Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4520, the Job Creation Act. This bill is guaranteed to do one thing--send American jobs overseas.

It is unconscionable that Congress would give a tax cut to companies that send American jobs overseas.

Corporations have outscourced three million jobs overseas, and have been rewarded with a tax break for doing so.

We should be passing legislation that creates high-quality jobs here in America.

Why continue to expand tax policies that threaten the American worker?

Under President Bush, America has lost 1.7 million private sector jobs. This calculates into a ``jobs deficit'' of nearly 8 million jobs in the last 42 months.

Manufacturing has been especially hard hit, with 2.8 million jobs lost, amounting to one out of six manufacturing jobs.

President Bush says things are getting better, but most of those jobs created in recent months are temporary jobs, seasonal jobs, and even part-time jobs, most of which do not normally have health and retirement benefits.

These statistics are fact, not rhetoric.

The response from the White House to these statistics is equally upsetting. Gregory Mankiw, President Bush' top economic adviser, wants to reclassify fast-food workers as manufacturing employees.

Trade is important, but we need trade and tax policies that promote a balance of both economic development and employment. A quarter of the economy of California is based on trade, but a quarter of Californians are now eligible for food stamps.

It's about balancing economic and human needs in our country.

The GAO, Boston Consulting Group, Economic Policy Institute and many other groups have come to the same conclusion--promoting the outsourcing of jobs is bad for America.

While the White House celebrates recently quarterly GDP growth, the fact is that most of it has been fueled by consumer debt and liquidation of home equity. That is hardly a solid foundation for growth.

The time for sophomoric economic policies has passed. Outsourcing may produce lower consumer costs, but what good is that if Americans don't even have jobs.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill simply on the outsourcing component.

Mr. Speaker, times are hard, and this Republican Congress and the White House are oblivious to it.

Middle class families are being squeezed from every direction. And what have Republicans done about it? Nothing.

Before President Bush took office, 22 million new jobs had been created. Since then, over 1.7 million jobs have been lost.

Instead of creating new jobs, Republicans gave tax cuts to companies that send jobs overseas.

When President Bush took office, the number of uninsured Americans had dropped for the first time in 12 years. Now, 45 million Americans cannot afford to get sick because they have no health insurance.

Four years ago, we had a $236 billion budget surplus. Now, thanks to tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the national credit card is maxed out.

Meanwhile, over a thousand Americans have died in Iraq.

American families be warned, if the White House doesn't send your jobs overseas, they'll send your kids.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4606, the Southern California Groundwater Remediation Act.

First of all, I would like to thank our minority leader and our majority leader for supporting this bill. Our majority leader happened to go in the Inland Empire to see what is going on in that area, and I appreciate that.

The Southern California Groundwater Remediation Act is a long-term solution to helping cities in Southern California remove perchlorate from their drinking water. Perchlorate groundwater contamination has become a crisis in Southern California. This includes my hometown of Rialto in California.

Perchlorate is a main ingredient in rocket fuel. It has been found in drinking water supplies in 40 States, including California. It has been linked to thyroid damage and may be especially harmful to infants and developing fetuses and the 1.2 million women of childbearing age in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties.

It is also harmful to those with weak immune systems, such as seniors and AIDS patients. There is a legal and moral obligation to provide safe and healthy water. Today, these obligations are in jeopardy. The hard-working families in these areas are not at fault and should not have to pay for these problems. We must protect the consumer. Southern California, and particularly the Inland Empire, has been greatly impacted by perchlorate. Perchlorate has been detected in 182 sources in the counties served by the Santa Ana River watershed.

There is a perchlorate plume in the Inland Empire in California that is 7 miles long. It has affected 20 wells in San Bernardino County and jeopardized the water supplies of 500,000 residents. The economic burden on these communities is almost as much of a concern as the potential health effects.

H.R. 4606 authorizes $50 million in much-needed assistance. It is modeled after a successful program in the San Gabriel Basin in southern California that has also suffered from perchlorate-polluted water. And it is similar to H.R. 4459, a bill introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) that deals with perchlorate in northern California and passed this House last week.

I urge my colleagues to support this urgent bill for southern California so we can tell these communities that help is on the way. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for their support of H.R. 4606 and for moving this legislation forward quickly.

Mr. Speaker, this week marks a monumental event in our national history. We celebrate the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian. We celebrate the Native American culture, tradition, and rich heritage that they have contributed to this great Nation.

This is a great tribute to the first Americans. We must not stop here. We must do more. We must do more to ensure that we honor our government's trust responsibility and protect tribal sovereignty.

I have stood by Native Americans and fought for their sovereignty since I was first elected to the assembly in California.

We must do more to provide tribes with resources to fulfill their basic needs. Tribes receive only about one-third of the money they need for vital programs. This is unacceptable.

We must do more to end the health disparities for Native Americans

We must do more to protect Native American lands.

Government entities must work together to meet the needs of Native Americans, making a brighter future for all of our people.

Native Americans must be treated with the respect they deserve.

That is why I have introduced H. Res. 167 to create a federally recognized holiday for Native Americans and instruct schools to teach about Native Americans, the role they have in our American history.

Let us remember our Native Americans who have made a great contribution to this Nation and this country.

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday marks 3 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2004.

Three years ago terrorists launched an attack on the United States in the most cowardly manner. They attempted to break American resolve and to stifle our Nation's spirit. They did not succeed. The terrorist attacks sparked a renewed patriotism in Americans. Three years later we resolve never to let another attack like September 11th happen again.

The anniversary of 9/11 is a solemn reminder that we must do all that we can as members of Congress to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, or anywhere else in the world. We must act immediately to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. We must focus our efforts on disbanding Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. We must always remember the lives lost on September 11, 2001, and in honor of those lives do everything in our power to prevent terrorists from striking America again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Congressman Dreier's Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative, H.R. 2991, which will specifically benefit the cities of Ontario and Fontana in my district.

I am an original co-sponsor of the bill and I look forward to seeing its benefits in the Inland Empire in California.

I consider it top priority to improve water quality and increase water quantity in my community. This community has had to juggle: wildfires, huge population growth, drought, and water contamination with perchlorate and other chemicals. For all of these reasons, water recycling and new technology for treatment are critical to this area.

We need to increase and improve the quality of our water supply, and this legislation before us today is a giant step in that direction.

I would like to commend my neighbor, Congressman Dreier, for his leadership in improving water availability in Southern California, as well as in the fight to clean up perchlorate-contaminated groundwater.

I also commend the bipartisan California delegation for bringing forward important legislation that will bring crucial water benefits to our State.

I urge my colleagues to support this initiative that will help ``drought-proof'' a region that desperately needs it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this free trade agreement.

A free trade agreement with Australia is a one-way street going in the wrong direction for U.S. jobs.

I am not opposed to free trade, but support it only when I believe the gains outweigh the losses.

Each year, Australia imports only 338 million dollars of American agriculture. Meanwhile, the United States imports about 2 billion dollars of agriculture from Australia.

Most of these imports, especially wine, milk, and wool, will hurt California's agriculture economy.

Competition is good for business, but only when all teams are playing by the same rules.

Over the past decade, exports of U.S. specialty crops have remained flat because of trade barriers and subsidized competition in many foreign countries.

Unfortunately, the Uruguay Round and other trade agreements have not provided the access to foreign markets that U.S. specialty crops were promised.

We need to remove these barriers before we sign new FTAs, and even then we should only sign those agreements that will result in beneficial trade for the United States--more exports than import.

I am especially concerned about FTAs with countries that export milk protein concentrates, which are used for the illegal substitution of milk in cheese. This robs our children of nutrition in the name of profit.

Warning Mr. and Mrs. America, one cup of milk in every slice is actually one cup of MPC in every slice.

As a representative of California, our Nation's beacon of agriculture, I have to think about jobs and the rural economy as much as lower prices at the consumer end.

We need to choose between buying moderately priced, high-quality products grown in the United States, or saving at the checkout counter on lower-quality foreign goods at the cost of sending our jobs abroad.

Will the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs to trade feel that it was worth it when they save a few dollars at the grocery store?

I don't think they will.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Australian Free Trade Agreement and other FTAs until the administration can focus on economic policies that protect American jobs.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the current amendment before us. I commend the gentleman from Texas for trying to take all of the money from Common Computer Environment, but what he is doing is he is taking and stripping the amount of money, and we are talking about $120 some million, and distributing it into three accounts.

Mr. Chairman, this precludes an amendment that I would have been able to have brought up today that deals with civil rights. Civil rights is important to a lot of us as we look at what is going on in our country. We have an opportunity to put in additional funding for the Hispanic- serving institutes, we have opportunities for monies to go for tribal expansion grants, and then we have an opportunity to provide money for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The Bonilla amendment would preclude the ability for me or others to submit their amendments to a bill that is very much needed in terms of providing service.

When we look at civil rights, we look at Martin Luther King, who fought for many individuals in terms of the civil rights movement and opportunities for people, minorities and disadvantaged, to file their complaints. We have numerous complaints throughout the Nation.

Within the Hispanic community, we currently have 16 percent of the total population of the United States, including Puerto Rico with 16 percent, which makes up about 42 million people; yet we would be denying them an opportunity when it comes to civil rights, especially as we look at Hispanic-serving institutes right now where we have approximately 350 colleges and universities and continue to grow in the enrollment of colleges and universities of individuals who want to get into the universities.

When we look at the National Congress of American Indians supporting the legislation, there are 250 tribal governments that are saying, look, we want an equal opportunity in terms of justice, equality, and civil rights. We have an opportunity to make sure that rural communities and others obtain the kind of funding necessary and that there is someone to serve them when there are complaints. There are more and more people filing civil rights complaints.

If we take this money totally out, we would not be able to provide the kind of services that are needed. And while I do appreciate the support of the chairman 2 years ago, when he did support legislation that did approve additional funding, as we look at the growth and expansion of the population, we need additional funding. Currently, Hispanic-serving colleges and universities are underfunded by about 75 percent. We are continuing to grow. We need the funding there, Mr. Chairman.

I hope the gentleman from Texas will reconsider and allow the additional amendments, at least some of these dollars, in a bipartisan way. Allowing

other individuals to submit their amendments would say we truly represent the American Dream. Allowing us to put in an amendment would put service back to our constituents, back to people who very much need it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and myself to increase the funding for minority programs in the USDA.

What we are asking for, basically, is $3.5 million in increase. The purpose for the funding would be $250,000 for the Office of Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights, $1 million for tribal expansion grants, $750,000 for grants of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and $1.5 million for Hispanic-serving institutes.

The amount is important because it provides funding to help civil rights,

and I state again, civil rights programs, and other significant funding to help minorities in the field of agriculture. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has institutional problems that must be resolved, and this is the way to resolve the problems that we have. The problems within the USDA are so severe, the civil rights complaints have cost the Federal Government nearly $1 million in settlements and awards. Supporting the civil rights process and properly funding minority initiatives are necessary to permanently end a history of discrimination. I state a history of discrimination. We must rebuild the trust in minority communities, and the USDA can do that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is just a modest step in the right direction to deal with civil rights. As we look at the support that we have right now, we have support from the national Congress of American Indians that represents 250 tribal governments; we have the support of the National Hispanic Legislation Agenda; we have the support of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities and Rural Coalitions that represent somewhere around 350 colleges and universities.

This is an important step in making sure that we deal with civil rights and provide the funding for many individuals that have been discriminated against in the past. Our population continues to grow. As I stated earlier, we have 16 percent of the total population being Hispanic right now, representing 42 million right now in the United States, including Puerto Rico. We need to make sure that adequate funding is there to provide civil rights and protection for individuals and minorities or others who have filed a complaint, to make sure farmers and others have an opportunity to progress and harvest their farms in a timely manner. Without the civil rights complaint, it becomes very difficult for individuals to be heard and their voices. We need to make sure those voices are heard on an equal plane.

This funding will provide an opportunity for many individuals to demonstrate their concerns when they have a complaint, and we need to make sure that adequate funds are there through civil rights, through the Department of Agriculture, through the USDA, to make sure that the complaints are heard.

Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleague from Texas will support this legislation, because I know he believes in civil rights, and civil rights is important for all of us to look at funding.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we did offer the motion when it was asked for during the proper period of time, so we are in compliance with the rules of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, which is the 5 minutes.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, the third time is the charm. This is the third time I have brought this up. I rise in favor of an amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and myself to increase funding for minority programs at the USDA.

We propose four funding increases: $250,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights; $1 million for tribal expansion grants; $750,000 for grants to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers; $1.5 million for Hispanic-serving institutions. We believe this is a small amount that equates to about $5.8 million. We are asking only for $5.8 million out of the $170 million that are currently in the account right now under Rural Development in salaries and expenses because we just transferred an additional $27 million this morning, and they were appropriated now $147 million, and all we are asking for is this small amount.

We believe that this amendment is important because it provides funding for civil rights programs and other significant funding to help minorities in the field of agriculture and, I state, for civil rights programs.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture institution has problems that must be resolved. The problems with the USDA are so severe that civil rights complaints have cost the Federal Government nearly $1 million in settlements and awards. Fixing the civil rights process and properly funding minority initiatives are necessary to permanently end a history of discrimination. We must rebuild trust between minority communities and the USDA.

This amendment is supported by the National Council of American Indians, which represents about 250 tribal governments; the National Hispanic Legislative Agenda; the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities; and Rural Coalition, which has approximately 350 colleges and universities.

We believe this amendment is important in dealing with discrimination and civil rights. Without funding, it becomes very difficult for some farmer or others to obtain loans who may have been discriminated, and we know very well that in order to harvest your crops you have got to have the finances, and if you file a complaint and you do not receive the finances, there must be some kind of recourse for an individual to file a complaint. The civil rights is one of the areas that individuals who may have been discriminated, whether they are African American, whether they are Hispanic or whether they are Indians or others, they have an opportunity to seek assistance through civil rights.

We believe that we should protect civil rights. Civil rights was first introduced by Martin Luther King, who fought to make sure that justice and equality was there for all individuals.

All we are saying now is, in order to enhance and provide the services, we must provide the funding to have the individuals who can provide the assistance. These grants do that through the following areas.

I ask for support of this amendment, and hopefully my colleague from Texas will look at this as a worthy endeavor in providing assistance for civil rights.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman very much for her comments.

It is true we are only asking for $5.8 million, which is a small amount of the $170 million that are there in appropriations.

Hispanic-serving institutions are a great resource of innovation and deserve funding to continue generating advancements in agriculture and science. We must stop the long-standing practice of underfunding these institutions.

Currently, the Hispanic-serving institutions are underfunded by about 75 percent. We have a population that continues to grow, and that is important. We have 16 percent of the total population of the United States.

I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I encourage my colleague from Texas to reconsider and support this worthy cause.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Baca

Amendment No. 17: In title I, under the heading ``Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights'', insert after the

dollar amount the following: ``(increased by $250,000)''.

In title I, under the headings ``Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service-research and

education activities'', insert after the first dollar amount,

and after the dollar amount relating to Hispanic-serving

Institutions, the following: ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.

In title I, under the headings ``Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service-extension

activities'', insert after the first dollar amount, and after

the dollar amount relating to Indian reservation agents, the

following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

In title I, under the headings ``Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service-outreach for

socially disadvantaged farmers'', insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $750,000)''.

In title III, under the heading ``RURAL DEVELOPMENT--

Salaries and Expenses'', insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $3,500,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Baca

Amendment No. 9: In title I, under the heading ``Common

Computing Environment'', insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $3,500,000)''.

In title I, under the heading ``Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Civil Rights'', insert after the dollar amount

the following: ``(increased by $250,000)''.

In title I, under the headings ``Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service-research and

education activities'', insert after the first dollar amount,

and after the dollar amount relating to Hispanic-serving

Institutions, the following: ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.

In title I, under the headings ``Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service-extension

activities'', insert after the first dollar amount, and after

the dollar amount relating to Indian reservation agents, the

following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

In title I, under the headings ``Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service-outreach for

socially disadvantaged farmers'', insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $750,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2828, the Water Supply Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act known as the CALFED, a historical giant step in improving the quantity and quality of water in California.

CALFED is a State and Federal partnership formed to increase water storage and improve water reliability. It is crucial to the future of the home of the State of California. Without clean water or enough water, there can be no development of jobs and housing, I state no development of jobs and housing. And without clean water, my children, my grandchildren or any child cannot enjoy normal, healthy lives.

I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert). I commend the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano). I am also proud that this legislation includes the environmental justice language that I promoted. This

bill states that environmental justice a goal of CALFED, making sure that everyone, regardless of race or income deserves the same protections for environment and health hazards.

I recommend and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. CALFED provides a means to respond to rapid population growths, especially in my area, in my district. California deserves to have a good quality of water and a good quantity of water. And it will help the State of California improve.

Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago Democrats fought to pass the GI bill. The GI bill provided assistance for veterans to pay for a college education, purchase a home, and find a job.

Today, Democrats are still fighting hard to make sure our veterans have the benefits they need. We are fighting to improve the health benefits for veterans, to end the Widow's Tax and the Disabled Veterans Tax.

Last year, I introduced the Department of Veterans Affairs Claims Backlog Reduction Act of 2003 to help the 450,000 veterans who have claims pending for federal benefits.

But as Democrats continue to fight for our veterans, Republicans continue to underfund the programs that are so important to our veterans. House Republicans have passed a budget that underfunds veterans health care by $1 billion, meanwhile they have managed to find room for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Our brave men and women in uniform are serving our country. They are sacrificing for our freedom. It is our duty to make sure that they are taken care of when they return home.

Republicans have broken the promise the GI bill made 60 years ago.

Not one Republican has taken a stand against the Bush budget proposal.

Our soldiers are fighting our enemies abroad. They should not have to fight our government at home too.

Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I rise in opposition to H.R. 4663, the Republican

Budget Enforcement bill and in support of the Spratt Democratic substitute.

This bill is an irresponsible attempt to place the burden of reducing the large budget deficit brought about by huge, new tax cuts on the backs of the vast majority of Americans. The bill relies on one-sided pay-as-you-go rules that will worsen the deficit rather than improve it. The Budget Enforcement bill slashes spending on public services important to all Americans but allows unlimited deficits for tax cuts.

If that wasn't bad enough, the Republican amendments also included this pay-go provision as well as an entitlement cap that would put important government services at risk. Republicans would require that any improvements in entitlement programs be offset with cuts in programs like Medicaid, Medicare, veterans programs, food stamps, and student loans. As a result of the entitlement cap, veterans will get $1.3 billion less than what the House Veterans' Affairs Committee says it needs for veterans' health care programs next year. Education would be cut by more than $1.5 billion in 2006. All these programs would be cut so that important national priorities like tax cuts for the wealthy can be spared. This is their definition of compassionate conservatism.

Because the republican bill would cap non-defense discretionary spending, investments in real priorities like education, veterans' medical care, and law enforcement would be reduced. More Americans will be without access to adequate health care, more students will be left without financial resources to go to college, and more families will be left without hope.

Instead, I support the Spratt substitute amendment, which would establish effective pay-go rules for both spending and tax cuts. Just in case I need to remind anyone, that is the plan that led us out of the first Bush recession into an era of record surpluses in the 1990s.

Let's give our children, our veterans and all Americans the resources they need and support the Spratt substitute amendment and oppose the Republican Budget Enforcement bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roybal-Allard amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. This amendment stops the privatization of nearly 1,500 employees that are critical to our Nation's security.

The American people depend on these federal employees to process, investigate, and adjudicate applications for immigration rights and benefits in a timely and thorough manner. They also weed out frivolous and fraudulent applications and identify criminals and terrorists attempting to abuse the process. These federal employees perform background checks and search classified databases to investigate people that want to enter our country.

Why do we want an unaccountable and low-bid contractor to have the power to allow another 9-11 by cutting corners or not reading all the background? We cannot allow the profit margin to exist in our commitment to homeland security! Why did we federalize airport security if we are going to fire the federal employees that prevent terrorists from getting into our country?

Another important reason why we need to stop privatization of these employees is because immigrants and their families depend on them to navigate through the complex maze of immigration laws and regulations. Immigration Information Officers, for instance, are the last remaining federal employees that help immigrants with legal advice. The toll free phone line, since it was privatized, has simply become a phone line that reads out internet based information. It would be hypocritical to punish immigrants for minor mistakes in their immigration, but deny them the legal advice necessary to comply with the law.

For the security of our Nation and to ensure immigrants get sound legal assistance, we must prevent the privatization of Immigration Information Officers, Contract Representatives, and Investigative Analysts.

I urge my colleagues to support the Roybal-Allard amendment.