Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor one of our country's great leaders, and a dear friend Congressman Robert Matsui.

Bob Matsui was a valued colleague to every member of the House. He was a leading expert on countless issues that have a profound effect on the lives of millions of Americans, not the least of which is Social Security. From his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, Bob fought on behalf of seniors and children, and sought to build thoughtful bipartisan consensus on one tough issue after another.

Bob approached this job with grace, fairness, and dignity. Even though he was chairman of our Party's political committee, he never put partisanship above principle. His intelligence was only exceeded by his compassion. We always refer to one another as ``gentleman'' and ``gentle lady'' on this floor, but there is no Member of Congress for whom the term ``gentleman'' is more appropriate. It is indeed fitting to hold this tribute on the day we swear in the new Congress, because the way Bob conducted himself should be a model for all of us--freshmen and senior Members alike.

Bob was a cherished friend and valued mentor to both my late husband Walter and me. When Walter was first elected to Congress, Bob was one of the first people he sought out to ask for advice on his new job. As usual, Bob was generous with his time and his wisdom. We both learned much from him and I have relied on his policy insights and his political instincts more times than I can remember. I know that I will still instinctively look for him on the floor during a tough vote.

Mr. Speaker, Bob and Doris Matsui were there for my family and for me when Walter passed away. Today I extend to Doris, Brian, Amy, Anna, and Bob's staff my most heartfelt condolences. I understand how difficult this time is for them. But I am buoyed by knowing that strength in families is never more evident, and important, than during times of adversity and grief. The Matsuis are a strong and wonderful family, and that, perhaps, is Bob's finest legacy of all.

We will miss Bob Matsui very much. But we will never, ever forget him.

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall votes and would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 3--``nay''; rollcall No. 4-- ``nay''; rollcall No. 5--``yea''; rollcall No. 6--``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I rise today to support the California Missions Preservation Act. I also want to thank our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for their assistance, and the leadership of our chairman as well in moving this legislation. I also want to thank our Senators, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, for helping to get this bill successfully through the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, California's missions are instantly recognizable as symbols of our States's rich history and cultural heritage, but they are also some of the oldest structures in North America and an integral part of our Nation's heritage, and so they deserve our Federal support.

Our State's missions are in dire need of structural attention and major rehabilitation. Natural deterioration and neglect have taken a heavy toll on these missions. Some are crumbling and are at risk. Most need preservation and seismic work to restore their antique beauty and to bring them up to modern safety standards. Without immediate repairs, centuries-old buildings and artifacts could be lost to a major earthquake or a flood.

For example, at Mission Santa Barbara in my congressional district, often called the Queen of the Missions, $1.5 million is needed now to repair adobe columns that are turning to salt.

Keeping California's missions together will require about $50 million in structural repair work and another $11 million to renovate art works and accommodate visitors. The primary goal of this legislation is to restore and repair the missions and to preserve the art works and artifacts associated with them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), for giving us the history of what the missions have meant to our State. As every California school child learns, the missions have shaped the future of California. They were among the first European settlements in our region and formed a chain along the coast from San Diego to Sonoma.

With respect to our colleague from Nevada and his concerns about chapters of history that the missions were associated with, I would submit that preserving the missions gives us an opportunity to preserve that sorry chapter of our Nation's history and to learn from those lessons so that we do not repeat them.

The missions are also among the State's most frequently visited historic sites, attracting more than 5.5 million tourists each year, contributing greatly to our State's economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be part of this important effort on behalf of California's missions. This long overdue effort is encouraging in that the entire California congressional delegation has responded with such enthusiasm about this bill.

Again, I want to thank my colleagues for supporting it and urge its immediate passage.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 531, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like permission to speak in place of my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, as we come to the end of another Congress, as the country stands ready to pick a new President for the next 4 years, it is appropriate to ask is America better off today than it was 4 years ago.

In terms of health care, the answer is clearly no. Since 2001, as the economy has weakened, the cost of insurance has risen. These two factors have increased the number of uninsured Americans. There are now over 5 million more Americans without insurance than at the beginning of the Bush administration. That is right, 5.2 million more.

In 2004, insurance premiums went up 11 percent, and at the same time inflation and, more importantly, workers' wages have gone up by less than 3 percent. This unaffordable increase comes on top of an increase of almost 14 percent in 2003, 13 percent in 2002, almost 11 percent in 2001. Each of these increases far outstrips pay raises. So in that time, a family's share of health insurance premiums have gone up $1,000, a whopping 57 percent.

With such a weak economy and without sufficient increases in wages, these increases are devastating to a working family; but this administration, this congressional leadership have not done a thing to help. In fact, they have made it harder to help people struggling with the high cost of insurance.

Just last week, the administration took over $1 billion in unused children's health insurance funds away from the States.

This money could have easily been redistributed to shore up State programs and to expand coverage. And despite the continuing State budget crises, the administration has refused to grant more fiscal relief.

These actions and the refusal of the administration to put more funding into Medicaid have put unbelievable pressure on States to cut back their insurance programs. In 2004, 19 States cut benefits. Twenty have increased copayments. In 2003, 18 States cut benefits and 17 increased copayments. And as of right now, nine more States plan to take these steps in the coming year. This is all happening because of the administration's refusal to help.

In addition, under the President's watch, prescription drug prices have skyrocketed. The administration did nothing to reduce these prices or to help people pay for them. Last year, the Republican leadership and this President shoved a Medicare bill through the House in the dead of night. That bill, written by the prescription drug and private insurance companies, offered a sham prescription drug benefit.

The President and congressional leadership blocked Medicare from negotiating lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries in the bill, and the President has fought efforts to allow seniors to import cheaper prescription medications, despite bipartisan support. Their answer was the so-called prescription drug discount card, which has proved to be a failure.

Reports done by the House Committee on Government Reform, and I did them in my district, have exposed that the prices with these cards can be higher than Canadian drug prices, and they are much higher than the prices seniors could get if Medicare would negotiate on behalf of America's 40 million seniors.

But this is not even the worst of it. The President's bill has set the stage to privatize Medicare. It shovels an additional $46 billion to managed care companies in order to push seniors into HMOs. And the President has asked seniors to pay for that by increasing their own premiums by 17 percent. The media reports that the administration is hiding bigger premium increases down the road.

It seems pretty clear to me that America is not better off than it was 4 years ago. Democrats want to lower the cost of health insurance for small businesses through a new tax credit. We want to extend health insurance coverage to 7\1/2\ million parents through Medicaid and CHIP, and we want to help older Americans who cannot afford to purchase health insurance so they can buy into Medicare.

Democrats have a New Partnership For America's Future, one that ensures our security and lays the foundation for a strong and prosperous economy, and that is what we are fighting for.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment. As lawmakers, our responsibility is to preserve the rights and dignity of all Americans. That leaves me to oppose this constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

I support the right of a State or local jurisdiction to give gay and lesbian couples equal marriage rights under the law. This proposal is an unnecessary and divisive attack on the gay and lesbian community. It would dictate that communities deny the equal provision of rights, benefits and responsibilities of partnership for gay and lesbian couples.

This is an unparalleled attempt to force discrimination against a group of Americans. It is antithetical to other constitutional amendments that expand rights for women and African-Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution exists to protect our rights, not to take them away. This amendment would be the first, and only, amendment to set aside one group of Americans, giving them fewer rights than other Americans. Additionally, it would strip them of rights currently given them by several States.

Gay and lesbian couples deserve to have their commitment honored with the same rights to insurance, health care authority and visitation, adoption and other benefits granted to committed couples.

I thought the days of enshrining discrimination in our laws were long behind us. A century ago, women were unable to file for divorce and could not have owned property. What if we had enshrined that discrimination for all time? Within the last 40 years, interracial marriages were outlawed. Imagine if that had been formalized in the Constitution.

This complete disregard for human rights is not necessary to protect religious freedom in our country either. No church or other house of worship is required to marry couples of the same gender.

The role of the Federal Government in defining the institution of marriage has historically been a limited one, deferring to States and religious organizations. So this is a cruel and callous attempt to disenfranchise a group of Americans for political gain. It calls for the discrimination of a group in a document almost exclusively devoted to protecting and expanding the rights of Americans.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and this attempt to insert bigotry into our Constitution.

I thank my colleague from the District of Columbia for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Our troops are struggling in Iraq. The budget deficit is at an all-time high. The Republican-led Congress has failed to finish its work on the budget, on appropriations bills, the highway bill, all of the legislation vital to keeping our country going, and the response from the Republican leadership? Pass a bill repealing gun laws in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill on its own merit and an affront to the citizens of Washington, D.C. The citizens of this District have the right to enact laws to make their neighborhoods safer without interference from the Congress and the NRA. This is election-year politics practiced at the expense of District residents who do not even have a vote in the House or the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, the fight against terrorism is a focus of this Presidential campaign, as it should be, and the fight against terrorism is a given in our daily lives. We live in a time of high alerts. Checkpoints now ring this Capitol. Yet passage of this bill into law would certainly not aid in our war against terrorism. It would in fact encourage proliferation of weapons in the immediate vicinity of the Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court, and scores of Federal agencies and foreign embassies located throughout this city.

One would think that our congressional leadership would want us to support the policemen and -women who work to protect us and these institutions which are such national symbols, all of which present tempting targets for terrorists or the deranged.

But this legislation would undermine the efforts of our local law enforcement and put our police at even greater risk. It is an antipolice bill, abuse of congressional power, and an attempt to draw attention away from what we should be working on. I urge my colleagues to vote down this ill-conceived measure.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the achievements of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme as they celebrate National Kids Day.

Boys and Girls Clubs of America and KidsPeace created National Kids Day in 2001 to foster stronger relationships between adults and children by educating them on the importance and value of spending meaningful time together. National Kids Day provides the opportunity for every adult to take a break, celebrate and renew their commitment to our Nation's children.

National Kids Day is so important because it emphasizes the importance of meaningful time spent with kids, not only on this special day, but each day of the year. Kids Day serves as a reminder that children need positive adult role models in their lives. As a nurse, I understand firsthand the importance of education and the effect that having adult involvement in each child's life has on grades, self- esteem, and overall success.

While most adults recognize the importance of success in school, many feel that they do not have enough time to spend in their children's educational enrichment, reading to them, helping with homework, etc. Parents, in today's busy world, are also often too busy to spend time exercising with their children. Kids Day reminds all of us about the importance of helping our kids with their schoolwork in improving grades and performance, and the importance of physical activity in reducing the risk of obesity and diabetes.

I am proud to support the Boys and Girls Club and Kids Day to help raise awareness about issues that affect all of our Nation's families and children.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed with my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage at the decision of the President and the leadership of this House to allow the assault weapons ban to expire. This law has been a critical part of our Nation's successful effort to dramatically bring down the violent crime rate. Since the ban went into effect in 1994, annual firearm deaths have decreased by 25 percent.

According to a study published by the Brady Center, the number of cases in which the ATF traced an assault weapon to a crime has dropped by 66 percent since the enactment of the ban. And the ATF has data showing, the longer the ban is in effect, the fewer assault weapons have been available for use by a criminal. The effect is to dry up the source.

This ban has broad public support. Most importantly, key law enforcement officers and agencies support it. They know these weapons have no place in our communities. The ATF description of these weapons in their ``Assault Weapons Profile'' clearly shows us why. It says, ``Assault weapons were designed for rapid-fire, close-quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass-produced mayhem.''

The Department of Treasury has reported these weapons are not suitable for sport and are more attractive to criminals. The ATF goes on to say that, ``Access to them shifts the balance of power to the lawless.'' In essence, these are not weapons to be used by sportsmen or kept at home. They are weapons designed to kill people, lots of them.

Assault weapons have been at the center of many of the worst mass murders in the United States. In 1984, 21 people were killed and 19 people injured by a man with an Uzi in a McDonald's in California.

In January of 1989, another man used a semiautomatic version of an AK-47 to kill five children at an elementary school, and 29 other children and their teacher were wounded in the same incident. This man fired 106 rounds in 2 minutes.

In 1993, Mir Aimal Kasi killed two CIA employees and wounded three others outside Langley using a Chinese-made semiautomatic AK-47 he bought in a gun store in Virginia.

And in July of 1993, eight people were killed and six people were wounded in a San Francisco law office. The man responsible used two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines.

These weapons are a serious threat to the men and women who serve our

communities as law enforcement officers. Allowing access to these weapons means our law enforcement officers have to carry heavier firepower that they do not want to use.

In 1994, every major national law enforcement organization worked hard to pass the assault weapons ban, and now, this President and our congressional leadership have abandoned these peace officers by letting the ban expire. This is particularly stunning given the world we live in after September 11, 2001. Yet they have now made it easier for terrorists to arm themselves in our country.

Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. We do not need these weapons in our communities. They are an invitation to death and destruction and a threat to our freedom. This Congress needs to restore the ban immediately to protect our constituents and our children.

I urge the Speaker to schedule a vote as soon as possible and ensure that assault weapons do not come flooding back into the United States.

Madam Speaker, I also rise, like the previous speaker, to express my outrage at the recent announcement that Medicare premiums will go up by 17 percent in 2005. This will eat up half of a senior's Social Security cost-of-living adjustment. At the same time, Medicare itself is shoveling an additional $46 billion to managed-care companies so that they can push seniors into HMOs.

This is just another example of how the Bush administration puts the interests of the drug and insurance companies over our seniors' interests. They passed a bill, written by the drug companies, that prevented Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices for seniors and blocking reimportation from Canada. The bill pushes seniors out of traditional Medicare and puts them at the tender mercies of the HMOs.

To sum up this President's Medicare policy: seniors pay higher premiums and higher drug costs so Medicare can give more money to HMOs and the drug companies.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 386, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express very serious concerns about the resolution before the House. I state these reservations as a strong friend and supporter of Israel. I speak as someone who condemns terrorism, especially the horrific practice of suicide bombing, with every fiber of my being, and I speak as someone who supports Israel's right to build a security fence along the Green Line.

But, sadly, as the House once again attempts to demonstrate its full support of Israel, we will pass an unbalanced, unwise resolution that may undermine the interests of Israelis and Palestinians as well as our own national interests.

I believe this resolution needs some changes. For example, it appropriately references the 1,000 people, mostly Israelis, who have been killed since September, 2000. But what about the 3,000 innocent Palestinians who have also lost their lives? Just once can the United States Congress not admit that Palestinians are people, too, and their lives are also precious? Would not such a compassionate statement go a long way towards restoring our credibility in the Arab world at a time when our national interests demand our image be improved? And would not such a statement be the right thing to say?

This resolution mentions the roadmap as the best path for Israeli- Palestinian peace. Yet in the very next clause we undermine the roadmap by listing only the Palestinian obligations. Of course, the Palestinians must crack down on terrorism. But the roadmap also requires Israel to impose a settlement freeze, tear down illegal outposts, ease the conditions of occupation. Why does this resolution only tell half the story?

As for the security barrier itself, I have personally witnessed the very severe hardships it imposes on Palestinian life. Again, a fence on the Green Line is one thing. That makes sense strategically and demographically. But a separation barrier that winds its way through the West Bank, appropriating Palestinian land in its wake, is not acceptable.

In the village of Jayyous, I saw how the wall separates farmers from their groves, and their crops are rotting on the field; teachers and students separated from their schools; even a Palestinian policeman unable to get to his job imposing security.

The resolution before us has a grudging reference to the recent decision by the High Court of Justice. But I think it is important for the American people to hear the Court's argument in more detail. The Israeli High Court ruled that the route of the barrier must be altered to ease the hardship of 35,000 Palestinians living adjacent to it. The current path, they argued, ``would generally burden the entire way of life in the petitioners' villages.'' The Court carefully balanced security and humanitarian considerations. The justices concluded, ``We are convinced that there is no security without law. Upholding the law is a component of national security.''

Of course, it can be argued that the security barrier has prevented terror attacks. But the only way to stop terrorism and secure the safety of Israel in the long term is for a comprehensive political solution to be negotiated with the Palestinians. After all, there was almost no terrorism perpetrated against Israeli civilians during the 3- year period of 1997 to 2000. There was not a separation barrier then but a vibrant peace process, negotiations and security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians, with powerful leadership from the United States.

If Congress really wanted to be helpful, we would not pass resolutions on such divisive issues as a security wall, but we would urge our administration to act forcefully to bring both sides back to the negotiating table. America's failures to engage in Israeli- Palestinian conflict will not only doom these long-suffering peoples to continued violence and misery but harm vital U.S. national interests as well. And that is a risk that we can surely not afford to take.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of millions of American seniors who deserve lower prescription drug prices. And when I say lower drug prices, I mean real discounts and real drug coverage, not meaningless discount cards.

Congress has before it legislation that requires the Federal Government to negotiate real discount prices on prescription medicine for seniors. The VA, the Veterans Administration, already uses a system like this and obtains prices significantly lower than current plans, sometimes as much as 50 percent lower. But this bill, which would make such a difference, has not been allowed to come to the floor.

The same forces withholding this floor vote are the forces lauding the current Medicare law, the new law that does nothing to actually lower the cost of prescription medicines, that prohibits Medicare from using the bargaining power of Americans, 40 million seniors, to negotiate lower prices.

Our current Medicare law tells seniors to buy drug discount cards which do not give discounts for all drugs at all pharmacies. Seniors and the disabled deserve better than this. Let us do what is right on their behalf.