Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this lobby bill began with grand talk and broad promises, and today it is ending with a whimper. The announcement was the high watermark. Since then, the Republican strategy has been on each of these reforms, let the weak get weaker, and to reject most every Democratic proposal that has been advanced, even some like my own that had no visible opposition.

So much has been stripped from this bill that if it remains here another week, there won't be anything left but the name, and the name is certainly appropriate, The Transparency Act, because you can see right through this bill, that it does not reflect any meaningful bipartisan reform of a very corrupt system.

Tragically, the party of Abraham Lincoln is becoming the party of Abramoff. No wonder you have blocked every effort we have made to investigate this wretched scandal. With all the special interest wining and dining, what a ``Grand Old Party'' it is. But it is a grand party for everyone but the taxpayers, who have to pick up the tab, because corruption is not a victimless crime. Ask those who bear the higher price at the gas pump, who bear the costs as taxpayers of no-bid Halliburton contracts, or the suffering of our seniors from a pharmaceutical bill written for the manufacturers, not for the seniors.

This bill represents no right step in the right direction, no true incremental reform. It is, instead, a phony, contrived maneuver to obstruct genuine change, to stop the greed and end the culture of corruption that is weakening our country.

We have come forward as Democrats with one proposal after another to reach across the aisle and to try to address this corruption, but at every turn our hand has been slapped away by those who are content with the corrupt system that is ruining this country and damaging this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of both of my colleagues on the floor and the support of both the chairmen and the ranking members and staff of the Resources Committee and the subcommittee.

I rise in support of this legislation that I have offered on behalf of the City of Austin in addressing the growing water needs that we have in Central Texas in a fiscally and environmentally responsible way.

This particular project deals with the design, planning, and construction of a project to use wastewater and reclaim it in our community.

The Bureau of Reclamation was originally authorized to get involved with such projects in 1992, and this bill adds Austin to the list of eligible projects under what is known as Title 16. The bill will help the City with Federal funds to supplement what Austin is already doing locally to expand our water reclamation facilities.

Under Title 16, Federal participation is limited, and the City will remain responsible for at least three-fourths of the cost of the project.

Reclaimed water, or treated wastewater, is generally used when high- quality drinkable water is not required, such as for irrigation, industrial cooling towers, and for various manufacturing purposes.

For more than 20 years, the City of Austin has operated its own water reclamation project for irrigation and to supply the composting operations at the Hornsby Bend Plant on the Colorado River.

In Texas, although we have some mighty powerful rivers, we also have a mighty thirsty State. I believe that by conserving the many resources with which we have been blessed in Central Texas, we can ensure an ample water supply for the indefinite future.

This reclamation initiative will reduce the demand on Austin's existing water supply and conserve high-quality water from the Colorado River for human consumption.

Austin's existing reclaimed water system consists of 16 miles of pipe, 1.5 million gallons of storage in 2 tanks, 3 pump stations, and 2 pressure zones. We envision a much-expanded system under the master plan. We will reclaim water through 123 miles of pipe, 17 million gallons of storage, and multiple pump stations and pressure zones. For the system to grow from its existing limited capacity to its ultimate size will take about $200 million in additional infrastructure over the coming years. When completed, the expanded system authorized by this bill could eventually save as much as 9 billion gallons of water every year.

Austin is already a national leader in planning for a sustainable future that improves our quality of life, boosts economic development, and protects the environment. Water conservation is a key part of that plan and a critical issue for a growing economy in an environmentally- minded city. Even with active water conservation programs, the maximum daily demand for water in Austin increased by 43 percent during the 1990s. Austin recognizes that aggressive conservation efforts can meet about half of our future shortfall, but expanding our reclamation capabilities can get us the rest of the way there.

Ben Franklin once said, ``When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.'' Well, this bill demonstrates that Austinites know the worth of water before our source of water goes

dry, and we are taking steps to ensure water for our future.

The City and the Bureau of Reclamation have already advanced the project by completing a favorable Appraisal Report and beginning a Feasibility Study. The Appraisal Report concluded that the city's projected water ``shortage can be eliminated by more aggressive water reclamation'' and that ``there is a Federal interest in pursuing water reclamation and reuse investigations in Austin.''

In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt said, ``The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem, it will avail us little to solve all others.'' With your help, the capital of the Lone Star State can make even more significant strides in managing its water resources. I urge approval of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the lives and livelihood of tens of thousands of Texans in a major hurricane zone are at risk because of defective federal levees that only the federal government can repair.

I am here to ask that on the third vote this morning, our colleagues support an amendment offered on behalf of myself, Congressman Ortiz, and Congress Reyes to prevent another Hurricane Katrina-like disaster. This map shows the area of McAllen, Mission, Hidalgo, and Pharr, Texas--a booming community of hardworking Americans, small businesses, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes.

That is how it looks today. This is how it will look if those federal levees fail, covered not in blue plastic, but in water. Because the federal levees are up to 9 feet deficient in height according to a report of the U.S. State Department.

In order to prevent the destruction of the lives and livelihood of those hardworking Americans, we need the $7.8 million modest appropriation proposed in our amendment. Save lives and prevent a tragedy from occurring by approving emergency appropriations to assist the repair of these important federal levees.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this $7.8 million State Department amendment that I offer tonight on behalf of myself, Mr. Ortiz, and Mr. Reyes empowers you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Mr. Wolf, as our important subcommittee chairman, and the conferees to address a serious threat to the lives and livelihood of tens of thousands of Texans who call home an area along the southernmost tip of our country that encompasses three congressional districts.

Consistent with the rule under which this bill is being considered, these dollars would simply go to the State Department. But I believe in conference you would be able to clarify, consistent with tonight's debate, that it is designed to upgrade the Federal levees along the Rio Grande that are under the exclusive control of the International Boundary and Water Commission, an agency within the State Department.

Exactly 1,018 days ago, the administration received what was really an alarming report from within its own State Department that our Federal levees along the Rio Grande are up to 9 feet deficient in height, geologically flawed, structurally unsound, and would overtop along some 38 river miles. We know that the time to make repairs is when the sun is shining, not when the flood is coming. The kind of wall that we need along our borders, along our southern border, is a wall to hold in a swollen Rio Grande river. A levee.

What do the levees' weaknesses reported by the State Department mean if you live in the Rio Grande Valley? Well, this is an aerial photo of much of that area. It includes the poorest SMSA, statistical metropolitan area, in the United States: Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Hidalgo. Hardworking people, small businesses, mission hospital, nursing homes, schools, Balboa Acres neighborhood, along with many others. That is what they look like today on an aerial photo.

What happens if the levees' break? That is what they will look like. They are going to be underwater. And the best way to reach these places is going to be by boat. If the Federal levees are not maintained adequately, and they have not been maintained adequately according to the State Department itself, we will lose 80 percent of our fresh water supply in McAllen, Texas. We will lose two-thirds of the sewer system, which will become unworkable.

That is what we call an emergency, as in emergency supplemental appropriations, in south Texas. We believe that the need is urgent, and that is why some 39 local governments across our three congressional districts, Chambers of Commerce and economic development corporations have pled with the administration to respond to this need.

Last year, under the leadership of Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan, the State Department appropriations bill that this Congress passed called on the President for additional funding. Afterwards, Chairman Wolf and Mr. Mollohan wrote Secretary of State Rice a letter asking for support for rehabilitating these levees, recognizing how many people would suffer if they were not rehabilitated, and noting from their letter, that ``this impacts the safety of the citizens of the Valley.''

Of course, the Valley levees are not the only levees in the country that have problems. I know, Mr. Lewis, that your own State of California has concerns in Sacramento. I would say to you that our situation is unique and different in several particulars. This flooded area, with deficient levees, are exclusively Federal levees that only the Federal Government can remedy because they are along an international border under the control of the State Department.

Second, we are in a hurricane area, a high hurricane area. Last year, we ran out of names we had so many hurricanes, and this year promises another severe hurricane season. But for the fate of nature, the hurricane that hit New Orleans could just as easily have tacked west instead of tacking east and caused just the scenario that is displayed here tonight on this aerial photo.

What I propose, Mr. Chairman, is to add about half a percent, less than the increase that the chairman just agreed to for the last amendment, about half a percent to the $1.3 billion in the State Department, and ask that you clarify in conference that it is to meet a need that I know you are aware exists, and I believe you are trying to respond to. And I believe the State Department recognized and wanted that in this emergency appropriations bill, but somewhere in the bureaucratic process this was not included.

I know that there is more work we will be doing together. I appreciate the meeting that was held today with representatives from south Texas concerning this problem with Mr. Wolf's staff and the meeting we will have tomorrow with the International Boundary and Water Commission. We have our request coming up in the regular appropriations process. But without an emergency appropriation, I believe that the Federal Government really is not meeting its responsibility, a responsibility to the lives and livelihoods of the good hardworking people along the Texas Rio Grande Valley.

That is all this amendment is trying to do, knowing that it could be this summer in hurricane season, it could be next year or the year after. Every day, every month we delay, a thousand days has been enough, and that we need to move forward in addressing this concern now. I thank you.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I respect the subcommittee chairman's comments. I do not think he or the Appropriations Committee or the chairman of the full committee are the problem. They recognized this problem last year when they asked the State Department to take additional action. The State Department took additional action, and I believe they asked to be included in this emergency appropriations bill.

We need help in the regular appropriations cycle. We will need that help not just this year but every year for probably the next 10 years. It is a modest amount. All we are asking for is $7.8 million to add to the $2.2 million that was appropriated last year, the $10 million a year that this part of the State Department has been saying since 2003 that they need to avert disaster.

So tonight I would ask all of my colleagues to join with us in meeting an emergency with an emergency appropriation, and then we will strive to work together in a positive, bipartisan way to address what I know the committee recognizes to be a real, genuine, urgent problem.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, New Orleans is not the only place where tens of thousands of Americans stand in peril from flooding and drowning because of defective levees. The good people across three congressional districts along the Rio Grande River at the southernmost tip of Texas are just as much at risk with hurricane season only weeks away. That is why I will be offering today an amendment to prevent the next Katrina-like disaster.

We Texans in the Valley must rely on the Federal Government, which has the exclusive, sole responsibility for ensuring the integrity of our levees and protecting our lives and livelihood from flooding. Exactly 1,018 days ago, this Administration received an alarming report from a part of its own State Department that those Federal levees are up to ``9 feet deficient in height,'' geologically flawed, structurally unsound, and would ``overtop along 38 river miles.''

So urgent is the problem that last year the Appropriations Committee asked the Administration to request additional levee money, and I believe the State Department wants to do this, but the President's request is strangely silent on this matter.

Recognizing the risk of loss of lives, the disruption of families, the substantial economic harm that would be caused, 39 local governments, chambers of commerce and economic development corporations have called on this administration to act. So have Congressmen Ortiz, Reyes, Hinojosa and myself, working together, to seek the $7.8 million requested here which represents the difference between the little bit that was appropriated last year and what the IBWC says it needs to prevent a flooding disaster.

A few million in flood prevention today could save billions of dollars in flood relief. The Federal Government should not shirk its responsibility, its sole responsibility, to protect the lives and livelihood of the good Americans who live and work in the Texas Rio Grande Valley.

Offered By: Mr. Doggett

Amendment No. 8: Page 35, line 20, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(increased by $7,800,000)''.

I have just returned from a joyful celebration at the White House, not one about red or blue States, but about burnt orange, branded into the pages of sports history.

As much as all of us can come together to celebrate the dramatic UT National Championship, I think that supporting Longhorns and supporting university students means much more. It means providing a Federal financial commitment to our students to let them achieve their individual greatness.

When qualified students cannot afford to attend a university, all of us lose. This President's budget, as far as I can tell, is one big fumble. Because once again, added on top of the $12 billion that Republicans have just cut in Federal student financial assistance, are additional cuts to Perkins loans and to GEAR UP for those who are trying to get into college.

For the students that I represent at the University of Texas-Pan American, who already face big financial challenges, this burden is going to be a great one. One in four of the students have dependent children and more than 75 percent are first-generation students. I hope that we can make substantial changes and show a real commitment to Longhorns and students everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

A budget is indeed about choices about picking winners and losers. And there is a certain consistency in the approach that we have seen in this Republican Congress.

Each year this administration targets the same losers and rewards the same winners. Each year it offers more tax breaks for those at the top, the wealthiest few, and it insists that the deficits that are thereby created be paid for in part by cutting aid to working families, to students and to our seniors. Each year it sacrifices long-term fiscal responsibility at the altar of short-term political gratification, escalating the national debt to subsidize private fortunes.

The administration's budget does not just crunch numbers, however, it crunches people.

Only last week the same folks that are here today demanding more and more tax breaks for those at the very top were here saying they had billions in what they called ``savings'' to help finance these tax cuts. But if you were a family caring for an abused and neglected child, that savings meant no support.

If you were a single mom relying on Federal child support enforcement to get a deadbeat dad to pay their monthly child support payments, it meant no child support.

For many a student relying on Federal student financial assistance, it meant an inability to get aid to go to school. And the health cuts, the same burdens imposed on the most vulnerable.

This Republican-controlled Congress continues to make these cuts to the vulnerable while offering high tax cuts for million-dollar-a-year- income folks. Extending these tax breaks today will put over $32,000 in the hands of people who earn a million dollars or more every year. While true that some of the 64 percent of families who earn less than $50,000 a year will get a tax cut, too, it will amount to only about $11 a year. So it is the difference between giving a new car to some of the privileged few and a car wash to the 64 percent.

The difference that they propose today is the difference between tuition at some fancy private school to the few, but only a pack of pencils to the many. It is the difference between a down payment on another vacation villa for the wealthy and some Lincoln logs or Legos for most everyone else.

At the very moment we are now debating this, the Office of Management and Budget is over here at the Capitol whacking away again at what they claim are unnecessary programs. But there are more programs that they propose to eliminate or significantly reduce in the Education Department than in any other department in the Federal government. Such unfortunate actions by the Republicans create another kind of deficit, an ``opportunity deficit,'' where young people and some not so young are not able to obtain the resources needed to achieve their full, God- given potential.

I think it is wrong to add to that opportunity deficit in our communities, just as it is wrong to build a national deficit that those future generations will be asked to pay. There is no balance in the budget these folks are offering to us today, and there is no equity either. It ought to be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I was amazed a few minutes ago to have the Office of Management and Budget Director tell me in a committee hearing that the administration is eliminating the $255 death benefit available to widows and widowers under Social Security as a part of its great budget savings; justified, he told me, because that death benefit is anachronistic, to use his term.

Well, as far as I know, death is still occurring across America. There are poor widows and widowers for whom $255 is an important contribution toward the cost of a burial. The fault has been in not keeping that $255 benefit with the purchasing power it had for a widow or widower in the 1950s.

A benefit that goes back to 1939 under Social Security is one of the benefits that the President and this Republican Congress in their budget propose now to eliminate. It is wrong and I hope this House will reject this unfortunate move.

Mr. Speaker, like the President's wishful, staged declaration of ``Mission Accomplished'' on that aircraft carrier 2\1/2\ years ago, or the Vice President's declaration that the insurgency was in its ``final throes,'' this resolution proclaims the desire of Congress for ``victory'' in Iraq.

Instead of dispatching our troops in adequate numbers, this Congress made one speech after another. Instead of covering our troops with adequate, impenetrable armor, this Congress passed one paper resolution after another like this, which provided little shield from those who would do our brave men and women harm.

Well, each day's news shows how out of touch this Administration and its congressional followers continue to be. Like the administration, this Congress has no idea what victory means other than trying to escape the morass that its bad judgment got us into.

I believe that victory in Iraq, which we all desire, begins with a commitment to championing the truth. This is an administration that cannot utter ``Iraq'' without saying ``9/11,'' even though it knows there is absolutely no connection between the two.

To win a war you have to shoot straight. Our young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan understand that, but this administration and its congressional followers demonstrate again and again that they do not-- when they are discussing the real weakness of the Iraqi army or fail to do so, the strength of the insurgency, or the length our armed forces should be deployed.

They are so proud of the democratic choices made in Iraq this week and so very fearful for there to be any democratic choices on the resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and others. They fear a democratic debate in this House because their position is one of complete weakness. They have waved the white flag themselves at the possibility of a true debate in this Congress.

What we need is a genuine debate about the best pathway for our security in Iraq. The President finally conceded over 30,000 civilians have died in this invasion. We have passed 2,000 young, brave men and women in the service of America, and we are on the way to 3,000.

This administration has begun a public relations offensive when what we need is an offensive for the protection of our families. It has abandoned that

in favor of a meaningless political victory, not a real plan for success for the security of our families.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Has the President or your resolution been willing to declare that it rejects the idea of permanent bases in Iraq?

Mr. Speaker, given the stated interest in democracy here in the House, I would ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to permit for division of the question so that we could express our unanimous support for the various provisions of this resolution, except for that on which we have disagreement as to the best way to achieve success in Iraq. At this point, so that we can have the kind of democracy that occurred this week in Iraq, of which the majority seems so proud, and actually have it right here on the floor of the House, I ask unanimous consent for a division of the question on the provisions of this resolution.

Given his professed interest in democracy, I am sure he will yield for that unanimous consent.

Shocking, truly shocking, that democracy cannot exist here on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, these cut-and-run Republicans cut off discussion of real security options and run up billion dollar bills every month.

Thin paper resolutions like this have not deflected bullets from our troops, and another such gimmick will not deflect accountability from a failed policy.

We are leaving Iraq. It is only a matter of when, of how many brave young Americans return home alive, how much we deplete our national treasury in the meantime, what chaos is left behind, and how many more terrorists are recruited while you dither and delay.

This resolution is not leading. It is misleading. And the pull-out most needed is to pull your heads out of the sand and listen to sound military advice, like the sound military advice of decorated military heroes like Jack Murtha, like the sound military advice that should have been heeded before this mission ever got under way.

Only yesterday, the President renounced torture, but Republicans still cannot renounce the notion of permanent military bases occupying Iraq. ``Support our troops'' is more than a slogan. ``Support our troops'' means giving them the armor and the number they need to succeed in their job. It means never exploiting their courage and sacrifice for political gain or to advance failed policies. It is time that our troops get the support they need and that people stop hiding behind their valor and give them a strategy that works.

Abandonment and surrender, you say? For three years, you have abandoned reality and surrendered to fantasy. Stop repeating the same old mistakes. Step up to a new course that offers more hope for our future and for our security than the string of missteps in which you are currently mired.

Madam Speaker, today Republicans propose to criminalize those who offer the slightest help to undocumented immigrants--water to the thirsty or food for the hungry. Church members could become felons for their faith, facing 5 years in prison.

So if on some silent night, when all is calm and all is bright, a young man and a clearly pregnant woman from out of town ask if they can rest by your manger, be warned: first verify their visas.

With similar zealotry to preserve the right to torture, cut food stamps and deny aid to abused and neglected children, these same folks publicly preach that it's the rest of us who have forgotten the meaning of Christmas.

But this year the Administration's true Christmas tidings seem to be--``Neither Peace on Earth, nor Goodwill Toward Men.''

Mr. Speaker, all Americans have an interest in securing our borders, but this bill is neither genuine security nor fairness. It threatens American businesses, agriculture, and it certainly threatens to destroy border commerce and punish hardworking border citizens.

This is just the latest in a series of bad bills that appeal to the worst fears and prejudices of xenophobes rather than advancing meaningful immigration reform. It is a cynical bill because it is not comprehensive. There is no one-dimensional solution looking solely at law enforcement that can succeed. There is no wall that can be built high enough to solve this problem.

Over a century ago, my own great grandfather came from Sweden to Louisiana to chop sugar cane. He came for the same reason that many people come to this country today: to take on the most difficult jobs in order to have a better life. Until we address that economic concern with a meaningful guest worker program, we will not address immigration today.

To the extent that the border is inadequately patrolled, this is a direct result not of the lack of a law, but a lack of will by the Bush administration in its mismanagement of the Border Patrol. Last year, this Congress approved 2,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and President Bush responded by saying we only need 210 of those 2,000 Border Patrol agents for the entire country. In September, even our Texas Republican colleagues demanded that President Bush ``stop raiding our Texas Border Patrol'' and called the reassignment of agents to Arizona an ``outrageous action [that] is crippling border security in Texas.'' Today, instead of Border Patrol agents, the Republicans say we need to punish church workers who live their faith by assisting persons in need without first checking their visas.

The kind of measure we are offered is not new. It is part of a sad and recurring theme in American history. In the 19th century, it was the work of the Know-Nothing Party. Today, there are some in this Republican leadership who want to make the Republican Party the Know- Nothing Party of the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, in Texas, gray skies could mean a twister, a hurricane, or just a lot of rain. To avoid disaster, we want a reliable weather forecast. The same when we go to the doctor, a diagnosis before taking necessary action. And the same should also be true of our economic health.

Families that work hard to earn a pension depend on it for retirement security. But too many suddenly find that their pension funds are drained, denying them of the dignified and comfortable retirement for which they have worked a lifetime.

In addition to the many other problems identified here today by my Democratic Ways and Means colleagues, this bill lacks a pension disclosure requirement that would empower workers to understand just how strong or weak their pension plans really are. Having to wait until a retirement fund's bankruptcy is announced in the newspaper is a little too late for employees to take any remedial action to be able to protect themselves.

Both the Government Accountability Office and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation recommend that employees be provided information far beyond the provisions of this bill. I think it is important that we not leave the employees in the dark with corporate employers blocking the light switch.

A majority of the House voted to allow the Federal Government to comb through library records yesterday. Why can employees not be allowed full access to their own pension information today?

Mr. Speaker, true patriots need not hide behind the flag nor apply phony titles to cover the misguided purposes of their legislation.

From its origin, this grossly misnamed PATRIOT Act has cloaked its weaknesses by implying that its opponents are ``un-patriots'' as in ``unpatriotic.'' This is all part of a troubling pattern: secret prisons, sneak and peek searches, gag orders, redefining torture to exclude cruel and degrading punishment, extraordinary rendition, combing through library records, and even attempting to misuse our military to spy on religious groups.

These acts debase our American values. This bill should be rejected because it fails to strike the proper balance between the security we demand and the liberties that we cherish.

Yes, Vice President Cheney has suddenly emerged from his secure, undisclosed location and taken pause from his campaign to preserve torture in order to enthusiastically embrace today's bill. But intrusive, invasive powers in the hands of a few with little oversight and no accountability is a formula for wrongdoing. We should not surrender our liberties to any Administration. Retreating to such abusive tactics is weakness, not strength.

We should not add even more powers to an Administration that has so often been willing to abuse its existing power, nor should we add more authority to an Administration that has acted in authoritarian ways. Real patriots understand that an all-powerful government can undermine our security just as surely as a dangerous religious fanatic.

And all of this is occurring when the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, the citizens' commission that this Administration fought every step of the way, is giving the Administration and this Republican Congress one F after another for not protecting our families. Instead, we get this kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, authoritarianism is not born full-bodied. It is conceived in small injustices, which tolerated over time become irreversible. Benjamin Franklin understood when he said, ``Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.''

This much is certain, each day of this Administration brings more news of both deaths of true patriots abroad and more abuses of our values by those who claim to be patriots at home. This is an Administration where the ends always seem to justify the means. But their ``ends'' too often betray our safety, and their ``means'' forsake our values.

To those who promote this misguided act, pull down your false colors; raise the American flag of freedom. Reject this bill.