammograms, maternity care, diabetes education, prosthetics, or chemotherapy. We had constituents whose insurance companies refused to cover their babies, arguing that conditions developed in the mother's womb were ``preexisting.'' Dropping those critical benefits will not make health care more affordable; it will simply shift costs to employees and their families. And, despite having so-called insurance, if workers cannot afford to pay those costs on their own, they might as well be uninsured. That is why groups from Consumers Union to the American Diabetes Association, from the National Mental Health Association to the NAACP oppose this bill.

I also want to point out that women have a tremendous stake in this debate. Nearly all women-owned firms are small firms, most with fewer than five employees. Women are half of all workers at very small firms. And women are the beneficiaries of many of the State benefits enacted because private insurers refused to cover critical services-- mammography, pap smears, reconstructive surgery following mastectomies, contraceptive services, breast and cervical cancer screening, direct access to OB-GYNs and nurse-midwives, and osteoporosis screening. A bill that raises premiums to women-owned small businesses and cuts women's health services is no solution.

Finally, I want to respond to the arguments of the proponents of H.R. 525 that something is better than nothing. As I have mentioned, for at least 8 million people, the something that would be provided under this bill would be a policy with lower benefits than they have today, for at least 20 million it would be a policy with higher premiums than they pay today. That is hardly a good deal. But there is a more important issue at stake here. H.R. 525 says that we owe small business owners and employees nothing better than barebones coverage, an insurance policy that may be affordable but that doesn't provide access to needed medical services and is stripped of consumer protections. I believe that we can do better and that is why I support the Kind/Andrews substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I voted against the PATRIOT Act four years ago and I remain opposed to it. While I support a number of the tools the PATRIOT Act grants to law enforcement in the fight to combat terrorism, it went too far in eroding important civil liberties, limiting the right to due process, and unnecessarily targeting immigrants.

The PATRIOT Act reauthorization process gives Congress a crucial opportunity and responsibility to reevaluate some of the decisions that were made in the emotional and fear-filled weeks following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and improve national security without jeopardizing personal liberty. The only reason we are having this debate over controversial provisions within the PATRIOT Act is because Congress agreed to set sunsets on these provisions four years ago. Minimally, the sunsets on the original 16 expiring provisions should be retained so that Congress can reconsider these new federal powers in the future if they prove too expansive.

H.R. 3199 fails to restore proper checks and balances and leaves everyday American citizens vulnerable to unnecessary and unreasonable government intrusion. Overbroad and overzealous investigations cloaked in secrecy have already had a chilling effect on Americans in their practice of freedom of speech, religion, and associations. The PATRIOT Act places these freedoms in jeopardy.

Although proponents of the bill have argued that there are no known abuses of the new law enforcement powers granted by the PATRIOT Act, because of the way the law is written, Congress has no way to know whether or not abuses have occurred. We do know that hundreds of immigrants and citizens have been detained or spied on for no reason other than their religion or nationality. Also, more than 200 libraries have been asked to turn over their records to law enforcement officials, and the sneak and peak search provision has been used at least 248 times to search homes and offices without notifying the occupants.

The USA PATRIOT Act threatens the rights of all Americans. A CBS News poll found that 52 percent of Americans were either `very concerned' or `somewhat concerned' about losing civil liberties as a result of the PATRIOT Act. According to a CNN/Gallup poll, 64 percent believe the government should take steps to protect additional acts of terrorism but not if those steps would violate our civil liberties.

I join the majority of Americans who want to protect our nation's security while preserving Constitutional freedoms and civil liberties. Sweeping and unnecessary federal surveillance and unchecked law enforcement powers undermine the rights that are the cornerstone of our democracy.

The Constitution that I carry is not a Republican document, it is not a Democratic document, it is an American document that we want to preserve. The PATRIOT Act is an affront to our civil rights and civil liberties, as guaranteed by our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the visit of the Prime Minister of India on the occasion of his visit to Washington. Prime Minister Singh's visit to the United States is the first by a national Indian leader since that of Prime Minister Vajpayee in November 2001. The Prime Minister's visit comes at a critical moment for relations between the United States and India. The 21st Century has brought our democracies together as partners with shared priorities.

The United States and India share the values of democracy and diversity and are building a vital economic and strategic partnership. As the world's most populous democracy, India is an important ally of the United States. Like the United States, India draws much of its democratic strength from its diversity. Dr. Manmohan Singh's election as Prime Minister, the first time a Sikh has been elected to this office, demonstrates that diversity. The United States and India also share the priorities of promoting global stability and combating terrorism around the globe, promoting trade and democracy, developing new technology, and combating the spread of HIV and other global health pandemics.

Relations between the United States and India are particularly important to the residents of the 9th Congressional District of Illinois. We have a dynamic Indian American community in the 9th Congressional District that has shared Indian culture with our residents and made a strong contribution to our economy. While these Indian Americans are now residents and citizens of the U.S., many of them still have family in India. The close, friendly relationship developing between our countries is important to Indian Americans in my district, and beneficial to all Americans and Indians. As a member of the Congressional India Caucus, I've been pleased to see the relations between our countries improve.

I had the honor of accompanying President Clinton to India in March of 2000--the first time a U.S. President traveled to India since President Carter in 1978. That trip also served a greater purpose. President Clinton's trip to Asia represented a major initiative by that Administration and members of Congress to set U.S.-India relations on a new level of increased cooperation across a broad spectrum of issues. President Clinton and Prime Minister Vajpayee agreed in a vision statement to institutionalize dialogue between our two countries through regular bilateral ``summits.'' In the years following that trip, many aspects of the vision statement have been realized and our countries have drawn closer together.

Since 1991, the United States and India have forged close economic relations. As India has liberalized its economy, it has become a more important trading partner for the United States. India has invested both in its businesses and its workers, fighting poverty while growing its economy at a steady, sustainable rate. Our economic relationship with India is sure to expand in the time to come.

India is an important strategic partner to the United States. After our country was attacked on September 11th, India quickly rushed to America's side to offer its full support to combat the terrorists and use of its bases for counterterrorism operations. India is a critical ally of geopolitical importance to the United States on the Asian continent. India is a partner in our efforts to work towards a more peaceful world, and has recently taken encouraging steps towards peace with Pakistan. The growing military partnership between the United States and India is a sign of our shared strategic priorities.

While India faces many challenges today, such as continued mass poverty and an HIV/AIDS epidemic, I will work closely with the Indian American community in my district, with my colleagues on the India Caucus and in the Congress as a whole to ensure that the United States continues to support India as it faces those challenges that threaten its development.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Prime Minister Singh for continuing to strengthen the relationship between the United States and India. A close relationship between our countries will help promote security, peace, and economic prosperity around the globe.

Mr. Speaker, whenever President Bush is asked to comment on Karl Rove's involvement in the leaking of a CIA agent's identity, the President says that he cannot comment because it is an ongoing investigation. However, if the President really wanted to know everything about Karl Rove's involvement, all he would have to do is call Karl Rove into the Oval Office and ask him. Rove's testimony before the grand jury was not private. Rove certainly could have explained his involvement so the President could then determine if Rove can be trusted as a senior national security advisor.

There is simply no reason for President Bush to delay any longer. The American people and our CIA agents around the world need to be able to trust those with top security clearances.

Two years ago, President Bush talked tough about this serious issue saying, if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. Well, President Bush now knows Karl Rove was involved, and yet he says he wants to reserve judgment until after the investigation is completed.

If the President really thought this was serious, he would call Rove into his office and demand an explanation. It is time for President Bush to hold Rove accountable for his actions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this restrictive rule. It prevents the House from discussing our policy toward the Andean region and Colombia in particular in a serious way. Two important amendments on these subjects were offered by Democrats in the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on Rules, in refusing to make them in order for debate, has denied Members the opportunity to address these critical issues that were raised in the amendments.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) offered an amendment that would have required at least 40 percent of Andean Counterdrug Initiative funds to be dedicated for alternative economic and social development in rural areas, encouraging human rights and protecting democratic institutions.

I guess the majority thinks this is not a worthwhile discussion to have. Clearly they are not interested in results or wise investment of our funds in Colombia. As we know, despite billions invested in the Andean region over the last several years in a largely supply side and military drug eradication program, drug cultivation has gone up in the Andean region and the availability of cocaine in the United States has gone virtually unchecked, with prices low and products more potent than ever.

The Republican leadership must know this bill is more of the same, instead of a balanced policy that would provide some real results on the ground.

The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) amendment sought to place serious conditions on any funding that goes from the United States to the Colombian paramilitary demobilization process, just as the Senate did, so that paramilitary and drug trafficking organizations are fully dismantled and the worst criminals, murderers and terrorists face real and tough prison sentences.

By denying Members a chance to debate the McGovern amendment, the Republican leadership has made it clear they are not serious about ensuring those terrorists are brought to justice. Without the McGovern amendment, this bill is toothless. It does nothing to prevent U.S. dollars from helping to set Colombia's worst criminals free. Colombia's deceptively named ``peace and justice law'' fails to fully dismantle paramilitary organizations and threatens to let criminals off the hook, and without more stringent conditions, U.S. taxpayers should not support what amounts to an allowance for individuals implicated in drug trafficking and murder.

The McGovern amendment would replace the House's language, which authorizes funds for the demobilization of Colombia's paramilitary organizations, with the provisions adopted by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Unlike the Senate provision, the House bill carries with it no accountability to the U.S. Congress or U.S. taxpayers for how our money is spent.

We are talking about members of paramilitary death squads that have massacred Colombian civilians and have trafficked drugs to our country. I do not oppose Colombia's efforts to negotiate with armed groups to foster peace for its people. I want peace and stability for Colombia. However, I do object to U.S. dollars being used with no strings attached in a process that may lead to known killers and narcoterrorists going free without adequate punishment.

So I suggest that our colleagues make the following calculation: Do you want U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund drug traffickers and murderers? If not, oppose the rule and demand a new one that allows debate on these important issues.

Mr. Speaker, it has now been 2 days since we discovered Karl Rove told a Time magazine reporter that Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA agent, and what is the response from the White House? Silence.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan has refused to take questions from reporters for the last 2 days on Karl Rove, citing an ongoing Federal investigation. However, McClellan had no trouble spreading erroneous information about Rove's supposed innocence.

On October 1, 2003, McClellan was asked about Rove's involvement; and after first stating that there was an ongoing investigation taking place, McClellan continued by stating, ``It's simply not true that he was involved in leaking classified information.''

Nine days later in reference to another question about Rove, McClellan began by reminding reporters of an ongoing investigation, but then continued by stating that Rove had assured him he was not involved.

It now turns out that everything the White House was saying was false. Mr. Speaker, the ongoing investigation is not what is keeping the Bush White House from commenting. They are stonewalling because they cannot explain these falsehoods away. It is time for the stonewalling to end.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of H.R. 2567.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon.) Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Illinois?

Mr. Speaker, today I'm introducing the Immigrant Victims of Violence Protection Act because there is a perverse incentive in U.S. law for immigrant women to stay with their abusive spouses in order to preserve their immigration status. My legislation will help immigrant women who need to leave their abusive spouses by preventing their deportation and providing them access to work permits and legal and social services.

Violence against women is a profound and extremely pervasive problem, striking across economic, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, and across all age groups. If we are to stop violence against women, all victims need protection and assistance without regard to their immigration status. Escaping domestic violence can be especially difficult for immigrant women and their children. The threat of deportation, cultural and language barriers, lack of a work permit and limited access to legal and social services may make immigrant victims of domestic violence more dependent on their abusive spouses.

That is why including the Immigrant Victims of Violence Protection Act as part of VAWA

reauthorization is essential. My legislation would help immigrant victims in my district and across the country escape from violent and abusive households. Battered immigrant women deserve an escape from abuse that protects their rights and keeps them united with their children.

Today this House has a chance to fight against violence against women and protect all immigrant victims of violence. I urge every Member in this House to join this fight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my great disappointment about the fact that the Republican majority has refused to allow Representative Edwards the opportunity to offer his bill to provide $1.5 billion in emergency funding for veterans health care. Instead, we are being asked tonight to vote up or down on a bill that will provide only part of the funds that are desperately needed to provide essential care to those who served our country so well. Full funding is critically needed by the Veterans' Administration to overcome its massive budget shortfall caused by the Bush Administration's war in Iraq and the Republicans' shameful budget.

Last Friday, the Washington Post reported that the Bush Administration finally acknowledged that it is short $1 billion for covering current needs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, despite repeated efforts by House Democrats to adequately fund VA healthcare. Even that admission is likely to be short of the mark. Earlier today, the Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee reiterated that the Senate would quickly pass a $1.5 billion emergency supplemental if the House would first approve the measure. Unfortunately, the Republican majority has offered a bill that provides only $975 million, and then denied us the opportunity to offer an amendment to increase that level. To shortchange our veterans during a time of war is not only shocking, it is greatly disrespectful to the brave men and women who have volunteered their service to defend our country.

The shortfall that the VA is experiencing has resulted in some VA medical facilities no longer scheduling appointments for veterans, others not filling vacancies of medical and nursing staff, and others having to close operating rooms or not replace basic medical equipment, such as hospital beds.

Because of the Republicans' refusal to provide sufficient funding, many of the 50,000 veterans who are currently waiting in line for medical appointments will be forced to continue their wait. It is shameful that the Republicans in Congress have once again failed our veterans. It is apparent that the Republicans do not represent the priorities of the American people. At a time of war, Americans want the Congress to offer bipartisan support and services for our veterans and their families. They do not want us to shortchange military families and they certainly believe that taking care of our Nation's veterans should be a higher priority than providing tax breaks for millionaires. The Republicans should have done the right thing and worked with the Democrats on this nonpartisan issue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this important issue.

I rise in strong support of the McGovern-McCollum-Moore amendment to cut $100 million from the Andean counterdrug initiative account, which, by the way, still leaves $634.5 million in the account. I am not against helping create a more peaceful nation for the people of Colombia, and of course we want to reduce the flow of drugs to this country and the use of them by Americans, but I do not support throwing good money after bad in the quagmire that is our Colombia policy.

I wanted to read from an article today in the L.A. Times written by Sonni Efron, the headline being ``Drug War Fails to Dent U.S. Supply.''

``The Bush administration and congressional allies are gearing up to renew a plan for drug eradication in Latin America despite some grim news. The $5.4 billion spent on the plan since 2000 has made no dent in the availability of cocaine on American streets, and prices are at all- time lows. United Nations figures released this month show that coca cultivation in the Andean region increased by 2 percent in

2004 as declines in Colombia were swamped by massive increases in Peru and Bolivia. And the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said last week that the antidrug effort has had 'no effect' on the price or purity of drugs in the United States. The findings have fueled skepticism in Congress where conservative groups have joined efforts to lobby against continued funding.''

Let me underscore that: ``Conservative groups have joined efforts to lobby against continued funding. The National Taxpayers Union calls the antidrug program a 'boondoggle.' '' That is from The L.A. Times.

And the policy of fumigation is not only ineffective, but it is inhumane. The majority of small farm families whose crops are sprayed do not receive assistance to transition to food crops from either the Colombian or the U.S. Governments. They are given no incentive to change their behavior, no alternative to make a living that will help them survive.

There are areas in Colombia where massive spraying is occurring and little or no development aid is provided. Even legal crops in those areas are killed. They are subsistence crops, and there is nothing given to replace that loss for those families. This is inhumane and it is also remarkably ineffective. Sixty-two percent of the coca fields detected by the U.N. in Colombia in 2004 were new; evidence that fumigation, in the absence of alternatives, is not moving farmers away from planting coca.

If we want a long-term and effective plan, it has to be a new one. It is not enough to send a report to our constituents each year and detail how much we are spending to go fight drugs. And it is not a real success when we reduce coca in one country while cultivation soars in another. We need to show them results, and this plan has provided none.

So if you truly care, you are going to support the McGovern-McCollum- Moore amendment and send a message that we need a new approach.

295. Staff Sergeant David J. Weisenburg

296. Lance Corporal Cesar F. Machado-Olmos

297. Lance Corporal Michael J. Halal

298. Lance Corporal Dominic C. Brown

299. Staff Sergeant Guy Stanley Hagy, Jr.

300. Sergeant Carl Thomas

301. Lance Corporal Mathew D. Puckett

302. Corporal Adrian V. Soltau

303. Corporal Jaygee Ngirmidol Meluat

304. Sergeant Jacob H. Demand

305. Major Kevin M. Shea

306. First Lieutenant Tyler Hall Brown

307. Lance Corporal Drew M. Uhles

308. Lance Corporal Gregory C. Howman

309. First Lieutenant Andrew K. Stern

310. Corporal Steven A. Rintamaki

311. Corporal Christopher S. Ebert

312. Sergeant Thomas Chad Rosenbaum

313. Private First Class James W. Price

314. Sergeant Brandon E. Adams

315. Specialist Joshua J. Henry

316. Lance Corporal Steven C. T. Cates

317. Sergeant Foster L. Harrington

318. Private First Class Nathan E. Stahl

319. Staff Sergeant Lance J. Koenig

320. Private First Class Adam J. Harris

321. Sergeant Skipper Soram

322. Sergeant Benjamin K. Smith

323. Lance Corporal Aaron Boyles

324. Lance Corporal Ramon Mateo

325. Sergeant Timothy Folmar

326. Second Lieutenant Ryan Leduc

327. Specialist David W. Johnson

328. Specialist Clifford L. Moxley, Jr.

329. Specialist Robert Oliver Unruh

330. Captain Eric L. Allton

331. Specialist Gregory A. Cox

332. Sergeant First Class Joselito O. Villanueva

333. Private First Class Kenneth L. Sickels

334. Sergeant Tyler D. Prewitt

335. Private First Class Joshua K. Titcomb

336. Staff Sergeant Mike A. Dennie

337. Specialist Rodney A. Jones

338. Staff Sergeant Darren J. Cunningham

339. Specialist Allen Nolan

340. Sergeant Michael A. Uvanni

341. Sergeant Jack Taft Hennessy

342. Sergeant Christopher S. Potts

343. Sergeant Russell L. Collier

344. Staff Sergeant James L. Pettaway, Jr.

345. Staff Sergeant Richard L. Morgan, Jr.

346. Specialist Jessica L. Cawvey

347. Private Jeungjin Na ``Nikky'' Kim

348. Specialist Morgen N. Jacobs

349. Staff Sergeant Michael S. Voss

350. Sergeant Andrew W. Brown

351. Private First Class Andrew Halverson

352. Private Carson J. Ramsey

353. Private First Class James E. Prevete

354. Sergeant Pamela G. Osbourne

355. Private First Class Anthony W. Monroe

356. Staff Sergeant Michael Lee Burbank

357. Private First Class Aaron J. Rusin

358. Private First Class Oscar A. Martinez

359. Corporal Ian T. Zook

360. Specialist Christopher A. Merville

361. Lance Corporal Daniel R. Wyatt

362. Captain Dennis L. Pintor

363. Specialist Michael S. Weger

364. Specialist Jaime Moreno

365. Specialist Jeremy F. Regnier

366. Lieutenant Colonel Mark P. Phelan

367. Major Charles R. Soltes, Jr.

368. Second Lieutenant Paul M. Felsberg

369. Lance Corporal Victor A. Gonzalez

370. Specialist Ronald W. Baker

371. Staff Sergeant Omer T. Hawkins II

372. Specialist Bradley S. Beard

373. Private First Class Mark A. Barbret

374. Specialist Josiah H. Vandertulip

375. Private David L. Waters

376. Specialist Alan J. Burgess

377. Corporal William I. Salazar

378. Specialist Jonathan J. Santos

Mr. Chairman, I rise today, with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), to offer an amendment that would protect the retirement security of dedicated United Airlines employees and retirees who support, and I want to underscore that, who support our amendment.

Our amendment would stop the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation from taking over United's four pension plans in one fell swoop. Our amendment would give Congress a chance to work out a better solution than pension termination.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because the threat to United's employees is real. This is not a straight hand-off from United to the PBGC. Although United's pension liability is $9.8 billion, the PBGC is only assuming $6.6 billion of the debt to United workers. The takeover of the plans will result in pension benefit cuts averaging 25 to 50 percent, a loss of $3.2 billion, for men and women who have worked for years with the promise of a secure pension. And it is on top of the $3 billion in concessions United employees already made.

We are on the cusp of a pension crisis in this country. The PBGC, without United, has a $23 billion deficit, and other companies are waiting in line to dump their pension benefits.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when the Bush administration continues to paint a rosy picture of the situation in Iraq, Congress should really be investigating why exactly the administration is misleading both the American public and Members of this institution.

While most Republicans in this Chamber continue to take the Bush administration's rhetoric as fact, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska states in this week's U.S. News and World Report: ``The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along.''

That is a Republican Senator. It would be nice if other Republicans would follow suit. For some reason Republicans think they are supporting troops in Iraq if they remain silent about what is going on there. Are Republicans supporting our troops when they refuse to question misleading statements like that from Vice President Cheney that the Iraqi insurgents are in their ``last throes''? Are Republicans supporting our troops when they refuse to support investigation into prisoner abuse scandals, scandals that many, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, believe are harming both our reputation and our troops?

Silence is not the best way to help our troops.

Madam Speaker, the Bush administration and Republican leaders are engaged in a pathetic attempt to make Senator Dick Durbin's condemnation of the use of torture at Guantanamo Bay an issue.

As a result of the revelations of conditions at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the Bagram Prison in Afghanistan, the Republicans owe the American people, our soldiers, and veterans an apology for undermining American values such as the rule of law, for putting our troops at greater risk around the world, and for cutting veterans health benefits when they come home, and failing to provide our troops the equipment they need to protect themselves on the battlefield.

Clearly the Republicans are reading the polls and watching their approval as well as the approval for the misguided war plummet. So in a desperate attempt to shift the blame, they want to shoot the messenger.

Everyone knows what Senator Durbin meant, and he was right. The United States of America stands for the rule of law, not for torture. It is this administration and the Republican leaders, certainly not our soldiers and not Senator Durbin, who has tarnished the image of our great country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive rule.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) offered a reasonable amendment, which was rejected by the Rules Committee, that would have put the House on record in support of a bipartisan, independent investigation into detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the facility at Guantanamo Bay.

Because there are known cases of abuse, and there are more questions than answers about the extent of abuse on people held by or for the United States, we need to shine a very bright light on detainee treatment. Only when we know the full scale of the problem will we be able to stop, prevent, and correct any wrongs that have been done in our country's name.

And if it is true, as Vice President Cheney says, that the prisoners are peddling lies, then let us investigate prisoner treatment so that we have evidence and not just assertions. The United States should be the standard bearer of democracy, freedom and human rights throughout the world. However, it has been over a year since the story broke about prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, and we have yet to conduct a through independent investigation.

Opening the door to an independent investigation would be a major step toward returning our country's standing as a moral leader. And to those who would try to justify what we do by saying, well, it is not as bad as those unspeakable beheadings or other things, well, I should certainly hope not, because we are not like them. We are better than them. We are the United States of America.

And now, those who call on our country to uphold the rule of law and who reject becoming debased ourselves by conducting torture, they become the object of relentless criticism. Those patriots who want to stand up to our values and our belief in the rule of law, we are a proud and a great Nation blessed with immense freedom and with military personnel who proudly defend us. We should not fear the truth; we should demand it with an independent investigation.