Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member, Mr. Thompson.

This conference report is a culmination of many years of working on the issue of port security. I want to begin by thanking my colleague, actually Juanita Millender-McDonald, whose original bill was brought to me a couple of years ago, was the framework for this, and added to that were many of the port bills that I had authored were put into that; and then Ms. Harman put in some more and Mr. Lungren put in some more and Mr. Thompson put in some more, and pretty soon we had a pretty good port bill. I am pleased with the port bill.

Our chairman said he did not want rail or transit or any of that, which the Senate also put in their port bill, because he did not have the time, he did not want to jeopardize a port bill.

So why is there Internet gambling in our port bill? If you had time to stick Internet gambling in our port bill, then I think you could have held a meeting today, or tomorrow if we had to stay an extra day, or the next day if we had to stay an extra day to make our country safer, especially for the people who take rail and mass transit to work.

But, no, that would have been too much. This is just a port bill, plus Internet gambling. That is why people are upset. The Senate put in rail and mass transit and port. You had people last night who asked you, Will we get to make amendments, because they wanted to put in rail and mass transit like the Senate had put in, and we had the votes in the room to pass this port bill and to pass rail and mass transit.

But it was too much. I don't know if it was you, Mr. Chairman, or Speaker Hastert. I don't know who is going to answer what happens if we have something that happens like happened in Madrid or London and we didn't fund rail or transit. Will we get blamed? Will you take the blame, Mr. Chairman? Or will you stand up and say it was the leadership; it wasn't me?

Who is responsible for not having done the right thing? That is what people are asking. That is why people are upset. They are not just upset on this side of the aisle because we know it is the right thing to do. They are upset in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle.

This is way too important for us to say, oh, gosh, we have got to get out of here on Friday, and let's not work another day. I would have stayed here a week. I would have stayed here a month. You know, I have been working on this for about 4 or 5 years. If we could have gotten that in, it would have been the right thing to do.

You are right, Mr. Chairman. This is a good port bill, because we took our time and we did it right. But it could have been a much better security bill, a security bill that last night the majority in this House said they wanted, a security bill not only to secure containers and freight that come into this country but a bill that would have helped the people who commute every day to work and make America go.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo and Ranking Member Nick Rahall as well as Water and Power Subcommittee Chairman George Radanovich for recognizing the importance of this bill, H.R. 4545, the Southern California Water Augmentation Study.

I would also like to especially thank my colleague Grace Napolitano, the ranking member of the Water and Power Subcommittee. She has served in that position with distinction and established herself as an advocate for sound water policy in her home State of California and across the Nation. Representative Napolitano has supported this bill, and she has utilized many efforts in shepherding it through the legislative process.

I became interested in this effort because California and other parts of this country need to move forward on two very important issues: First, we must increase our groundwater drinking supplies, and we can do this by improving the safe infiltration of surface water. And, second, we must reduce urban stormwater runoff that can carry trash and contamination to our beaches and oceans.

The water augmentation study was created to address important economic and scientific questions about water quality and water supply. Simply put, this project is about taking the water that we lose and turning it into water that we can use.

This study will assess the potential of urban stormwater infiltration to augment water supplies. This water augmentation study will determine the benefits, costs, and risks of infiltration. It will help us understand what conditions we need to make infiltration work and assess the potential for larger water supply. At the same time, it will show us how to reduce water pollution and create additional environmental and social benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to make southern California more water self-sufficient and less reliant on imported water from our neighbors in the central and northern parts of our State. I am also very pleased that President Bush has included funding for the water augmentation study in his last three budgets, including this year. This is a bipartisan effort in which there is agreement on the merits of the project throughout our government.

Also, the California staff of the Bureau of Reclamation has been very supportive of this project. In fact, they helped create it in the year 2000, because they see it as helping solve a real problem we face in California and, shall I say, other water-challenged States across the country.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall, as well as the great staff on the House Resources Committee, and to Representative Napolitano for her unyielding support of this bill. I urge all my colleagues to join us in supporting H.R. 4545.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Santa Ana Police Deputy Chief Bruce Carlson, who passed last Thursday after his long fight with liver cancer.

Bruce loved our community and the people of Santa Ana. Bruce joined the Santa Ana Police Department on January 7, 1973, as a patrolman. Through his dedication to service and understanding the concerns of others, Bruce rose in rank to become Field Operations Bureau Commander, overseeing the largest and the most complex operation at the department.

His legacy in Santa Ana is not confined to his work with the police department. Bruce's closest friends know him to be caring, to be a thoughtful man who would go out of his way to help his community.

Bruce demonstrated true courage and maintained a very positive outlook on life throughout his struggle with cancer. He was a tremendous leader and made many significant contributions that helped to make the Santa Ana Police Department the national leader that it is today, especially on homeland security.

Bruce Carlson is survived by his wife and his two children, and our thoughts and our prayers are with him today and with them.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was attending a National Policy Conference in Los Angeles, and I could not be present, subsequently missing rollcall votes numbered 427, 428, and 429. Had I been present, I would have voted:

``Aye'' on rollcall No. 427, H.R. 2808, the ``Abraham Lincoln Commemorative Coin Act,''

``Aye'' on rollcall No. 428, H. Res. 605, ``Recognizing the life of Preston Robert Tisch and his outstanding contributions to New York City, the New York Giants Football Club, the National Football League, and the United States,'' and

``Aye''--on rollcall No. 429, H. Res. 875, ``Congratulating Spelman College on the Occasion of its 125th Anniversary.''

Mr. Speaker, America needs to be prepared. Whether for a commuter train attack, as we saw recently in India, or a hurricane, like we are still rebuilding from in New Orleans, it is clear America must get serious about all-hazards preparedness, that is preparing for all emergencies--be they natural or man-made.

Yesterday I introduced the Preparedness First Act to authorize critical grant programs that our State and local governments already depend on for all-hazards emergency preparation.

The premise of H.R. 5910 is to ensure that States and localities will have a basic level of

preparedness, so they can protect their citizens, communicate with each other, and work with the Federal Government during any type of emergency, from earthquakes to hurricanes to terrorist attacks.

The legislation starts by authorizing the Emergency Management Performance Grants Program, EMPG. The EMPG program provides broad base grants to ensure that States and localities have adequate, coordinated and up-to-date plans to respond to all-hazards emergencies.

In my bill, eligibility for all project grants is linked to their inclusion in these emergency plans. This will help ensure that projects will be vetted, remain a priority, and fit in with an overall plan of preparedness.

Next, the bill authorizes the State Homeland Security Grant Program, SHSGP, which awards block grants to States based on the risk of natural and man-made disasters. These grant funds buy the materials and supplies States need according to their emergency plans.

The bill also authorizes the Metropolitan Medical Response System, MMRS, to give regions the tools they need to respond to major medical emergencies caused by either natural disasters or a terrorist attack.

Finally, we authorize the Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, to give the added resources which are specifically needed for larger cities to respond to terrorism. Approval of UASI grants, like all of the grants in H.R. 5910, is tied to the inclusion of projects in State and local emergency plans.

Under my bill, all States would receive a base of preparedness funding. This would guarantee the Federal Government an able partner in every State to coordinate preparedness activities. Additional resources would then be made available to address the unique risk of natural and man-made disasters that are posed to each area.

This Federal and regional coordination is exactly what emergency managers have been calling for. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5910 and put all-hazard preparedness first for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably detained because my flight was canceled. I missed rollcall vote Nos. 394 through 396. Had I been present, I would have voted:

``Yes'' on rollcall No. 394, S. 1496--``Electronic Duck Stamp Act if 2005,'' ``yes'' on rollcall No. 395, S. 203--``National Heritage Areas Act of 2005,'' and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 396, H.R. 5535--``To establish a grant program whereby moneys collected from violations of the corporate average fuel economy program are used to expand infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of alternative fuels.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. This would allow us to consider the Cardin amendment to close the loophole in the agreement that would allow a foreign company based in Oman to operate U.S. port facilities.

Earlier on I was opposed to the Oman Free Trade Agreement because it undermines fundamental workers' rights. This free trade agreement is another blow to working families, exporting more of our jobs overseas. But I was shocked to learn that it could underpin the basic safety and security of those who I was sent here to represent.

I come from a community that is directly tied to this Nation's largest port, the Port of Long Beach. The safety and security of this port and all other American ports are essential to our country.

The Oman FTA directly threatens our ability to control our Nation's ports. The creators of this deal completely ignored Congress' overwhelming response to the Dubai Ports

World deal because, just like that deal, the Oman FTA has a very far- reaching provision hidden completely from the public eye.

Buried deep in the annex of this agreement, our country's right to determine who operates our ports of entry is given away. Who gets the new right to control vital American infrastructure? Any group of people or government that incorporates to do business in Oman.

The same people who supported the Dubai Ports World deal are now telling us that this is, again, nothing to worry about. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. We should not export the safety and security of Americans. I urge again my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, as a cochair of the Congressional Labor and Working Families Caucus, I rise today in strong opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement.

The Oman FTA contains no effective mechanisms to enforce labor or human rights laws. Instead, this agreement relies on the empty promises that Oman will enforce its own labor laws.

If we accept this deal, we are saying to foreign countries: It is okay to force labor among three-fourths of your workers.

We are telling them it is okay to deny workers the right to organize for safer working conditions and better wages.

If we accept this deal, we turn a blind eye to poor working conditions and organized human trafficking to fill sweat shops.

I would remind my colleagues that the terms and conditions of trade agreements determine what is and is not acceptable.

Let me be clear. If we agree to a deal that does not live up to basic labor and human rights standards, then we are deliberately establishing a lower standard for worker rights in this country and around the world. We should be setting a fair trade standard that allows the benefits of commerce to raise and not lower standards for everyone. Vote ``no'' on Oman FTA.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement. This deal is an expansion of a failed trade model that does not guarantee even the most basic labor standards, and it is simply unacceptable.

We are talking about an agreement with a country that our own State Department says does not meet the minimum requirements for trafficking people into forced labor. Even more shocking, labor unions don't even exist in Oman. Instead, workers are supposed to be represented by committees that actually are run by management.

In fact, Oman has only fixed one out of 10 areas where they are not compliant with the ILO. This is unacceptable.

We cannot preach about spreading freedom and opportunity around the world while ignoring the lack of labor and human rights standards in our trade bills. I urge my colleagues to reject the Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I support our national Pledge of Allegiance 100 percent. I strongly believe the Pledge teaches America's children national pride and a sense of civic responsibility.

However, I oppose H.R. 2389, the ``Pledge Protection Act.'' This bill is merely a reaction to one federal case: Newdow vs. U.S. Congress.

The 9th Circuit Federal court in Newdow held that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Established Clause of the Constitution. The court ruled that the phrase ``one nation under God'' within the Pledge impermissibly takes a position with respect to the identity and existence of God.

I disagree with the 9th Circuit's ruling in the Newdow case. However, I don't believe the way to protect the Pledge of Allegiance is by banning all federal courts from hearing cases dealing with the Pledge, which is what H.R. 2389 does. H.R. 2389 goes way too far. In fact, it violates the Constitution and the very spirit of the Pledge itself.

The federal courts, not the United States Congress, have the power to interpret and enforce rights protected under the Constitution. That is what the famous Marbury vs. Madison case was all about: separation of powers. But, H.R. 2389 violates the constitutional separation of powers principle, because it strips all federal courts of their power to make rulings on an individual's right to choose whether to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

To ensure that America remains an indivisible and proud Nation, it is very important that we protect the Pledge of Allegiance, but it is even more important that we do not violate the Constitution and undermine the federal courts to do so.

Therefore, I oppose H.R. 2389.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Republican leadership clearly doesn't get it. Our country is grappling with skyrocketing gas prices, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the constant threat of terrorism, concerns about pension security, and the rising cost of health care insurance.

But instead of addressing these priorities, what does the Republican leadership decide we need to focus on? Gay marriage, of course. As if passing the Federal Marriage Amendment would magically make all of our country's biggest challenges go away.

This resolution is not only a waste of time; it is completely unnecessary. The Senate has already rejected this amendment, so we know that even if the House passes this, the bill is not going anywhere.

Furthermore, 45 States already ban same-sex marriage, either by statute or by their State constitution.

Even more important, passage of this amendment would mark the first time that our Constitution has been amended to take rights away from people. Amending our Constitution to force States to discriminate against a targeted group of Americans would tarnish our history of protecting everybody's equal rights under the law.

I therefore strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose all four of today's amendments and pass a clean Voting Rights Act reauthorization.

The four amendments that have been made in order are poison pills. If the two irrational section 5 amendments pass, the VRA's coverage formula would be repealed, and the Department of Justice will spend its time conducting studies in jurisdictions with no discrimination, instead of actively fighting discrimination in jurisdictions with ongoing voting rights violations.

If the mean-spirited section 203 amendment passes, eligible voting- age citizens will be deprived of language assistance and lose the chance to cast an informed, accurate vote for the candidate of their choice.

If the Gohmert amendment passes, jurisdictions will wait out their obligations to end discrimination under the VRA rather than comply with the VRA, which will result in the same kind of widespread noncompliance with the VRA that we sought in the late 1970s.

All of these amendments are inconsistent with the spirit and the intent of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act protects the most fundamental right in a democracy, the right to vote; and it is our most powerful tool to help ensure that no American citizen is subject to discrimination at the polls. The Voting Rights Act plays a critical role in fulfilling the promise of American democracy. It has given voice to minority communities, and without it, many black, Hispanic, and Asian American leaders would not be holding elected office today. Passing this bill will also honor the sacrifices of the men and women who died and suffered injuries fighting for equality during the civil rights movement.

That is why reauthorization of H.R. 9 has the support of Republicans and Democrats, Senators and House Representatives, businesses, civil rights groups, editorial boards, and grass-roots organizations around the country.

Let us pass H.R. 9 clean by opposing all four amendments offered today and voting ``yes'' on final passage.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Stearns amendment. This amendment would allow States and localities to discriminate against tax-paying American citizens. This amendment forces the Federal Government to disenfranchise American citizens from our most precious right of voting.

Unfortunately, a misinformed few from the other side of the aisle have confused this issue. The Voting Rights Act has nothing to do with immigration. Let me repeat that: section 203 of the Voting Rights Act has nothing to do with immigration. One hundred percent of the people served by section 203 are U.S. citizens.

I know a little bit about this. Both of my parents are naturalized citizens. My mother is an elementary schoolteacher who teaches other people's children English. She has difficulty sometimes.

Mr. Chairman, if we want to spread democracy around the world, we should not be disenfranchising American citizens who want to vote here. That is why I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Stearns amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this week the Labor- H appropriations bill was supposed to be on the floor, but at the last minute, the House Republican leadership stripped the bill from the schedule. It appears that the GOP is delaying a vote on this bill solely because it includes an increase in the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is now at its lowest point in half a century. Last week the Appropriations Committee voted to gradually increase the minimum wage. This increase will provide a much-needed boost to 7 million Americans, hard-working people who get up every morning and go to work.

It is unfortunate that for almost a decade the Republican leadership has been forcing working families to make impossible choices, choices between paying the rent and buying groceries or between paying the heating bill and buying much-needed prescription medication.

An increase in the minimum wage is about fairness, and that is why the American people overwhelmingly support an increase. Now that the House Appropriations Committee has acted, it is time for the Republican leadership to bring this bill up for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have had enough of not having enough to get by.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in honoring those serving in our Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all the civilians serving here at home and abroad to protect America from terrorism.

With the support of their families, the brave men and women of our Armed Forces have performed their duties with professionalism and distinction. They and their families deserve the gratitude of this nation. We especially honor, and will never forget, the more than 2,500 Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice in our nation's service. And their families have our enduring sympathies for their loss.

To honor all who have taken an active part in the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world, it is the duty of Congress to aggressively pursue the most effective strategy for winning the Iraq War by demanding accountability for poor planning, mismanagement, and lack of oversight, in addition to developing a new direction that includes a responsible redeployment of U.S. Forces.

While I agree with most of the content of H. Res. 861, I cannot vote in favor of it because it does not acknowledge the need for a new direction in Iraq. This resolution was offered without any opportunity for amendment, preventing the House of Representatives from holding a full and fair debate on the most important matter facing our nation today. Our troops, and all Americans, deserve a better and more responsible debate. While I will not support this resolution, I will always continue to stand by our troops and their families.