Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, about two centuries ago, almost, this country was facing a war that devastated it for generations. The first day, the first battle was going to be at Bull Run, not far from here in Washington, and I am sure that some Members of Congress and many other citizens of Washington packed up lunches, got in their horse and buggy, and went out to watch the fight. Suddenly, they found the Union forces

were being routed, bloodied, and were told to run for their lives.

Today, our brave Union forces are again in the field, are suffering great casualties, and what is happening today when we finally get around to talking about Iraq 4 years after it happened? We are going to have a picnic. So later today everybody will stop and go to the White House and discuss the picnic. There is something so surreal and Alice in Wonderland about all the things that have been going on around here, but let me tell you of a different time.

In 1991, leading up to the first Gulf War, this Congress had a real debate about that conflict, one that was said to be one of the best of the 20th century, because in 1991 the House was a real deliberative body. We had three resolutions to consider; actually, the minority resolution, there were two Democrats and one minority leader resolution, was the one that passed in a Democrat Congress, and every Member who wanted it had 5 minutes to speak their mind. We debated for 20 hours on that, and it was a wonderful time because we all took part in something we cared so deeply about.

Contrast that with what this Republican leadership is giving us now, a day not about policy or progress but about politics and posturing. It is a day designed to provide the majority with a chance to make cheap political attacks against Democrats in anticipation of upcoming mid- term elections at a time when Americans and Iraqis are giving their lives in one of the most brutal wars of our time.

Yesterday, an internal Republican memo was circulated outlining the party's plan of attack for today. It instructs Republicans to paint a picture of ``A Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismissed the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world.'' We are going to hear a lot of that empty propaganda today, I am absolutely sure. But how will that divisive rhetoric help our soldiers abroad, Mr. Speaker? What can it possibly have to do with the war we are fighting?

If this memo didn't show us the real motivations behind today, last night's meeting of the Rules Committee certainly did. My fellow Democrats and I had a simple request at the meeting. We asked for the rule to be an open one. An open rule would have given any Member on any side of the House who wanted to speak a chance to do so. And what is more, an open rule would have permitted Members from both sides of the aisle to present amendments to the resolution so that we could do more than just talk, so that we could try to improve the flawed policies being pursued in Iraq.

But the committee gave us a closed rule. Not one person here from either party will be able to amend this resolution. Now, why would the Republicans do this? Could it be because they are not interested in addressing the serious questions in a forthright way? There are certainly problems to be addressed. Let me give you one example.

Yesterday, I joined a group of Democrats repeating our call for the creation of a Truman Commission to oversee the Iraqi reconstruction. Rampant construction and incompetent Iraq contracting have prolonged our mission there and cost lives, with 75 percent of oil and gas and 50 percent of electricity projects remaining unfinished.

The GAO reports that $7 billion in funds have simply been lost. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, is investigating 72 cases of alleged fraud. Have Republicans dealt with these problems? They have not. They recently elected to block $1.9 billion in new reconstruction funds from being examined. They won't let Mr. Bowen and his team look at that, because he was doing the job too well. So they took the jurisdiction pretty much away from him.

I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that today, instead of proposing serious solutions to the problems we are facing, we are being offered a ``yes or no'' vote on a resolution drowning in patriotic rhetoric and offering us an open-ended fight against an open-ended enemy.

Debate is about choice, but there is no choice here today. What we have is less like our democracy and more like a Soviet election. Americans expect real debate in their Congress. They do not expect their representatives to passively acquiesce to the assertions of a meaningless resolution based on White House talking points. And they expect their elected officials to have a meaningful discussion on the future course of the greatest challenge to our Nation in a generation.

My friends on both sides of the aisle, we can stop this sham in its tracks by voting ``no'' on this rule. I implore every Member from both parties to realize what is at stake here. If you support the rule, you are saying you don't believe our troops and their families deserve a serious debate on the war. You are saying you don't think the massive troubles of the Iraqi people deserve more than a cursory glance. And you are saying you don't think this Congress should be anything more than the President's rubber stamp. What you are saying is that this war is just a political tool to be used at elections.

My fellow Democrats and I have said a lot about the death of democracy in this House. Over the course of the 109th Congress, of 144 different rules presented by this Republican Party, only one rule that was not an appropriations measure has been made open for debate and amendable by this leadership. One. And if there was ever a rule that should be open, if there was ever a day in which democracy should breathe freely in these halls, even if just for one day, it is this rule and it should be this day.

Your vote on this rule isn't about how you voted on the war, it is about respecting the troops. It is about respecting democracy. How can we ask the fine young men and women of our Armed Forces to die so that Iraqis can have democracy and debate when we are systematically undermining those same principles here? It is unconscionable.

Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, I implore every Member, everyone to take a stand for the values of democracy and the values of this Nation and vote please against this rule. Defeating this rule will show our troops that we have enough respect for them in this House to have a real debate on their lives and future and of the future of the Nation that we love.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the DeLauro-Berry- Slaughter Amendment. This amendment will prevent new contracts funded under this bill from being awarded to corporations that set up offshore tax havens.

If a corporation is located in the U.S., and conducts most of its business in the U.S., and employs most of its workforce in the U.S., then it should not be allowed to avoid its tax obligations by simply opening a post office box in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda.

Corporate expatriates cost the United States approximately 5 billion dollars a year in tax revenue. Yet they are expected to reap 1 billion dollars annually in federal contracts during each of the next 5 to 10 years.

Mr. Chairman, what kind of message are we sending to Americans that work hard and pay their taxes when corporate expatriates are rewarded for their deliberate and shameless tax evasion with millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded federal contracts?

When we allow corporations to gain an unfair competitive advantage in the Federal marketplace by relocating overseas to skirt tax obligations, what are we telling small business owners who play by the rules?

Corporate expatriates hurt honest U.S. taxpayers by shifting more of the tax burden onto their shoulders.

And they siphon funds from the Federal budget that are desperately needed for essential government services.

To put this in perspective, consider that today we will debate an appropriations bill that slashes funding for affordable housing programs. Last week, we voted on a bill that cut homeland security grants. And just a few weeks ago we approved a budget that guts critical domestic programs, such as education, veterans' health care, public health, environmental protection, and services for families and communities--just to name a few recent acts of this House.

We were told these cuts were necessary--that we just didn't have the money to keep funding these efforts. And yet, at the same time, billions of dollars are being lost to dishonest corporations.

We must stop hard-earned American tax dollars from lining the pockets of companies that exploit tax loopholes.

It is time to send the clear message that if you want to do business with the U.S. Government; you must play by the rules.

This amendment will help guarantee that only responsible companies can benefit from Federal contracts.

It is pro-business . . . it is pro-consumer . . . and it is pro- American.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro-Berry- Slaughter amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a favor. Mr. Terry and I want to split this 5 minutes exactly in half, and so if you would be kind enough to tell me when my time is up.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Slaughter-Velazquez-Terry amendment to restore funding to HUD's critically important Office of Lead Hazard Control.

This funding is necessary if we ever hope to eradicate childhood lead poisoning by 2010, a imperative national goal. HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control provides grants to cities and States working to correct serious lead hazards in low income and high-risk homes. The grants are targeted to help the most vulnerable of our citizens, children under the age of 6.

Mr. Chairman, this is not an isolated problem. Lead poisoning affects nearly 434,000 American children each year between the ages of 1 and 5, and it is unacceptable. High blood levels in children have been linked to asthma, brain damage, hearing loss, hyperactivity and environmental delays. We must not let that happen to our children. In extreme cases, exposure to lead has caused seizures, comas and death.

In my district alone, over 2,000 children fall victim to lead poisoning each year. Over 50 percent of the homes in Niagara and Erie Counties were built before 1950 and are likely to contain lead paint. In Erie County, 1,000 children will be found to have unsafe lead levels.

A $1.5 million lead hazard control grant that went to the City of Buffalo has been essential in local efforts to protect the children from lead poisoning.

The City of Rochester is among the top 10 U.S. cities with the worst lead paint problems. In 2004, 900 children in Monroe County were exposed to lead poisoning. To combat the problem, Monroe County and the City of Rochester have worked together using funding from HUD's lead hazard control grant to make nearly 300 housing units lead free and safe for children.

Lead hazard control grants work, but they are threatened by a lack of funding. In fiscal year 2006, the Office of Lead Hazard Control received $1.548 million, and that is $16 million less than in 2005. The 2007 appropriations bill makes it worse and cuts it more by $35 million. The need far outpaces the resources and slashing the funding will significantly jeopardize the progress we have made.

I urge Members to support the Slaughter-Velazquez-Terry amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to Mr. Terry.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, 3 months have gone by since the House last met to pass new funding for one of the greatest challenges our Nation faces today: the ongoing war in Iraq.

It is clear that so long as our soldiers are in harm's way our financial support for them must continue. But writing checks is not enough. All the money in the world cannot produce a positive change if it is squandered and misappropriated.

What our troops in the field and our citizens at home need is for this body to recommit itself to real oversight of our government and its actions. What we need is the return of accountability to the House, and it is that above all else which has yet to transpire here.

I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to focus their gaze half a world away. The past 90 days has seen victories and defeats in Iraq, reasons for hope and reasons for grave concern, and the outcome is still far from certain. And yet the overwhelming majority of our troops routinely carry out acts of most remarkable personal courage. Their very existence is in constant danger, and yet they press onward.

Contrast that courage, Mr. Speaker, with the lack of courage displayed by the majority of the House. It is a lack of courage that has proven as persistent as the problems it has perpetuated. I should first say that the very idea that we are once again funding the conflict through a supplemental spending bill is both dishonest and dishonorable. It is part of a massive effort to hide the true cost of the war from the public because supplemental spending bills are not counted in the budget. They, therefore, do not increase our national deficits on paper even though they do increase them in reality.

If this Congress believes that funding the mission in Iraq is necessary, it should have the courage to fund it through an official appropriations bill. Then the financial cost to the Nation should be clear then for all to see and the American people could better judge for themselves how much we are willing to devote to it.

As important as this is, it pales in comparison to the importance of overseeing how our money is being spent in Iraq. Events move so quickly in that country and every action taken possesses such a great consequence that Members of this body should demand nothing less than full accountability of how the U.S. funds are being spent.

Three months ago I repeated the calls of John Tierney for the creation of a congressional commission to oversee the reconstruction efforts abroad, one like the Truman Commission, created during World War II by a Congress with the integrity needed to investigate itself. At the time I cited reports claiming that billions of dollars in funds intended for the Iraqi people had gone missing.

Three months later nothing has changed. In fact, just last week the Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction issued a report that documented 7 billion more dollars lost in funds for reconstruction, and he has 72 ongoing investigations into accusations of fraud and corruption among contractors. And what is his reward? They are going to take inspection away from him and give it over to the State Department.

Now, I am thankful that this Inspector General has been working hard in the last 2 years and in keeping track of numbers because that document would never have come from this majority. They do not even want to discuss the war in any detail. This week's debate on this war will be the first of its kind and the September 11 anniversary will be 5 years very shortly.

Where is the courage? Where is the resolve? How can they speak day in and day out about our need to support the troops and then refuse to exercise constitutional responsibility to oversee this, our Nation's greatest foreign project in a generation?

Where there is no oversight, there will be corruption, and in a war zone corruption is not just about money. It is about life and death. If U.S. contractors are not getting what they are supposed to do done, the lives of our troops are put in danger. If reconstruction projects are being hobbled by poor accounting, then the projects will not be completed and Iraqis will continue suffering.

We learned months ago that 80 percent of the Marines who died of upper body wounds would have been saved if only they had not been forced to depend on an unreliable contractor for the body armor. How can we live with that?

I only recently learned that the DOD Inspector General will be looking into these contracts at my request because nobody has looked to see what happened there.

Mr. Speaker, these unjustifiable realities are to a large degree the product of a lack of any real oversight by Congress. And the lack, in turn, has been the province of a majority unwilling to truly reform its ways, even while it lectures people near and far about the importance of reforming theirs.

Mr. Speaker, until this changes, we have no solutions to the self- imposed problems undermining the safety of our citizens here and the success of our troops and their mission abroad, and we cannot afford to waste another moment. Too much is at stake.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of Appropriations (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule to instruct the enrolling Clerk to make some very important national security additions to the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous materials be printed in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the items contained in the amendment are not new provisions. They were all included in the Senate version of the supplemental appropriations bill and provide greatly needed funds to increase security at our Nation's borders and ports; but, unfortunately, they were stripped from the final version of the report.

I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the report. A ``no'' vote will simply allow the House to add greatly needed funds to protect our Nation's vulnerable borders and ports.

But a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from adding the funds to improve our border and port security; and representing a border area myself, I appreciate the importance of it.

So, please, again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, our democratic system of government promises that the will of the people it serves will be heard. But it does more than that. It also promises that the right to debate will not be trampled underfoot by the might of simple majorities.

In so doing, it seeks to protect the needs of all of its citizens, rather than simply those of the biggest, the richest, and the most well-connected groups in our society. For all of these reasons, the rule and the bill that we

have before us today is onerous on two separate, but connected, levels.

It should not be a handful of people in the back room that decides what ideas this democracy is allowed to consider. And yet while eight Democrat amendments were made in order last night in the Rules Committee, almost 20 were not.

Among those silenced were crucial corrections to this legislation that would protect the needs of American consumers and citizens against the unchecked ambitions of some of our Nation's largest and most well- connected companies, companies I might add that were perfectly willing to hand over all of our records to the government.

Now, perhaps this makes sense, considering that what we have left is a bill that without amendment will radically undermine the technology that has been proven to embody the democratic ideals of our Nation in a way that few inventions ever have.

I am, of course, talking about the Internet. That is what my Democrat colleagues and I are talking about when we speak of an America that is for sale: Assaults on democracy here in the House that ripple out and hurt Americans everywhere.

Consider some of the amendments the bill turned down yesterday, the Rules Committee turned down yesterday. Representatives Doyle and Dingell gave us an amendment that would give local officials and mayors some power over where and how telecommunications companies could build their infrastructure in their towns and cities. This bill will take that power away from them. But the majority did not allow us to debate the amendment today.

Another amendment sought to require telecommunications companies to provide high speed Internet access not just to the well-off neighborhoods, but to all the neighborhoods in our cities and towns so that all our families would have access to the power and knowledge that comes with information and that amendment was rejected by the majority.

Another amendment would have taken an aggressive stance against red lining, the practice of denying service or offering inferior service to consumers because of their race, national origin, religion or gender. That amendment was turned away by the Republican majority.

Mr. Speaker, these were amendments written for the benefit of all Americans. They were designed not to unfairly impinge on the ability of telecommunication companies to do business, but rather to ensure the business done served the public good and the needs of all of us. But when we examine what was put into the bill before us, it makes sense that a handful of folks in the leadership decided for all of us that the amendments would be left out.

The Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 as it stands today will do much more to limit online opportunities than it will enhance the experiences of users or promote the Democratic digital flow of ideas. It is a bill written by and for a limited number of companies that are already wildly profitable. Also, they can make even more money and the American people will pay the price.

It is indeed true that corporations like Verizon and AT&T have invested a great deal in the high technology and infrastructure empowering our Nation's economy, but they are being compensated richly for their efforts by ordinary consumers who pay to access their systems. Verizon, for example, is one of the largest corporations in America with annual revenues in excess of $75 billion a year.

Because the information superhighway these companies help build has remained open to all and free of arbitrary tolls, it has been home to an unlimited profusion of new and novel companies. It is the basis of the greatest exchange of ideas, opinions and information in human history. It has become instrumental to our global economy and to our international political system, and it has allowed a free market to truly flourish.

Today anyone with an idea or business concept can share it with literally billions of others. Open telecommunication systems have broken down walls and made old barriers obsolete. But my colleagues and I are not exaggerating when we say that all of that is threatened by this bill. It permits major telecom corporations to serve those who can pay them the most better than those who cannot pay. The Internet has traditionally been a true marketplace for ideas and commerce with small and large vendors competing on equal footing, a true community bazaar for the 21st century.

This bill, if not amended, will bulldoze the dynamic Main Street style marketplace that is our Internet today and will replace it with a one-size fits all Wal-Mart superdome. We have all seen the effects that type of development has had on local communities all over America. Why on earth would we help the Republicans do the same thing to the Internet as well? Why should Americans accept the destruction of the very concept that makes the Internet what it is today?

The truth is under this law, independent online media outlets and small Internet businesses will not be able to compete anymore. And Internet users will eventually have no choice but to use the services of an ever-dwindling number of online organizations. Innovation of all kinds will be stifled and the ultimate leveler of the playing field will have been forever tilted in favor of the already rich and already powerful. And all of this will have been done simply so the wealthy can make more money.

The solution to this unacceptable outcome, Mr. Speaker, is known as net neutrality; and my colleagues, Mr. Markey, Mr. Boucher, Ms. Eshoo and Mr. Inslee have offered an amendment to enshrine that concept in this legislation.

I should say, Mr. Speaker, that while the rule we are debating here today will fortunately allow us to debate the amendment, it does not make in order another fine net neutrality proposal that Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers developed in the Judiciary Committee.

Net neutrality is being portrayed by some as an attempt at excessive regulation, but the opposite is the truth. But what we are doing here today will have long lasting repercussions, Mr. Speaker. I pray we do it right.

Net neutrality proposals like the one proposed in the Markey, Boucher, Eshoo, and Inslee amendment are the only way for us to keep the Internet open for all.

These reforms we are proposing won't prevent telecommunications companies from building their networks and earning tremendous profits . . . .They just won't provide giant companies with a government sanctioned stranglehold on the Internet marketplace.

What they will do instead is ensure that networks will be worth building--that the infinitely diverse universe of information, ideas, and entertainment that currently flows into homes around the world will be protected and perpetuated.

Ultimately, this issue is about the freedom of the marketplace, and understanding the value of competition.

The Republican leadership, who talk so much about benefits of competition and the value of free-markets have abandoned these core principles on this bill, in order to carry water for the biggest and richest telecommunications companies in the world.

And when my friends on the other side of the aisle rejected important amendments to this bill designed to defend ordinary consumers and citizens against some of the largest companies around, they were rigging the game to ensure their own victory.

In the process, I worry that this House leadership is headed toward selling out the needs of tens of millions of Americans yet again.

But they have a chance to change my mind here today, and the minds of millions and millions of Americans who want an Internet not controlled by a handful of mega-corporations.

They have a chance to stand up for the market place of ideas that the Internet has become . . . to embrace true competition instead of trampling it under the foot of big business.

They have a chance to ensure that the Internet will truly belong to all Americans and that anyone who chooses may have a voice online. And that that voice won't be filtered by a few privileged super companies who have greased the skids in Congress.

America deserves better than this, Mr. Speaker.

And I know that quietly many of my Republican colleagues out there today agree with me on this issue.

I just hope they are brave enough to stand with us.

I urge everyone in this House to vote ``yes'' on the Markey, Boucher, Eshoo, and Inslee amendment.

Without it, this legislation is little more than an unjustifiable attack on a technology with the rarest of potentials--to better the lives of everyone it touches.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

We appreciate your getting to us, Mr. Speaker, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

(Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, there is a difference between real security and rhetorical security. Today it is easy to see which one the Congress is committed to. We received what was perhaps the greatest wake-up call in the Nation's history on September 11, 2001.

And the failure of our national security personnel on that day should have been the catalyst for an unprecedented strengthening of our system. But in ways that mattered most, it did not happen. In more than 4 years, this Congress has failed to properly fund the Nation's first responders in spite of their historic and heroic performance on that terrible day.

In fact, the year's funding levels are $100 million less than last year's. In 4 years, Congress has also failed to secure the Nation's chemical plants. Over 300 plants nationwide, each with a capacity to kill 50,000 or more people if they were attacked, are left with security un-upgraded.

What many experts consider the single greatest vulnerability to our security today, our ports, has not been addressed; 5 years after 9/11, 95 percent of

cargo can containers that pass through our ports are never inspected in any way. And after all we have heard lately about border security, the Congress has refused to pay for the border agents or detention facilities needed to enforce the immigration laws that we pass.

Madam Speaker, while I speak of the failings of Congress to invest in real security for our people, it is critical to remember which party has been in charge since 2001. Since that time, Democrats have tried again and again to get our Republican colleagues to back up their words with actions.

We have authored numerous amendments to increase funding for critical and essential national security programs. This year we presented an amendment to provide an additional $3.5 billion for border, port aviation and disaster preparedness programs. And I understand that for $1.5 billion, we could give every port on earth the ability to check cargo.

The Democrats wanted to pass funding that would support 1,800 new Border Patrol agents, more than the 800 more immigration investigators and 9,000 new detention beds. We authored legislation to fund 500 new radiation monitors to inspect cargo and increase funding for public transportation by two-thirds.

And it was a Democratic bill that would have given our first responders $600 million more with which to protect themselves as citizens of the country. All of these amendments were rejected by Republican-controlled committees.

Now, at the same time, the actions of government agencies that we trust to defend us raise serious questions about their competency and compassion to protect this Nation. And I must talk about what they have done over in Homeland Security in regard to the Shirlington Limousine contract.

As you know, 2 years ago, they were given an unbid contract of $3.5 million to chauffeur around people who work for DHS in Washington, despite the fact that, I am certain, they have fleets of cars, as every other agency does, and how cheap it would have been for them to take a taxi. But that was not enough.

A year later, they awarded a $21 million contract to the same company, bid this time. They were not the low bidder, but they did get the contract. Now let me tell you that if the first responders and the officials up in my part of the country can get their hands on $21 million to fortify the borders, they would do it in a New York minute.

Shirlington, when it was given these contracts, was nearly bankrupt. It had recently been fired by a local university for poor performance, and its president is a convicted felon. No background checks of any kind were done by the Department of Homeland Security.

Now, the company is now involved in an ongoing Federal investigation, along with several unnamed Members of this body, which has so far revealed that it may have literally provided the vehicles by which an illegal influence peddling ring operated.

I have submitted a resolution of inquiry to the Homeland Security Committee which would compel DHS to turn over all documents related to the awarding of their contract to Shirlington. No hearing has been held; basically no questions have been raised.

After all, the American people have a right to know how a corrupt and dubious company received a huge contract with our Homeland Security money and who, if anyone, interceded on its behalf. It takes the wonderment of Alice in Wonderland believing six impossible things before breakfast to believe that someone in that agency did not grease the skids for that company.

But DHS has so far refused our requests for information. We do not even have a response. And the Republican Congress refused to force them to turn over that information, and I want to know why.

Nor is this the only way in which DHS, the supposed cure for the problems that permitted September 11 to take place, has yet to prove itself to be a valuable agency. Frankly, its value is very dubious.

My constituents in the northern United States have experienced such a reality first hand. In January 2008, Homeland Security and the State Department intend to introduce new forms of border identification for northern residents as part of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The plan itself is deeply flawed. It will result in a dramatic reduction in cross border travel and trade and one that will cost the national economies of the United States and Canada billions of dollars every year.

And at a recent meeting that we had with members of the Canadian parliament, they asked the question that is very pertinent: What does Canada do with the citizens of the United States who have gone to Canada and do not have a passport to allow themselves to come home?

Is the Canadian government expected to take all of these American citizens into custody and to hold them? On what grounds? And to what end? I suggested at the Rules Committee that maybe we could send the Shirlington Limousine up to Canada and bring them home.

But what is worse, it faces opposition, not just from outside the government but within it as well. Just yesterday, the DHS privacy office released a draft report stating that elements of the plan raised both security and privacy concerns.

The GAO will soon report that both DHS and State are nowhere near being able to implement the plan by their January 2008 deadline. In fact, what is really astonishing is there is not a dime in this bill concerning WHTI, anything for infrastructure, anything that they plan to spend money on, which says to me that DHS knows itself that they are not ever going to be able to do this.

When we step back and take all of these things together, we know what is occurring in Washington. Despite all of its pledges and promises, the Republican-led Congress has failed to make us safer. It has not spent the money needed to improve the vulnerable parts of our national security system, but wastes it on limousine service. Its own agencies have proven incapable of coordinating their activities or implementing new security plans. And the corruption of Congress has seeped into and affected some of those we count on to protect us, all under the nose of a House entirely uninterested in any kind of oversight.

Madam Speaker, the American people have had enough of these priorities of agencies that this government presides over. They know the difference between real security that the Democratic Party is offering and unfulfilled promises of the majority party. They deserve a leadership that shares their priorities, that will not break its own promises. They deserve a change.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it is not that we want to spend more money. We really question the way money is spent, and we really believe that $21 million to drive people around town is an absurd expense for an agency that is responsible for our safety.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I do not think the American people are going to buy it anymore that Democrats are great spendthrifts and just want to throw more money. We would not do a contract for $21 million for a limousine to drive around Washington.

I think people remember that, 6 years ago, we had the largest surplus that this country has ever enjoyed that should have lasted us for 20 years. It lasted less than three, and now we have the largest deficit we have ever had.

I think people will see through that.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can amend the rule and allow the House to consider the Sabo chemical plant security provision that was left exposed to a point of order in the rule, and the Obey amendment to address the funding shortfalls in the bill.

Efforts to allow the full House to consider these two important initiatives were rejected in the Rules Committee yesterday by a straight party-line vote.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendments and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.

The Sabo language would require the Secretary of Homeland Security within 6 months to issue regulations for the security of chemical facilities in the United States. This language was added to the bill during the Appropriations Committee markup, but was exposed to a point of order in the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, whether or not Members support this provision to increase security at vulnerable chemical facilities, we should, at the very least, have an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the provision and not have it stricken on a point of order.

The Obey amendment will increase funding by $3.5 billion to help address a number of the bill's seriously underfunded programs and the services that are vital to homeland security. It will provide for increased Border Patrol agents, increased immigration investigators, and increased capacity and detention facilities. It fully funds the Port Security Grant program at the level enacted by the House just 2 weeks ago. It provides funds for Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard to better protect our ports. And it restores cuts in programs that assist local first responders in disaster preparation. It also provides for substantial expansion of resources to support aviation explosive detection for air cargo and passengers and carry-on bags.

The Obey amendment does this and more without imposing any increase in our awful deficit. The entire cost of the amendment is offset by a slight reduction in the tax cut for those fortunate individuals in this Nation having annual incomes of over $1 million.

Unfortunately, the homeland security appropriations bill before us today is inadequately funded in a number of areas that are vitally important to our Nation's security. We are all aware that Federal dollars are limited; but when it comes to the safety and security of the American people, we have to find a way to fund those programs in ways that will protect our citizens. Democrats believe in keeping our promises. The Obey amendment will help us support these efforts and do so without adding to the debt.

Madam Speaker, I want to point out a ``no'' will not prevent us from considering the homeland security appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Sabo and Obey proposals. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on May 18, 2006 and missed rollcall vote 172, H.R. 5386. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for 172.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief.

As a microbiologist as well as a Member of Congress, I have been very concerned for some time about the overuse of antibiotics and the rise of drug-resistant bacteria. So what we are asking today is just a sum of money, $1 million, to be set aside from the FDA budget to begin to study the overuse of antibiotics in animals and using animals basically as incubators to breed the drug-resistant bacteria.

I think it is a matter of top concern. It has been labeled that by the CDC and the World Health Organization, which says it has become a crisis; so I am pleased to put this amendment forward today.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

MR. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we have worked with the gentlewoman on this amendment, and I am happy to accept the amendment and would move it to a vote if the gentlewoman would agree.

I appreciate that very much, and thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address an issue that concerns me not just as a microbiologist, but as a mother and a grandmother as well.

Americans have a right to trust the safety of the food they eat and feed their families.

Today, that safety has been put in jeopardy by a new threat, one that is the unintended result of our own advancements.

The threat comes from antibiotic resistant bacteria.

We take antibiotics for granted in this country. Just over 60 years ago, a pneumonia diagnosis was a death sentence. A case of bacterial meningitis would have been hopeless.

With the introduction of antibiotics, however, we have been able to treat these, and many other, once fatal diseases.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported that the most significant human infections are becoming resistant to the antibiotics commonly used to treat them.

In fact, antibiotic resistance has been labeled a ``top concern'' by the CDC, and the World Health Organization has called the situation a crisis.

Resistant bacterial infections increase health care costs by 4 to 5 billion dollars each year.

Two million Americans acquire a bacterial infection annually during stays at hospitals. Seventy percent of the infections they contract are resistant to the drugs prescribed for treatment.

Salmonella infections, the cause of food poisoning, 1.4 million illnesses, and 500 deaths in America every year are increasingly resistant to the numerous drugs used against them.

And thirty-eight patients in American hospitals die every day as a result of diseases contracted during their stay that no longer respond to antibiotics.

While the overuse and misuse of antibiotics in humans is a factor contributing to this problem, it is not its only cause.

There are currently seven classes of antibiotics used in both animals and humans, including basic drugs like Penicillin.

In fact, 70 percent of all U.S. antibiotics are used by meat producers on their livestock for nontherapeutic purposes.

Unwittingly, we are permitting animals to serve as incubators for resistant bacteria.

And as a result, a parent on a trip to the grocery store could end up bringing home meat contaminated with diseases that will put their family's health at risk and prove difficult to treat.

In 2003, a National Academy of Sciences report stated that if we hope to make headway against this danger, we must reduce overuse of antibiotics not just in humans, but in animals and agriculture as well.

This huge and tremendously important task has fallen largely on the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.

And yet, despite its position on the front lines of this fight, the CVM is ill-equipped to carry out its duties. It needs additional resources to review the drugs currently approved for animal use.

The amendment I am offering here today will give CVM the much needed boost necessary to do its job.

It will make available 1 million dollars from within its budget to make sure we have the drugs we need to treat bacterial infections.

With all of the new challenges modern medicine faces, we cannot allow a resurgence of ailments no longer seen as a source of concern.

Our failure to address this problem will result in a less secure, and less healthy, future for our children and grandchildren.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this common-sense amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor Robert B. Wegman, chairman of Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., who died on April 20, 2006, at the age of 87. Mr. Wegman was surrounded by his family, as he passed away peacefully in his hometown of Rochester, NY.

Mr. Wegman made his mark as a pioneer in the supermarket industry, transforming the conventional grocery store into a superstore, emulated by others across the country. Mr. Wegman's passion for business began as a child, when he worked in the family store operated from the front of his grandmother's home. He developed a philosophy that has served as the foundation for the company. He believed: ``I am a merchant and I have, therefore, my own philosophy about merchandising. That is: To do something that no one else is doing, and to be able to offer the customer a choice that she doesn't have at the moment.'' Mr. Wegman embodied the American entrepreneurial spirit from the start, and proved to be one of the most successful businessmen in the grocery store industry.

From the beginning, Mr. Wegman made it his goal to make Wegmans supermarkets the finest chain in the country--he was not concerned if it was the fastest growing, but more with growth itself. In 1930, Mr. Wegman and his brother received national attention with the opening of their innovative grocery store. The 20,000-square-foot store was unlike anything seen before--it featured modern techniques for keeping produce fresh with vaporized water spray and refrigerated food displays. Over the next 56 years, Mr. Wegman transformed his store with the concept of one-stop-shopping. He imported fine cheeses, and wine, ethnic foods, and introduced patisseries and prepared foods into the grocery stores. In the 20th century, Wegman integrated pharmacies, photo labs and video departments into his stores, propelling the model for customer convenience to its highest levels.

Wegmans Food Markets has expanded to now over 70 stores, and the company is now as well known for its corporate responsibility as it is for exceptional customer service. Wegmans Food Markets has been named one of `The Top 100 Companies to Work For' by Fortune magazine several years in a row, and in 2005 was ranked #1 as the best company to work for in the nation. Fortune's annual ranking of companies is determined by the number of employees and is measured by benefits, job growth, pay, percentage of minorities and women, and turnover. For example, Wegmans provides a scholarship program which has given close to $60 million in tuition assistance to its employees. Although the superstore helped to shape the Rochester community, Robert Wegman has crafted his company into one that serves as a national model, both for its corporate success and for the opportunities and environment he has provided for his employees.

Mr. Wegman is also highly admired for his philanthropy. In 1995, he and his wife, Peggy, announced a 10-year, $25 million gift in support of Catholic education, allowing hundreds of families to choose Catholic education in the Rochester-area community. Mr. Wegman also made considerable contributions to Aquinas Institute high school, giving $10 million to the school for new athletic facilities and a fine arts center. In 1997, Wegmans Food Markets became the title sponsor of the Wegmans Rochester LPGA (Ladies Professional Golf Association); with proceeds supporting camps for disabled children. Most recently, Mr. Wegman contributed a combined $13 million to St. John Fisher College, which will be used for the establishment of the Wegmans School of Pharmacy and the Wegmans School of Nursing.

Mr. Wegman's pursuit of excellence is portrayed in every aspect of his life: family, community, and corporate responsibility. He will be remembered as a pioneer and leader of his industry and for his extraordinary compassion and generosity.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Robert Wegman.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll Call vote 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye'' for 159. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following these votes. H. Res. 740, Roll Call No. 159, Vote ``Aye''.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, over the past 40 years the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities have proven themselves time and time again to be among our country's most valuable and successful organizations.

Their reach is national, their impact profound. They are tremendously beneficial to our economy, generating $134 billion annually in economic activity. Artistic endeavors return some $10.5 billion to the Federal Government in income taxes every year. And the arts support nearly 5 million full-time jobs.

When our children have art education in their lives, they score higher on their SATs, have greater self-confidence, and are more focused on their studies.

I ask you today to urge stronger Federal commitment to the arts by supporting this amendment to provide modest increases to the NEA and NEH of $5 million each.

Unless we provide an overall increase for NEA, the programs like Challenge America and the Big Read, which have been so important, will be slashed. And they will reach fewer people.

Challenge America has enhanced America's communities through direct grants for arts education, at-risk youth and cultural preservation, community arts partnerships and improved access to the arts for all Americans, with local programs in every single congressional district.

Because of the NEA, more children have music in the classroom today than ever before, and high school students are participating in poetry sessions and learning more about Shakespeare. And our brave men and women serving on our military bases throughout our country are entertained by popular opera performances.

NEA's Big Read program has resulted in committed partnerships among local government officials, schools, libraries and arts organizations to address the terrible national decline in literary reading.

As part of the program, a book is selected and everybody is encouraged to read it. It is that simple. The first 10 pilot programs now under way have proven to be overwhelmingly successful. The neighbors talk about ``Great Gatsby,'' friends are locked in heated debate about ``To Kill a Mockingbird,'' and coworkers are analyzing ``Fahrenheit 451.''

Imagine the conversations, connections and community enrichment that will be generated if NEA expands the Big Read into 100 communities, as it currently plans.

The value of these programs should no longer have to be proved. The real question is, Will the Congress, with its patriotism and pride in America, prioritize the betterment of its culture?

In the late 1980s and 1990s, we funded the NEA at $170 million. The NEA was last funded at this amount in 1994 and has never recovered from the awful budget cut it took.

As a result, today its invaluable programs remain seriously underfunded. The increases I propose today are modest, but without adequate funding the NEA and the NEH will be unable to continue these and other important programs.

I urge Members to vote for the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price amendment and to preserve its funding in the final conference report. I thank my colleagues who have joined me today.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

I thank the chairman very much.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Oberstar/Leach/Dingell amendment to H.R. 5386, the Interior-Environment appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. As co-chair of the Congressional Great Lakes Task Force, I believe it is imperative that we take immediate steps to prevent polluted discharges into streams, ponds, and wetlands in the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes have already lost more than half of their original wetlands, and invasive species, non-point source runoff and food web disruptions continue to threaten the health and sustainability of this delicate ecosystem.

The Oberstar/Leach/Dingell amendment would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from moving forward with a plan that will make it overly difficult to protect intrastate waters. Should EPA's policy remain intact, our Great Lakes basin will face greater threats of pollution to our drinking water, increased frequency and severity of flooding, and the loss of habitat for waterfowl and endangered wildlife.

Mr. Chairman, the Oberstar/Leach/Dingell amendment has broad support among Great Lakes interests, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for it. I am pleased to submit for the Record a letter from the Heal Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition in support of this important amendment.

May 17, 2006.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Healing Our Waters-

Great Lakes Coalition, we ask you to vote for the Oberstar-

Leach-Dingell `Clean Water Amendment' to the House's Fiscal

Year 2007 Interior and the Environment Appropriations bill

when it is considered on the floor this week. This amendment

will help protect the remaining wetlands, streams, rivers,

and lakes in the Great Lakes Basin.

The Healing Our Waters Coalition is a group of 85 national,

regional and local organizations working to restore and

protect the Great Lakes. The Coalition represents millions of

Americans that live, work, and love this national treasure.

As you know, the Great Lakes basin is defined by its rich

water resources, its vast sand dunes, biologically rich

coastal marshes, lake plain prairies, blue-ribbon trout

streams, rocky shorelines, sparkling inland lakes, and

diverse wetlands. Yet the wetlands, marshes, and shorelines

people in the region remember are being lost. The Great Lakes

have lost more than half of their original wetlands,

including 90 percent in Ohio and 50 percent in Michigan.

Invasive species, non-point source runoff and food web

disruptions threaten the health and sustainability of this

delicate ecosystem.

In response to these threats, the Great Lakes Regional

Collaboration, which was commissioned by President Bush,

recommended in its December 2005 strategy to restore and

protect the Great Lakes that Congress ensure that all

wetlands are protected, including so-called ``isolated''

wetlands. Yet federal policy not only fails to implement this

simple recommendation, it also puts many of the remaining

Great Lakes wetlands at risk of degradation or destruction.

The Oberstar-Leach-Dingell ``Clean Water Amendment'' ends

the implementation of an out-dated policy put in place by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2003. EPA's policy

was intended to interpret a narrow U.S. Supreme Court

decision that limited protection for certain socalled

``isolated'' waters. Instead, it threatens--by EPA's own

estimation--the 20 percent of wetlands left in the contiguous

United States and withholds Clean Water Act safeguards from

countless numbers of streams and large lakes. The Oberstar-

Leach-Dingell amendment prohibits funds from being used to

implement a misguided policy that is resulting in the loss of

even more of the Great Lakes precious few wetlands.

Support for ending this policy is not new. 218 members of

the u.S. House of Representatives wrote to the Administration

calling for this policy to be rescinded. It is,

unfortunately, still in effect.

It is time for the federal government to end its out-dated

policy. Great Lakes waters depend upon it. Please vote yes on

the Oberstar/Leach/Dingell Clean Water Amendment.

Sincerely,

Tom Kiernan,

Co-Chair, Healing Our Waters Coalition.

Andy Buchsbaum

Co-Chair Healing Our Waters Coalition.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, every justification of the budget we have heard today presents it as a noble and responsible attempt to respond to the harsh economic realities facing our Nation and our people. But when we examine it objectively, we can't avoid seeing the reality behind the pretense.

The bill is designed to do everything it can to protect the record tax cuts for the richest of Americans. For the majority, that is more important than educating our children or providing health care to the veterans or helping Americans raise themselves out of poverty, or even protecting our country from the consequences of either national disasters or mounting national debt.

The authors and supporters of the legislation will tell us that if we wish to avoid increasing our national deficit, which they have already driven to unprecedented heights, we have no choice but to spend on the programs that Americans rely on the most while they are busily cutting out the revenues that come into the government.

But, once again, they are offering a false choice. For 5 years they have forced the massive tax cuts through the Congress. Last week they made the most recent down payment on the cuts. One was $70 billion. While President Bush signs that bill into law today, Republicans are asking us to pass this bill which adds another $158 billion to those cuts. So in 2 weeks, we have made those massive cuts, and any justification melts away when we realize who is benefiting from it. They are not for the poor, they are not for the working class, they are not for the middle class. They are for the oil companies. They won't spur our economy or help the average person afford their morning drive to work. They are instead the cuts for billionaires and millionaires, pure and simple. They are not going to help the economy, but they will indeed help people who don't need it, and that assistance will come at the expense of everyone else.

But as always the case, despite objections not just from Democrats but much of the American public, reducing or extending these cuts isn't even on the table here. It never is. They are considered too sacred to touch. And just tonight in the Rules Committee, once again, we turned down an opportunity to pay for more by taking away part of their tax cut.

What do we get in exchange for this giveaway? Well, the majority offered us a budget that will cut domestic spending between 1 and 2 percent every year. As a result, the party that tells us to support the troops is cutting veterans health care by $6 billion. And we worry and fear for the over 20,000 young soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been grievously life-altering wounded will not be able to get the care they need when they come back.

Republicans who promised to leave no child behind will be cutting education funding by $45.3 billion, and the budget of the Department of Education by $2.2 billion.

Now, not content to make education less rewarding in the present, they apparently want to make our students worry more about loan payments in the future. The bill eliminates all mandatory spending on student loans, leaving congressional appropriators to somehow find $600 million to meet the students' needs.

The majority wants to cut environmental protection efforts by $25 billion, and take over $1 billion from community development and social service initiatives which we desperately need.

The poorest of the poor won't find any relief at all in this legislation. In fact, they will find the opposite. The budget will underfund housing and child care assistance by $447 million over the next year, and over 5 years the funding for them will fall almost $15 billion short.

What will the results be? Well, consider the fate of the commodity supplemental food program which provides nutritious meals to 420,000 low-income elderly and 50,000 mothers and children at a cost of $111 million a year. The budget eliminates it entirely.

Mr. Speaker, it may make sense that they are forcing the cuts through Congress so they can afford the hand-outs to the rich, but perhaps that really is what today's Republican Party stands for. But apparently they also stand for something new, contrary to their rhetoric: irresponsible government spending. The legislation before us will increase our deficit without a vote by $410 billion over the next 5 years. At the same time, it increases the debt limit by over $650 billion. By 2011, the limit will stand at $9.6 trillion.

When the Clinton administration left office, the debt limit was about $4.5 trillion, and they left us the greatest surplus we have ever had. The majority claims the bill will make us more fiscally secure, but what they really do is sow the seeds of greater insecurity both now and for years to come. When we realize that it isn't necessity driving this bill, but rather a world view that puts the richest Americans ahead of everybody else, we are not left with much else to say but ``shame.''

We don't share these values. Democrats believe instead, as did that great Republican President Theodore Roosevelt and countless other Americans, that investing in the middle class, which is disappearing quickly, and guaranteeing broad prosperity is the surest way to ensure sustained economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague's remarks, he certainly made it clear how proud he was of the bipartisanship in that committee. And so should we all be.

But all bipartisanship ended when this came to the Rules Committee. Of course it was an overwhelming vote. They have nine members, we have four. The tragedy here is that major amendments that Democrats wanted were not allowed to be heard today, very important things that we want to do.

For example, the ranking member, Mr. Skelton, was denied an amendment. The minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, was denied an amendment. And so, Mr. Speaker, through you, I want to ask Mr. Cole if he will grant me a unanimous consent request so that I can amend H. Res. 811 and add several important Democratic amendments not allowed under this restrictive rule.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, when Speaker Hastert was in the chair, he said by unanimous consent that we can easily do this. The amendments we want to add back are: A Skelton amendment that helps military families with prescription drug costs; an Israel amendment that calls for religious sensitivity by our military chaplains; an important Hoyer amendment on alternative energy; a Capps amendment to be able to defend her district against a nongermane provision in the bill; and a McGovern amendment to close down the School of the Americas.

I ask if he will yield me that time.