Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for the time.

The citizens of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama deserve nothing less than the citizens of New York and New Jersey and Connecticut, those in Pennsylvania and our own Pentagon who received an independent commission, one that was heralded for its results and for its independence and its ability to work together. It served as both healing the Nation and bringing people together.

The citizens of those States, the residents of the city of New Orleans deserve the same as the great City of New York. The citizens who were stranded in the Superdome or in the convention center deserve nothing less than what this Nation received with an independent commission.

The spouses of so many of our Members, who have not been recognized at all, deserve nothing less than to make sure the efforts that have gone on already and the answers that everybody seeks are provided by an independent commission, an independent commission blessed by both the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), coming together in the way that we should as a country.

We all stand prepared to work together. The citizens of Louisiana and Mississippi and the great City of New Orleans deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3672, the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act. This bill is a modest first step towards assisting the states so severely effected by Hurricane Katrina and the many poor and underserved Americans who rely on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

This bill will extend TANF in a number of ways that will aid those in need along the Gulf Coast and those states who have taken in the evacuees from this disaster. It will extend TANF funding for the entire Nation for the next 3 months and allow States to receive advance payments. Additionally, it will increase TANF funding for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama by 20 percent. It will also provide flexibility to neighboring states for reporting requirements and in using TANF contingency funds and unspent prior year TANF funding for assisting disaster evacuees. Finally, it waives work requirements and time limits for hurricane victims in need of short-term assistance.

While this legislation is a good first step, its focus is short- sighted and fails to consider the months and years that will be required to return the Gulf Coast to normalcy. It fails to address the need for child care assistance for evacuees trying to find some form of employment to support their families. There are likely to be thousands of children in need of foster care or family support services and this bill fails to address that need. It also does nothing for the roughly 11,000 jobless workers in the Gulf Coast region who are within 6 weeks of exhausting their regular unemployment benefits.

The haunting images we have seen on the news should be a wake up call to Congress that millions of Americans are still stuck in a cycle of poverty. Just last week, the Census Bureau released data that showed income for the typical American family fell by $1,670, 5.4 million more people slipped into poverty, and 6 million more joined the ranks of the uninsured. These are the issues that should be at the top of our priority list in Congress.

We are taking a positive step today to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina in the next few months. However, we need to think long term about the cost and efforts needed to lift up the people in the Gulf Coast. I hope to never see again the images of people too poor or too sick to evacuate their homes in times of an emergency. Nor do I wish to see a response so slow or inept that thousands lived in squalor for days. We should never forget those images and that memory should spur us to improve the TANF program to ensure that no American ever feels forgotten by the United States Government and the people it represents.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the fourth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and to remember those who lost their lives that day, especially the residents of Connecticut and of my district.

As each year passes, it becomes even more important for us to remember the victims who died on September 11, 2001 and honor those who continue to serve as the Nation's first lines of defense against acts of terrorism and disaster. Their memory should keep us vigilant against threats and thankful for the many blessings we have as citizens of this Nation.

We thank the selfless firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical workers who confronted chaos and terror 4 years ago and lost their lives trying to save their fellow Americans in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon. This reminder is all too vivid in the wake of the recent tragedy on the Gulf Coast caused by Hurricane Katrina. Some of the very same first responders who assisted in the time following the terrorist attacks are down in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama helping those families rebuild their lives. We owe them our eternal gratitude for their service and compassion.

However, as we have seen in the Gulf Coast states, we still have much work to do to respond to threats, both from terrorists and nature. We must focus our resources as a nation to ensure that first responders can act rapidly and communicate seemlessly with Federal, State, and local officials.

Terrorists still remain a threat to our Nation and other free and democratic societies. We were all shocked and saddened by the bombings in London on July 7, 2005. The images we saw in London that day were all too familiar to the images we will never forget from 4 years ago. Our deepest sympathies went out to our friends in Great Britain who have stood so strongly by the United States in our war on terror. These bombings and the memories of September 11 further strengthen our convictions to defeat terror throughout the world.

As Congress works to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, our immediate response to the terrorist events that stunned our Nation, we must learn from the subsequent 4 years that have passed. To curtail the freedoms of Americans in the name of fighting our enemies would be a disservice to the memory of September 11 and every American who has given their life or put themselves in harm's way to defend this Nation and its people.

As we pause to reflect this September 11 and remember those whose lives were lost that day, let us also remember the things that make our Nation great: our freedom, our liberty and our democracy. These memories will give us the will to be better citizens and build a stronger nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the so-called HEALTH Care Act of 2005. Quite simply, the problems that we should be addressing today are burdensome malpractice insurance rates, patient safety, and access to health care. This bill addresses none of these. In another attempt to cede power from States to the Federal Government, this bill would impose nationwide limits on the compensation injured persons can receive in medical malpractice cases.

We have all heard the stories of doctors leaving their practices because they cannot afford their malpractice insurance rates. For the 6-year period from 1998 through 2003, medical malpractice insurance premiums in my State of Connecticut increased, depending on the insurance company, between 37 percent and 241 percent for internal medicare, 35 percent and 185 percent for general surgery, and 45 percent and 128 percent for obstetrics/gynecology. During that same period of time, the consumer price index only rose 13 percent and the medical consumer price index rose 24 percent. I certainly cannot imagine running a business where one of my expenses was that out of line with the rest of my income and expenses. How can we expect doctors to do that when they provide such an important service

to us all? The end result is the loss of good doctors practicing and diminished access to health care. The bill we are debating today does not address the underlying problem and has many flaws.

First, it would remove authority on the issue of tort reform from States, where it has traditionally resided, and preempt various areas of State law, including important consumer protections. Each State has its own issues with regard to medical malpractice and tort law and a one-size-fits-all solution imposed by the Federal Government is not the answer.

Second, it would restrict the ability of injured patients to be compensated for their injuries. An inflexible $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages would punish victims of malpractice and cause significant inequalities in compensation for women, children, seniors, and lower-income workers. A woman who loses a pregnancy or her fertility is not judged to have high economic value, but juries can recognize the human value of her losses. A child with no job or income will obviously have a limited economic value, but juries can recognize the human value of his future. Even with the same injuries, a corporate CEO would receive a much larger economic damage award than a minimum- wage worker or a mother who stays at home to raise her kids, but a jury can recognize the human value of their pain and suffering.

My final objection to this legislation is the manner in which it was brought to the floor. It was never debated in committee and was reported to the floor with a closed rule. In fact, the Rules Committee has rejected 67 amendments to this legislation over the past 3 years. This is the third time the House has voted on this legislation in the past 3 years and the third time it has been the wrong answer for doctors and patients. This is just another example of the majority bringing the same legislation to the floor year after year knowing that it will go nowhere because it is the wrong answer for Americans. Legislation offered by the ranking members of the Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Dingell, have been ignored as well as legislation offered by the gentlewoman from South Dakota, Ms. Herseth. Americans deserve to have all of these bills debated side by each.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by urging my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 5 and working on real solutions for reasonable malpractice rates, improved patient safety, and accessible health care.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in unfortunate opposition to this DR-CAFTA agreement. represents a real missed opportunity for this Congress and this Administration to engage in a real meaningful negotiation to improve trade relations between the United States, the Central American countries, and the Dominican Republic. Unfortunately, this agreement represents a step backward from over 20 years worth of U.S. laws and enforcement efforts.

The pact falls short of the standards that any trade agreement America signs onto should meet: the broad fulfillment of America's economic interests, the opening of fair markets for America's goods and services and the reversal of America's ever-growing trade deficit. Whoever the winners, they're not the American or the Central American worker. I support free--and fair--trade, but that isn't what CAFTA will accomplish.

At a Chamber of Commerce meeting in my district, I was struck by the fact that many small manufacturers were outraged at the lack of focus by the Administration in protecting their industry and their jobs. In fact, had I closed my eyes I would have thought I was at an A.F.L.- C.I.O. rally. In a moment of candor, one of the manufacturers said, when large companies started downsizing their labor force and outsourcing their work to us we were silent, we couldn't conceive that it was only a matter of time before we too would be outsourced. When will the government do something about this race to the bottom?

That's how my district sees this, and I share their view. Unfortunately, this is a missed opportunity, an opportunity where frankly CAFTA countries told us they were more than willing to accept stronger provisions if they had only been asked to. Violations of international labor standards should not be held to a different standard than other violations on matters like intellectual property.

Supporters of CAFTA also point to the fact that labor standards and working conditions will be monitored by agencies like the International Labor Organization, part of the United Nations which established international labor standards and which verifies that these standards are met. I guess now with this trade agreement the Administration is running out of American Jobs to outsource and has moved on to official U.S. government functions. Since when are we are going to allow the United Nations to determine whether or not other counties are in compliance with our treaties?

In the typical ``bait and switch'' tactics of the Republican Majority, what they are not telling you here is that just a few weeks ago, they approved an $82 billion funding cut Proposed by President Bush to the principal agency that supports foreign labor standards technical assistance, virtually assuring that no oversight or enforcement will ever actually take place.

Jobs are now America's fastest-growing export. We should be exporting our values and market goods not our jobs. As the world's richest nation, we have a moral obligation to lift the standard of living of the world's poor. It is double-speak for the President to say he wants to promote democracy to the south of our borders but pushes a trade agreement that consigns subsistence workers to economic bondage and forces American businesses to compete on an uneven playing field.

This is the wrong trade agreement for the United States and for Central America. I urge my colleagues to vote no and send this treaty back to President Bush to be renegotiated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. Today we face a problem. An estimated 45 million people are without health insurance. The number of uninsured has risen in almost every year since 1989 and is expected to continue its rise in the near term. Most people in the U.S. who have health insurance obtain it through their employer or a family member's employer as a workplace benefit. Due to the rising cost of health coverage, small employers are far less likely than larger employers to provide health insurance to their workers and almost half of the uninsured work for, or are family members of employees who work for, small employers. The Small Business Health Fairness Act would not address this problem.

As a former small business owner, I understand the need for employers to offer benefits like health insurance to attract the best employees. I also understand the desire to offer benefits to employees to reward them for their efforts in making their business a success. Small businesses are a vital part of our economy, and it is critical that we provide them with affordable heath coverage that not only covers their employees, but helps reduce the ranks of the uninsured in our Nation.

Unfortunately, the association health plans created by H.R. 525 would actually reduce

health care benefits and coverage. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 600,000 of the 45 million uninsured would receive coverage as a result of this bill. The CBO also found that almost 75 percent of workers would actually see their premiums rise. These numbers are evidence that this legislation will not address the problem.

The bill raises numerous other concerns as well. It would create an uneven playing field where Federal law would provide one set of favorable rules for employers who join association health plans and a different, less favorable set of rules for those who do not. Association health plans would be exempt from most State benefit requirements, including those that ensure access to emergency services, mental health services and cancer screening. They would be free to choose healthier individuals who are cheaper to insure and leave behind those most in need of health care coverage. Finally, association health plans under this bill would be allowed to license themselves in a State with looser consumer protection provisions than the State they offer coverage in, leaving consumers open to fraud and abuse. These loopholes will not address the problem.

However, today we will offer a real solution to this problem. The substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, would address the needs of small businesses by providing them with the same access to health benefits as Federal employees through a Small Employer Health Benefits Plan. This plan would provide coverage to all small businesses and their employees, ensuring that every worker gets the coverage they need regardless of age, sex, race or any other factor. Additionally, it would commit Federal funds to aid small businesses in offering health insurance to employees. Finally, it would work within existing State laws and not preempt state regulations regarding health care coverage. This substitute will help small businesses more, cover more of the uninsured, and protect the rights of States.

Unfortunately, without the Kind/Andrews amendment, I cannot support the Small Business Health Fairness Act. This is the fourth time the House has voted on association health plans and the fourth time it has been the wrong answer for small businesses and the uninsured. This is just another example of the Majority bringing the same legislation to the floor year after year knowing that it will go nowhere because it is the wrong answer for Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Kind/Andrews amendment, which would provide real solutions to help our Nation's small businesses and cover the 45 million uninsured Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3070, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005. In particular, I am happy to see that important provisions in regards to the future of our nation's aeronautics policy were included in the bill before us today.

Over 4 years ago, the European Union unveiled its plan for gaining dominance in the global aerospace market entitled, ``European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020.'' This plan laid out an ambitious, $93 billion, 20-year agenda for winning global leadership in aeronautics and aviation. In stark contrast, however, NASA aeronautics funding has declined dramatically over the past decade, from a high of $1.54 billion in 1994 to $906 million just last year.

As a result, the United States has put its leadership in cutting edge aeronautics R&D at risk. We are losing high paying jobs and intellectual capital critical to our economy and national defense. The only way the U.S. can continue to create high wage, high value jobs and maintain aerospace leadership is to innovate faster than the rest of the world.

To do this, we need an exciting and robust NASA aeronautics program that not only revitalizes current research but also fosters future innovation. This requires a long term national investment in critical research of emerging technologies and the training of highly skilled Americans to lead our aeronautics industry into the future.

H.R. 3070 is a step in the right direction. While it does not authorize the levels of funding necessary to fully robust NASA's aeronautics programs, it does authorize an additional $60 million more than the President's FY06 budget request. In addition, the bill requires the President to answer Europe's aeronautics plan by developing a national aeronautics policy to guide NASA's aeronautics

programs through 2020. This is bill is a good start, but there is still much more that Congress can--and must--do to ensure that America does not lose its edge in aeronautics research.

I applaud the work of Mr. Gordon, the ranking member of the Science Committee and Mr. Udall, the ranking member on the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, for their hard work in ensuring that aeronautics R&D was not forgotten in this bill. Their efforts were integral in ensuring that many of the provisions of H.R. 2358, the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act, were included in the bill before us today.

Again, I thank the members of the Science Committee for their dedication to the American aeronautics industry, and look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure that NASA has the direction and resources necessary to once again make America the unsurpassed aeronautics leader in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today disappointed at the missed opportunity for the House to strike a reasonable balance within the PATRIOT Act that empowers law enforcement and protects civil liberties. There is more to protecting American's security than peeking into people's reading habits or medical records. Protecting America means securing our ports and borders, supporting our first responders, and ensuring that our transit systems, nuclear power plants and schools are safe from those who seek to do us harm. Frankly, Americans are still at risk. There are large gaps that still remain in critical areas that leave Americans vulnerable to the threat of terrorism. For example:

Our greatest threat remains an attack by a weapon of mass destruction. But funding for cooperative threat reduction programs to secure unaccounted for nuclear material in the former Soviet Union have remained stagnant since 9/11, taking a backseat to other priorities like expanding tax cuts and privatizing Social Security.

There are almost 2,000 fewer border inspectors and agents than were called for in the 2001 PATRIOT Act. The hard truth is we need more. Of the 2,000 border patrol agents called for in the Intelligence Reform Act, the Republican majority has funded only 500 this year. This leaves our borders dangerously unprotected.

Funding for first responder programs, our front line defense against terrorists at home, has dropped 27 percent in the past three years, from a high of $3.3 billion in 2003 to $2.4 billion in 2006--funds which help our towns and cities hire, train and equip our police, firefighters and medical responders.

While 32 million Americans use public transportation every day, we have spent only $250 million on transit since 9/11, compared to the $18.2 billion we've spent on aviation. This leaves our buses, trains, subways, highways and bridges dangerously vulnerable to the kind of attacks we saw in London.

Almost four years after 9/11, only five percent of incoming cargo containers are inspected for hazardous materials. Ninety-five percent of American trade comes through our 361 seaports every year, yet there is no dedicated funding steam for port security. Despite the threat, the President requested no money for port security in FY 2006.

Every day, Americans are asked to empty their pockets, remove their shoes and have their baggage inspected before boarding an airplane. However, most of the cargo loaded onto passenger and cargo airplanes still goes uninspected.

Protecting America is not a partisan issue, it is a matter of priorities. This version of the PATRIOT Act may be slightly improved over the last one, but let's not take our eye off the ball. There is still much more to be done to protect America. Either we take real action to close our security gaps, or the terrorists will find them and exploit them.

The debate today is not about the key issues that will really protect America. It is not even about the whole PATRIOT Act. It is about the reauthorization of 16 highly controversial provisions of the original PATRIOT Act scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

This sunset was critical to earn support for such sweeping legislation, when in the shadow of the September 11th terrorist attack, the Administration pushed Congress to quickly pass legislation that would provide vast new powers to law enforcement. The sunset provisions would ensure Congress would be able to take a closer look how this authority was implemented and at its effectiveness of balancing security and liberty.

I was hopeful that that an open amendment process would allow the House to address the many concerns of the Members of this House and the American public have with the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, the House Majority has chosen to prohibit an open debate and consideration on the most sensitive and controversial issues surrounding this bill. In fact, most of the amendments they have allowed to be considered have very little to do with the provisions that are up for reauthorization. This means some of the most controversial provisions of the bill would become permanent, including Section 213, the ``sneak and peek'' provision that allows secret searches and seizures. Only two of the most controversial provisions, such as Section 215, the ``library provision'' that allows access to library and bookstore records, credit card information, medical records and employment histories, would be allowed to be reexamined, but not for another 10 years. Amendments that could have strengthened the protection of privacy and civil liberties that could have made this a better bill were prohibited from even being considered or debated.

The single most alarming part of this bill is that it would remove the protection of sunsets to most of the PATRIOT Act. Oversight, review and debate are all the result of a healthy democracy. We should not be afraid to improve that the PATRIOT Act every two or four years. Revisiting the PATRIOT Act is a good thing. Congressional oversight over one of the most fundamental challenges of our time would not hinder our society but enhance it.

The 9/11 Commission warned, ``the terrorists have used our open society against us. In wartime, government calls for greater powers, and then the need for those powers recedes after the war ends. This struggle will go on. Therefore, while protecting our homeland, Americans should be mindful of threats to vital personal and civil liberties. This balancing is no easy task, but we must constantly strive to keep it right.'' This bill does not keep it right. The American public deserves better, they deserve security and liberty. I stand with Benjamin Franklin who said, ``he who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.'' Congress' record should match its rhetoric. Protecting America from terrorism means inspecting cargo on passenger planes, inspecting cargo in our ports, securing unaccounted nuclear material in the former Soviet Union and providing our first responders with the resources they need to be our first line of defense in the war on terror. Protecting America is about real priorities that can and will protect the homeland, which unfortunately are not part of the bill before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for yielding to me and I especially thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for his very poignant remarks.

It is clear that the administration has had a very difficult time in leveling with the American public, and it is also very clear that it has been the Iraq Watch that has been able on a regular basis, and I am so proud to see that you once again have taken to the floor to inform the American public the way you have with regard to what is happening to our troops in the field and what is taking place here on the floor of the Congress.

More often than not in traveling home to my district and conducting forums, people will routinely say, why are people not speaking out in the United States Congress? And several have commented that it seems like the only voice they have heard has been the Iraq Watch.

So I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and of course the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) who was here earlier.

It is rather interesting in listening to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) speak that Bush the elder warned us very succinctly about what would happen if we chose this policy of unilateralism and preemption. He said essentially that if we were to invade Iraq that we would end up being not liberators but occupiers, and we would immediately lose our allied support around the globe and turn Arab nations against us.

As Ambassador Jordan said to us on a trip over to Saudi Arabia, in essence, we would accomplish what Osama bin Laden failed to do. There would be a united Islamic jihad against the United States. And so what we have witnessed in the very cavalier statement of saying that ``we are fighting them over there so we do not have to fight them here,'' oversimplifies the problem that we have created for ourselves. In fact, it has intensified the insurrection that has taken place within Iraq.

I believe and I am grateful to the Iraq Watch for you constantly bringing forth these issues that the United States has to be both safe, secure and strategic with regard to our troops that are in the field. It is in everyone's best interest to make sure that they have a safe and secure and strategic return home.

I especially applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) on the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations with respect to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) in making sure that they have categorized a strategy for success, a strategy that embraces a common-sense approach in a region where we desperately need leadership that starts with the President's ability to level with the American people. And most importantly as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) points out, the need for us to level with our National Guard and Reservists in terms of their deployment, in terms of their commitment to this great Nation of ours and to the American public, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) so eloquently puts forward about the enormous cost that we are incurring that is unpaid for and is only debt that we are heaping on the backs of our children.

Also, with respect to tough love with our allies in the region, let us be honest about this. In the Gulf War, the United States expended $10 billion. As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) said earlier, we are already over $330 billion and growing. Ten billion dollars because we had the support of the entire world with us. Because Bush, the elder, made sure that we had that kind of support instead of going off with this new policy of unilateralism and preemption that has turned the rest of the globe against us.

Many of us stood in this Chamber and voted because we felt strongly about our commitment to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, and the whole world joined us only to find we were abandoned in Iraq because of policies that made little sense and that now, as we learn almost daily about the concocted reasons by which we went into war with Iraq. Yet, if the gentleman will allow me, we find we also desperately need policies in this region that hold the Arab League, Pakistan, India, China, and Russia accountable for making sure that we bring stability to this region.

We also need an energy policy here at home, that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has so eloquently spoken about, that embraces alternative fuels, fuel cell technology, and gets us off of this ensnarled position that we find ourselves in, this awful entanglement and dependency on foreign oil, when we know we could extricate ourselves from it if we just embraced the very technology that we can develop here in our own country, here in both my State of Connecticut and across this country, that will embrace the hydrogen economy and the bounty of fuel cell technology that exists out there.

We must also embrace religions around the globe. There should be a call on the President's part, and also on the part of religious leaders, to talk about the perversion of terrorism and turning these young men into terrorists by perverting the great teachings of the book. It is so important that we embrace these things conceptually and comprehensively in a manner that will draw the world together in an understanding about what we have to accomplish in that region.

General Zinni said it very clearly. We need more troops in this area, but not American troops. We need to take the American face off the occupation here and get the Arab League, get the United Nations, NATO, Russia, China, India and all involved in bringing stability to this region. It is a world responsibility. Our men and women in the services have done their job and done it extraordinarily well. This country simply cannot continue to afford both the human capital and the enormous capital that we are expending, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) points out, over $330 billion.

I yield to the gentleman and I apologize for going on.

If the gentleman will yield, I want to say as well that I mentioned I conduct forums all the time, and I am most proud to say that at a forum recently in West Hartford, where over 400 people attended, that one of the questions that came forward from one of my constituents was in praise of one of our colleagues, one of our Members, and that is the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who I truly believe, as important and as critical as I think the Iraq Watch has been, if there is a profiles in courage award that should be given, it should be for this humble man of conscience.

When residents of the State of Connecticut recognize Members of Congress, like yourself who have come here, but especially in the case of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who has gone against the grain and is merely speaking from his heart and from his conscience and speaking directly to the American people about his feelings, about his discussions that he has had with his constituents about this war that we are involved in, a war that he voted for but has come to the principled conclusion, and in a safe, secure and strategic manner, as the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) has outlined on the Committee on Armed Services, and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has called for in terms of very severe and tough guidelines and deadlines that the President and this administration must meet, all with an eye in mind of a strategy for success, yet my constituents say this all the time, where was Congress during all of this?

Shakespeare said, ``Would Caesar be a wolf if the Senate was not a sheep?'' And that is so true, but not for the Iraq watch, speaking out consistently. And not for people like the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who was able to come down to this floor and talk from his heart and from his head about what he truly feels and believes.

That is what makes us the great Nation that we are, and that is what I think gives the American public hope; that people like yourself, who have been at this for some time and who continue to come down here and speak in the words not only of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) but of the reservist who is going back to Iraq for the fourth time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 152 which acknowledges the 75th anniversary of Mystic Seaport: the Museum of America and the Sea. This resolution recognizes the efforts of the staff, volunteers, and trustees of the museum in preserving America's great maritime tradition. Mystic Seaport is also one of the jewels of my home state of Connecticut.

Since the 1600's, the Mystic Seaport has been a center for shipbuilding. Between 1784 and 1919, Mystic Seaport contributed more than 600 vessels to the American maritime enterprise. After the advent of steam power and railroads, wooden shipbuilding began to decline. Three Mystic, Connecticut residents, Edward Bradley, Dr. Charles Stillman, and Carl Cutler created the Marine Historical Association on December 29, 1929 to prevent the disappearance of the American maritime tradition. Today, the Marine Historical Association is known as Mystic Seaport: the Museum of America and the Sea. Since the inception of the Mystic Seaport Museum, it has become the largest maritime museum, and the fourth largest history museum in the nation. The Seaport's membership represents 25,000 people from all 50 states and 30 countries. More than 1,500 volunteers assist Mystic Seaport's 300 employees each year.

Mystic Seaport has helped increase awareness and appreciation of America's maritime tradition. The museum features the largest collection of watercraft in the nation, which includes four National Historic Landmark vessels. The vessels include the Charles W. Morgan, the last wooden whaling ship in the world, and the Sabino, the last coal-fired steam ship still in operation. The Mystic Seaport Museum's Collections Research Center functions as a dynamic resource for maritime research. The G.W. Blunt White Library is one of the leading collections of maritime research material in the world. Recently, the library has assembled a virtual run of the earliest published American ship registers. The Mystic Seaport Museum has made significant contributions in maintaining the cultural integrity of our nation's maritime legacy.

Mystic Seaport was also involved in the construction of a replica of the freedom schooner Amistad, which serves as a floating classroom and monument to those who lost their freedom or their lives due to the transatlantic slave trade. I was privileged to attend the launch of the Amistad in March 2000 at Mystic Seaport with a delegation from the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in honoring Mystic Seaport's role in preserving America's maritime culture. For the past 75 years, Connecticut has been proud to be the home of the Mystic Seaport Museum, which continues to be a vital protector of the Nation's nautical history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the lifelong dedication of Reverend John F. Edwards, who will retire this month after 50 years of active ministry.

As the Pastor of The Church of the Incarnation, in Wethersfield, Connecticut in my district, Father Edwards was an inspiration and source of strength for those he met during his service to the priesthood. Father Edwards experienced a religious calling and entered the St. Thomas Seminary in Bloomfield, Connecticut, where he remained from 1947-1949. On January 6, 1955, Reverend Edwards was ordained as a priest at St. Brendan's Church in New Haven, Connecticut by The Most Reverend Henry J. O'Brien. Shortly thereafter, Father Edwards received temporary assignments in Washington Depot, Connecticut and as Chaplin at St. Mary's Hospital in Waterbury. In April--August 1955, he received a permanent assignment as a Chaplin at St. Francis Hospital in Hartford, Connecticut.

In August of 1955, Father Edwards returned to St. Thomas Seminary, where his vocation developed and strengthened, and served as a teacher and administrator from 1955-1981. During his 26 year tenure, Father Edwards taught history and mathematics and became Principal of the high school at St. Thomas Seminary. In his final 6 years at St. Thomas Seminary, Father Edwards served as Director of The Permanent Diaconate Program of the Archdiocese of Hartford, which was a program that proved to be instrumental in fulfilling the needs of the Archdiocese. He also served as a weekend assistant at St. Helena Church in West Hartford, Connecticut from 1967-1980. Father Edwards was an inspiration in the classroom and in his community.

Father Edwards arrived at St. Joseph Church in Meriden, Connecticut in 1981, where he continued his service for 11 years as part of a Team Ministry with Father Mark Jette. In 1992, Father Edwards was appointed Pastor of The Church of the Incarnation where he continued to be a dedicated pastor, devoted spiritual leader, and friend. For the past 4 years, he has been the Dean of the Suburban Hartford Deanery where he fostered fellowship within the Greater Hartford Area.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in thanking and honoring Reverend John F. Edwards for his 5 decades of service to the people of Connecticut. The parishioners of the Church of the Incarnation will miss his dedication and quiet thoughtfulness. Please join me in congratulating Father Edwards on his retirement and wishing him many enjoyable rounds of golf.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for the FY06 Defense Appropriations Bill. This rule, unfortunately, does not allow consideration of the Pelosi Amendment--an amendment critical to our current and future efforts in Iraq.

We consider the situation in Iraq this week in the midst of growing public concern over the way this administration has, and continues, to execute the war. For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the public believes that our campaign there has not made the United States safer. Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable and two-thirds say the U.S. military is ``bogged down.'' Nearly six in ten say the war is not worth fighting.

To date, the lives of nearly 1,700 men and women in uniform have been lost, and another 12,000 have been injured. Close to 200 billion in taxpayer dollars have been spent without a clear plan for success. And today, we are no closer to true success in Iraq than we were since the days of ``Shock and Awe.''

The Democratic Leader's amendment is simple--it asks that this administration report to Congress within 30 days with their ``Strategy for Success'' in Iraq. The Pelosi amendment requires the President to explain how he will ensure that there are well-trained Iraqi military, border and police forces that can ensure the security of Iraq and that there is political stability in the country.

This amendment isn't about setting a hard date for withdrawal, or leaving Iraq before we finish what we started. This amendment, rather, simply ensures that Congress--and the American people--know what milestones and criteria by which our Nation will judge success in Iraq. Without such a guide, we will continue to be left with an open-ended military commitment with no end in sight.

Our men and women in uniform deserve nothing less than clear milestones that lead us to the day when we can bring them home. To get to that day, we need to know how we are

going to assess the capabilities and readiness of Iraqi security forces and when we can expect them to take over vital security missions in their country. We need to know the number of U.S. and coalition advisors needed to support Iraqi security forces. And, finally, we need to know the benchmarks by which we will measure the political stability of Iraq.

The fog of war is thick in Iraq, and this administration has only added to it by sticking to their vague notions of success and stability. But the President can cut through the fog by providing clear and demonstrable criteria by which we can judge our progress and, hopefully, success in Iraq.

Since the start of this war, I and many of my colleagues have implored the President to level with the American people and our troops over the true cost and end strategy for the war. It is time for the administration and Congress to be honest with us about a path forward in Iraq--a path towards a success that brings our men and women home and restores our credibility at home and abroad.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, and allow consideration of a critical amendment that will give our Nation a clear path forward in Iraq.

I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote No. 243, a motion ordering the previous question on H. Res. 314, a rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2862) making appropriations for Science, the Department of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous question on H. Res. 298, the rule providing for the Military Quality of Life Appropriations Bill for FY06.

Memorial Day will soon be here, and members of this body will head home to join Americans all across the country in celebrating those who serve, and have served, our Nation. These brave men and women undeniably deserve our praise and enduring gratitude for all they have done to defend our nation and secure our freedom. While grateful words and thoughtful recognition is right and necessary, it is incumbent on us in this Congress to ensure that words are met with action.

Over 1 million of our active-duty and reserve soldiers have served to date in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women--like their predecessors before them--were promised a life time of health care in return for their service to our country. However, as these young soldiers return home, they find that this promise has not been kept by this Congress or the current Administration.

Today, more than 50,000 veterans are waiting in line for at least 6 months for veterans' health care--and that problem will only get worse with the growing numbers of returning soldiers from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. As of May 2005, VA had treated only about 85,000 of the 360,675 veterans from these deployments. In 2006, the Department expects to treat 5.2 million veterans--double the number in 1995. And the overall medical care inflation rate for 2003 was close to double the inflation rate.

It is telling that major veteran service organizations call this bill ``totally inadequate'' and tantamount to veterans being ``kicked to the curb.'' The current proposal before us is no less than $2.6 billion below the amount needed to maintain current V A services.

The majority is nothing if not consistent, and has once again blocked attempts to fully fund the VA. The Obey amendment, blocked from even being considered on the floor today, would have increased spending on veterans health services by a total of $2.6 billion over H.R. 2528 This amendment means real improvements to medical services to meet increased demand for mental health services, prosthetics and amputee care, and for priority 8 veterans. It adds $300 million to upgrade and improve accessibility to VA medical facilities, restoring most of the $400 million cut in the bill. And it does so by reducing the tax cuts for millionaires by about 8 percent--so instead of a $140,000 tax cut, the millionaire filer would get $129,000 tax cut. When compared to all our veterans have fought for and sacrificed, this seems like the least that we can do.

When Americans serve their nation in the military, whether it is the Second World War or the current war in Iraq, this government makes the promise of a lifetime of guaranteed healthcare. It is outrageous that after all the lip service and rhetoric paid to American veterans, the Republican Majority then turns around and reduces funding for their healthcare. It is long past time that Congress match rhetoric with real action to ensure veterans receive the level of service they were promised.

As my good friend Mr. Taylor of Mississippi said last night on this floor, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have been there for us. Now it is our turn to be there for them. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous

question and finally give our veterans the health care system they deserve.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise and associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and strongly support his amendment. Let me also add and thank the very thoughtful colloquy that was conducted by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and the distinguished chairman from New York (Mr. Walsh). Clearly, his involvement and assistance is much needed and greatly appreciated.

But as a State and, I daresay, for the Northeast as an entire region that has been targeted, when you look at statistically what is going on here in the 17 communities, as the gentleman noted, that are in dire shape, and you look at the length of time as we project out, you now understand why communities have such enormous apprehension about this. Or as Peter Finley Dunne would say, ``Trust everyone, but cut the cards.'' And in the case of the BRAC hearings, we feel that we need a new deal.

I further would just say in listening to the distinguished Chair, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and again, I applaud him personally for his efforts, while there will be more money available for cleanup from the sale of the El Toro Marine Air Station, the amount needed is over $3.6 billion. Even with these new funds, we are less than one-third of the way there in terms of the funding. One-third of the way there, and we are adding on all these new communities.

And in looking at what the BRAC findings initially have projected, and especially looking at the State of Connecticut in terms of the cleanup, how drastically underestimated they have been in those areas as well. So these are very disturbing, and that is why I again thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for raising this very important and thoughtful amendment, a common-sense approach, that before we proceed to a fifth round, that we make sure that we address these very important issues that impact all of our communities.

If we are going to have trust in this process, as the gentleman has appropriately pointed out, then Congress cannot abrogate its responsibility. It has to assume that responsibility and assure these communities that are going to be impacted, if we are to proceed in a strategic and very important, common-sense approach to this issue.