Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us addresses a fictional problem. Simply put, the Nation's largest food companies think that States are giving consumers too much information about the food they use to feed their families.

Along with the corporate lobbyists who wrote this bill, and we all know who they were because the paper printed them this week, these companies think it is wrong that States tell people when the bottled water on their supermarket shelves has high levels of arsenic.

They think it is wrong to inform a pregnant woman that eating mercury-laden fish could do serious damage to a fetus. And what about letting people know that their ground beef was treated with carbon monoxide? That apparently is wrong too. And I want to elaborate on that for just a moment. Many stores now buy their meat from common suppliers instead of having their own butchers at hand. In order to keep it looking fresh and looking better for a longer time, they treat it with carbon monoxide. You know, if you die from carbon monoxide poisoning, you turn a nice, bright, pink-red, which is what their meat does, and then they can keep it even for months. I saw a picture of one from November that it looked like it had just been butchered yesterday.

That is apparently wrong too. Do you want to eat that?

They want us to buy more and think less about health and safety and that alone is the motivation behind this bill. Supporters of the bill claim all they want to do is to make consumer protections the same for all Americans. But that is not what this bill will do. Most States already give their citizens much more information about the food than the Food and Drug Administration even requires. In fact, 80 percent of the food safety work performed in the United States is done by State and local officials. They are the ones with the expertise, the on-the- ground experience, and are needed to keep consumers safe, and they have been doing a good job. But this law will allow the FDA to invalidate State labeling laws and apply their own lower standards nationwide.

Listen, mothers, this is important. The consequences of this bill are going to be drastic. Within a matter of months, 200 State food safety laws will be wiped off the books. Will they be the ones that protect your child from an asthma attack or from dyes that would hurt them?

The experienced State health officials who want their regulations back are going to have to come, hat in hand, to the FDA and ask for permission to give their States more information than the Federal Government requires, which is paltry. They will have to plead with the FDA bureaucrats to keep the food safety laws in place, laws that their own legislatures and citizens have already established. In other words, they would have to seek approval from an agency that does not keep us safe anymore, an agency that cannot meet its current workload, and that, as we all know, has been in the business of approving drugs that turned out to be killing people and had to be removed from the market.

Now, I grew up believing that the FDA took care of me. And that was a lot like believing in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, because if I have learned one thing in the last 5 years, it is the FDA cannot do that. But suddenly the party of States' rights and small government wants to forget about both. Instead, it wants to send quality State regulations that are protecting Americans into a bureaucratic black hole.

Mr. Speaker, the people and organizations most concerned about the safety of our Nation's food stand in strong opposition to this bill. Attorneys General and public health and safety officials from all over the United States, in fact most of them, if not all of them, have come out against it and begged us not to pass it. In fact, the Association of Food and Drug Officials recently wrote a letter to the Representative who sponsored this bill, asking him to reconsider his own legislation.

He said, ``Members of the AFDO are State and local governments with no profit motive.'' That is the key here. These people have no profit motive, merely a public health concern, who feel strongly that the legislation will gravely impair State and local authorities' ability to protect their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, that letter is as follows:

The National Association of State Departments of

Agriculture,

Washington, DC, February 27, 2006.

Dear Members of Congress: The National Association of State

Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) is writing to reiterate

our concern and strong opposition to H.R. 4167, the National

Uniformity for Foods Act. NASDA represents the commissioners,

secretaries and directors of the state departments of

agriculture in the fifty states and four territories.

The House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 4167 this week and

we urge you to oppose this legislation. The state departments

of agriculture are very concerned that this bill goes far

beyond its stated purpose of providing uniform food safety

warning notification requirements and greatly expands federal

preemption under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Such

additional preemptions would seriously compromise our ability

to enact laws and issue rules in numerous areas of food

safety. Specifically, we believe the bill as currently

written threatens existing state food safety programs and

jeopardizes state/

federal food safety cooperative programs such as those

related to Grade A milk, retail food protection and shellfish

sanitation.

As you know, the current food safety regulatory system in

the United States is the shared responsibility of local,

state and federal partners. Approximately 80% of food safety

inspections in the nation are completed at state and local

levels. It is imperative that states have the right to act

quickly to address local and statewide public health concerns

that cannot be anticipated or are not adequately addressed

nationally. In addition, our existing food safety system

forms the first line of defense against the threat of a

terrorist attack against our nation's food supply. Passage of

this legislation will undermine the authority of state laws

and programs that address adulterated foods, including animal

feed, commodity laws and other food defense programs.

NASDA firmly believes the preemption of state and local

food safety programs would leave a critical gap in the safety

net that protects consumers. We call on Congress to hold

hearings to discuss these critical issues and seek full input

from state and local partners in the food safety system.

NASDA would welcome the opportunity to discuss ways the bill

could be amended to achieve its intent while limiting the

impact on critical food safety regulatory programs at the

local and state levels.

Now is not the time to pass H.R. 4167 and we urge you to

oppose this legislation until these important issues are

addressed.

Sincerely,

J. Carlton Courter III,

President.

As is often the case, the bill before us does more than provide just another example of how private interests trumped the public good in today's Congress. It also shows us how broken and undemocratic our political system has become. No hearings were held on this legislation. No State and no local public health officials were called to testify about it, even though they offered.

Both the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the Association of Food and Drug Officials expressed their willingness to talk to Congress about the issue, but they were turned away. These dedicated public servants were ignored because this legislation could never have withstood proper scrutiny. It was written with special interests in mind, not the public interests, pure and simple.

Last year the majority pledged honest and immediate reform of the way Congress wrote its bills, because when the public caught on to what was going on here, there was a great outcry. And yet here we are, in a new year, doing the very same thing: handing over the public interests to private corporations.

I wish we had an open and democratic process in this House. We need to stop passing bills that hold the public interest in contempt, and we need to start today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend that there is a far cry between lemon juice, as Mr. Stupak said, and carbon monoxide. Let me tell you, if you believe the FDA, ask the people who took Vioxx. They do not have a very good record over there.

But the idea of putting carbon monoxide on there is to hide the fact that the meat is on the verge of spoilage. I do not want to feed it to my family, nor should you want to feed it to yours.

His list of people who support it have the profit motive that the attorneys general and the State consumer representatives all told us was the difference between them and his supporters.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so that I can amend the rule to give the House an opportunity to vote today, up or down, to block the President's plan to turn over our Nation's ports to a government run by the country of Dubai.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment provides that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up legislation that stops the President from moving forward with his deal to transfer operations at a number of our Nation's busiest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

Mr. Speaker, now more than ever, we need to ensure that Congress has a voice in the outcome of this potentially dangerous and secretive deal.

On Monday of this week, Great Britain's highest court refused to consider an objection to the purchase of the British shipping company by Dubai, thus clearing the way for the sale and potential takeover of American ports by this company. Additionally, and many people may not know this, news reports this week have revealed that the contract negotiated by the Bush administration would impact more than just the six ports mentioned in

the initial reports. It would affect at least 22 ports in the United States.

The more we learn about the agreement, the worse it gets, and the clock is ticking on this deal and we must not allow more time to go by without taking any action in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a listing of ports that make up the 22 ports.

Dubai Deal Now Includes 22 Ports

Washington.--The $6.8 billion deal British courts approved

today putting a Dubai-owned company in charge of significant

operations at six U.S. ports, also gives the company a lesser

role in other dockside activities at 16 other American

seaports. By purchasing London-based Peninsular and Oriental

Steam Navigation, DP World bought the publicly traded British

firm's concessions to manage and operate some cargo or

passenger terminal facilities in New York, New Jersey,

Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The Department of Homeland Security has said DP World would

only operate and manage specific, individual terminals

located within six ports. Homeland Security says DP World

would operate one of Philadelphia's five terminals, not

including the port's single cruise ship terminal.

Last week, DP World formally submitted to an unusual,

broader security examination by the Bush administration over

the ports deal. Among the new cities included in the deal are

Camden, N.J. and Wilmington, Del.

Here is a list of all U.S. ports affected by the pending

sale of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation

Co. to Dubai-owned DP World:

BALTIMORE: Would manage and operate two of the port's 14

terminals.

BATON ROUGE, LA: DP Would run some stevedoring operations

at port's general cargo dock.

BEAMONT, TEXAS: Would run one of about six stevedoring

operations.

BOSTON: Operate Black Falcon Cruise Terminal with

Massachusetts Port Authority; would run stevedoring

operations at the Moran Automobile Terminal.

CAMDEN, N.J: Run some stevedoring operations, part owners

Delaware River Stevedores.

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS: Operate some stevedoring operations,

part of joint venture, Dix-Fairway.

DAVISVILLE, R.I: Run some stevedoring operations.

FREEPORT, TEXAS: Run some stevedoring operations.

GALVESTON, TEXAS: Run stevedoring operations at one

terminal.

GULFPORT, MISS: Would become one of two stevedoring

companies.

HOUSTON: Work with stevedoring contractors at three of

port's 12 terminals.

LAKE CHARLES, LA: Operate some stevedoring operations.

MIAMI: Operate/manage with Eller & Company Inc., one of

three terminals; doesn't include Miami's seven cruise ship

terminals and would operate some stevedoring services.

NEWARK: Operate and manage one of the port's four

terminals.

NEW ORLEANS: Manage and operate two of the port's five

terminals and doesn't include chemical-plant terminals along

the Mississippi River.

NEW YORK: Manage and operate the New York Cruise Terminal.

NORFOLK, VA: Involved with stevedoring activities at all

five port terminals and would not manage any of the

terminals.

PHILADELPHIA: Operate one of five terminals and doesn't

include the port's single cruise ship terminal.

PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS: Operate as one of three stevedoring

companies.

PORTLAND, MAINE: Operate as one of stevedoring companies

serving Portland's terminals and take over crane maintenance

at one terminal.

TAMPA, FLA: Operate/manage terminals under pending contract

negotiated Feb. 21; Port authority says will reconsider deal

if DP World deal is finalized; also provide some stevedoring

services.

WILMINGTON, DEL: Run some stevedoring operations as part

owners Delaware River Stevedores, one of two stevedoring

companies at the port.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question and then we can deal with this matter which has an urgency to everyone in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for assured funding for the veterans' health care. For too long, funding for the critical services needed by our veterans has been subject to the political whims of Congress and the Administration and budgetary schemes intended to hide inefficiencies and misplaced priorities. With a new generation of veterans returning home from their duty overseas, we must ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs has the resources necessary to honor the promises we have made to our veterans.

Last year, the Administration admitted that it had underestimated the number of servicemen and women requiring medical treatment upon return from their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Within one week, the Administration begrudgingly reported that the Department of Veterans Affairs was $1 billion short of being able to fulfill its obligations to veterans for Fiscal Year 2005, and would be $2.6 billion short of fulfilling its obligations for Fiscal Year 2006 without Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bills.

Efforts to fully restore funding were initially stymied by denial and vain attempts to save face by those who had condemned attempts to provide adequate funding to the VA during the traditional appropriations process. What should have been a quick fix to an embarrassing problem turned into a drawn out negotiation battle between those who argued that the VA needed only the barest minimum sum of money to carry out its mission and those who demanded additional funding to guarantee veterans' health care would not be interrupted. Once again, veterans' healthcare was left in limbo while the Congressional Leadership played politics.

In the face of growing public outrage, the funding shortfall was eventually restored. But, it appears that we have learned nothing from the preventable incident. Yet again, veterans' health care will be subject to the lengthy, political appropriations process and the Administration's request again shortchanges veterans.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans dutifully and courageously honored their commitment to our Nation. Now, it is our turn to keep our promises. American veterans deserve better than to have their healthcare in constant jeopardy. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting assured funding for veterans healthcare so that those who have served will always have the care they need when they need it. We can, and must, do better for our nation's veterans. With the most sincere gratitude for all that American veterans have done to protect our freedom.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the outgoing Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna. After a successful tenure in office, the Ambassador is returning home to New Brunswick.

Due to his commitment to solving problems and his indefatigable energy, Ambassador McKenna has presided over a number of important achievements during his time in Washington. I have had the opportunity to work closely with Ambassador McKenna in the last year on issues important to both our countries. We have agreed that the longest undefended border in the world must remain strong and secure, but not become a barrier to travelers, businesses, and border communities in both of our great nations.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is our Nation's largest trading partner, with some $1.2 billion worth of goods and services crossing the border between our two countries each day. Ambassador McKenna and I have worked together to strengthen this relationship, and to advocate for commonsense solutions that both improve border security while also facilitating trade and travel.

Indeed, through his successful careers in public life, law, business, and in diplomacy, Ambassador McKenna has understood the depth and breadth of relations between Canadians and Americans. He has employed his experience, tact and plain-spoken pragmatism to ensure that the occasional difference in priorities of our two governments does not get in the way of this friendship.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Ambassador McKenna for his friendship, and his service to Canada and the U.S. I wish him well on his future endeavors, and hope that we will get together again soon over a meal of fried chicken and rice pudding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 389, a resolution celebrating the Year of the Museum. This resolution recognizes the importance of museums which have served the American public since this country was founded and include every type of institution from A, art to Z, zoo. From arboretums, botanical gardens, zoos, historic

presidential homes and libraries to science centers and art and children's museums, they encourage curiosity, they provide a source of enjoyment as well as education, and they preserve our country's great history for every generation.

I'm sure there is not a person among us who does not have a cherished memory of a visit to a museum. Museums are unique places in our communities. They come in every variety and size. Their collections and the ideas they share cover the broad spectrum of human endeavors-- science, history, nature and art. There is a museum to satisfy and peak the interests of everyone of us.

Museums are public forums. They provide an environment rich with opportunity for intergenerational learning and sharing among children, parents, and grandparents. Museum visitors can come to know the struggles and accomplishments of different cultures and achieve a deeper understanding of their own family's, community's and country's history. But most importantly, museums are fun places to visit.

I have always loved museums and have been fortunate to have a number of world-renowned museums in my own district: the Buffalo Museum of Science, the Martin House Restoration Corporation, the Italian Heritage Museum & Cultural Center of Western NY, the Baker-Cederberg Museum and Archives, the George Eastman House, Landmark Society of Western New York, the Memorial Art Gallery at the University of Rochester, Rochester Historical Society, Rochester Museum & Science Center, the Strong Museum and the Susan B. Anthony House. These museums are so diverse; clearly any person could find the perfect museum in which to explore a unique interest.

But it is not just my constituents that have benefited from the presence of museums. All Americans do, because there are museums in nearly every Congressional District across this country. And they help our economy. Museums play an important role in promoting travel and tourism and driving economic development. They bring heightened local and national visibility to communities and their artists, scientists, and educators, and they spend $5.2 billion a year serving the American public. Most museums operate as small or mid-sized community institutions, offer free or reduced admissions at least one day a week, work with local schools to enhance curriculum and education of students and families, and employ paid staff and dedicated volunteers.

In addition to educating and entertaining, museums undertake the immense task of preserving and protecting the more than 750 million objects in their collections, ensuring that they are publicly available to our citizens for this and future generations.

H. Res. 389 recognizes ``The Year of the Museum'' as a celebration of great American cultural, history and traditions. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the vast public service provided by the museums in their own communities by supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 5. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 6. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 7. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, on the very first day of the last session of Congress, I stood on the floor and watched the Republican majority force through a new set of House rules, rules designed to destroy the House Ethics Committee and to protect the leadership and their Members from any measure of real accountability.

And ironically they called it an ethics reform package. As a result of that package we still do not have a working ethics committee today.

On that day the word ``corruption'' became synonymous with Congress in the minds of many of the American people. 2005 went on to be a year defined by corruption in a way never before seen. The magnitude of the Republican culture of corruption overwhelming this House has only been exceeded by the high cost of that corruption for every man, woman and child in this country.

From the Medicare legislation affecting the health of our seniors, to the safety of our troops in Iraq, to the energy bills that determine if families can afford to heat their homes during the winter and drive their cars, nothing has proved too precious to avoid being sold for a price.

But despite this shameful record today, the Republican majority asks us to believe they have now seen the light and they are suddenly committed to producing an ethical Congress. And so we are opening this year with another ethics rules change.

It is a reform that I support, because the stranglehold lobbyists have over our process is indeed a tremendous problem facing our Nation.

The fact that there are 34,000 registered lobbyists in Washington today, 63 for each Member of Congress, demonstrates just how much power special interests wield in this Congress. And clearly, former Members of this body who lobby should not have special access to lawmakers on the floor or the gym.

But let me be clear, that this rules change is so minor in relation to the magnitude of the problem that it does not amount to a drop in the ocean. In fact, I suspect it is illegal already.

First, we know that they should not be here, but we have ignored that rule and done nothing to enforce it. But more importantly, shifting the blame for the rampant corruption in Washington only to lobbyists is part of an effort to avoid the central issue.

Corrupt lobbyists like Jack Abramoff have done much harm to this country, but they can only be as corrupt as those in power allow them to be. Let me say that again. They have done a lot to harm the country, but they can only be as corrupt as those in power allow them to be.

A true responsibility for corruption begins and ends here in this Chamber with those who pull the strings. Lobbyists are simply the symptom. The disease is here. Because after all, lobbyists are writing the bills that come out of this House because the Republican leadership wanted it that way. House rules are being ignored and our ethics process destroyed because the Republican leadership wants it that way.

We now have a government that is too corrupt to sustain itself any longer, too undemocratic to even pretend to be a democracy. We simply cannot allow Band-aid packages like the one presented today to take the place of real reform. It is self-evident now that those who put America up for sale have neither the ability nor the credibility to lead us in a new direction.

It is going to take a lot more than preventing former Members from going to the House gym to produce an ethical Congress. If we ever hope to restore true democracy to our government, it is going to take a fundamental change in the culture of this institution, one devoutly to be wished and felt and certainly a thing that we will work hard for on this side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

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

I insert in the Record two documents referring to this bill.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Government Reform,

Washington, DC, January 30, 2006.

Budget Reconciliation and the Alexander Strategy Group

Vote No Until We Know

Dear Colleague: Do you know why the pending Budget

Reconciliation Conference Report contains none of the $10

billion in cuts to pharmaceutical companies that passed the

Senate?

Neither do I.

But I have a guess. On the back of this letter is the

interim disclosure for the first six months of 2005, showing:

PhRMA,

The Alexander Strategy Group,

Ed Buckham, and

Tony Rudy

all working together on ``Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription

Drug Issues, and Budget Process.'' (The final disclosure

forms are not due until February 15).

Postpone the vote on Budget Reconciliation until after an

investigation is conducted on the role of the scandal-ridden

Alexander Strategy Group in the negotiations. Ask the Speaker

to create a bipartisan investigation.

You don't want to vote in favor of a tainted bill. Vote No

until we know.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman,

Ranking Minority Member.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01FE06.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01FE06.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01FE06.003

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal from the Republican Party recently about its commitment to reforming the way the House does business.

Again today the Republicans have told us that they have learned from their mistakes, and they will never again allow special interests to distract them from doing the work of the American people.

Actions speak louder than words, and this budget bill before us today is proof that despite all the talk of reform nothing has changed with its leadership. This is a bill that cuts Medicare spending by $6.4 billion. It cuts child support enforcement by $1.5 billion. It cuts $343 million from foster care programs.

Last year, we knew what was behind this bill. It was tax cuts for the very rich. In order to offset the administration's unprecedented giveaway to the country's richest citizens, they are willing to cut the services to the neediest Americans. All of us, while we were home in January, heard from citizen after citizen, constituent after constituent, of the harm that this bill would do to them, begging us not to vote for it. Such an indefensible set of priorities is still the major reason why the majority gave us this bill again today, but this year things are even worse.

We are being asked to vote on a bill that more than ever before proves that the culture of corruption is alive and well in this Congress. At the behest of the drug and managed care industries, who met with the key legislators in closed, backdoor sessions, the Republican conferees have changed this legislation so that it will save these industries a total of $42 billion.

Now, how do they suggest that we pay for this new and improved giveaway to the corporate lobby? By increasing the co-payments and reducing health coverage for children, for seniors and for people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid.

This last year showed us the terrible consequences of poor leadership. We saw a national disaster turn into a national tragedy because of a failed government response. We saw self-interest run amok as top lawmakers violated the people's trust, and they were indicted and forced to step down in the wake of scandal. We saw our troops and the people of Iraq struggle heroically to lift not just the weight of a vicious insurgency, but also the burden of poor planning and unfulfilled promises from the White House.

Here again today, Republicans are acting to make the American people victims of unscrupulous, disingenuous leadership, while they talk of reform and change, and we cannot afford another year like the last one.

Remember, that as you cut the very life out of these programs, you are doing it to provide a tax cut for the richest Americans.

Every Member of this body needs to know the serious consequences of this vote today. A vote for this bill is a vote to literally take away health care from our children so we can give more money to the super- rich. A vote for this bill is a vote to weaken Medicare for our struggling seniors, who are having enough trouble with the so-called Medicare reform bill that we passed here and is giving everybody a fit trying to understand Medicare part D and that thousands are doing without their medication because of it.

It will also put college education farther out of the reach of our students, even though the President last night discussed that our competitiveness depends on what we are teaching our students today, so we can fund more tax-cut giveaways. Remember, that is what you are voting for.

A vote for this bill supports the culture of corruption, and also America can and must do better than this budget reconciliation and what this party is offering us today. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and vote ``yes'' for a new day here in Washington.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 664 and 671. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following these votes.

H.R. 2520, on Passage, rollcall No. 664, ``aye.''

H. Con. Res. 275, rollcall No. 671, ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 37 years of public service Mr. Thomas F. McHugh has devoted to the City of Rochester. His hard work and commitment to the city's development will set an example for current and future public servants, and Rochester is grateful for all that Mr. McHugh has contributed.

Mr. McHugh grew up in Ancram, Massachusetts. His father was in the insurance business and his mother was a teacher. It was from them that he learned the importance of a strong work ethic and a responsibility to community. He carried these lessons with him as studied at University of Syracuse and moved to Rochester upon his graduation.

Mr. McHugh began his career with the City of Rochester, serving 5 years as Project Director in the Department of Urban Renewal & Economic Development. In that capacity, he directed the $100 million, 175-acre Upper Falls Urban Renewal Project. From there, he moved to the Rochester Housing Authority where he has served as the Executive Director of the Rochester Housing Authority for the past 32 years. As Executive Director, he has ensured that low-income families, elderly, people with disabilities and many other members of the community have access to quality affordable housing.

Mr. McHugh has greatly expanded the affordable housing opportunities in the City of Rochester and Monroe County. When Mr. McHugh started with the RHA in 1974, it had approximately 1,100 Public Housing Units and 93 employees. Today RHA consists of 2,440 Public Housing units, 7,700 Assisted Housing units and 195 employees. Even with the addition of so many units, the Rochester community continues to regard RHA in the highest terms because of the commitment to keep properties in good repair. Mr. McHugh has developed and nurtured collaborations and partnerships with numerous public service agencies and community organizations. He has continuously maintained a positive working relationship with not only the City of Rochester, but also Monroe County, and State and Federal agencies.

While administering housing for more than 10,000 households is a daunting task in and of itself, under Mr. McHugh's leadership, RHA has used its resources in an effective and efficient manner. RHA has reported solid financial performance year after year and achieved high ratings in HUD's assessment programs for Section 8 and public housing.

Mr. McHugh spearheaded the effort to redesign Rochester's first public housing complex, the State-built Hanover Houses that consisted of seven high rise building for low-income families. He replaced the Hanover Houses with townhouse units to house families, seniors and people with disabilities that maintain a much greater degree of livability and security.

Mr. McHugh greatly expanded the scope of resident and educational services at RHA. Through the Family Investment Center Department and a Social Services Department, RHA has provided to thousands of residents training on family self-sufficiency, computers, construction trades apprenticeships, GED attainment and job placement. RHA also now has resources and staff available to assist residents who need counseling services for drug prevention or other types of intervention. Under Mr. McHugh's leadership, RHA developed a summer camp program which serves over 250 young people and created an after school tutoring program. RHA has nutrition programs for seniors and provides a senior escort van to transport them to shopping and doctor appointments.

Mr. McHugh's public service has not been limited to only the Rochester Housing Authority. During his 32-year career at RHA he has had long time affiliations, board memberships and service on committees with many organizations such as: Council of Large Public Housing Agencies (CLPHA), National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), Middle Atlantic Regional Council of NAHRO, National Leased Housing Association, National Low-Income Housing Coalition, Regional Council on Aging, Legal Aid Society of Rochester, Women's Career Center, St. John the Evangelist Church, Sisters of Mercy Founders Club, SWV Realty Corporation, Monroe Housing Development Corporation, GEVA Theatre, Downstairs Cabaret Theatre, Rochester Area Educational Television Association, Blue Cross of Monroe County, Project Self-Sufficiency Monroe County Task Force, Marie and Joseph Wilson Foundation, Workforce Investment Board and the Family First Federal Credit Union.

Through Mr. McHugh's leadership, compassion and commitment, thousands of people have been able to improve the quality of their lives because they had a good quality, safe, and affordable home. Many have used RHA as a springboard to better jobs, self-sufficiency and home ownership. He is a shining example of the difference one devoted individual can make in providing quality affordable housing opportunities, building communities, encouraging self-sufficiency and protecting the dignity of people with limited resources while at the same time safeguarding the public trust.

As Mr. McHugh heads into retirement, it is with great pleasure that I recognize and commend Mr. McHugh for his 37 years of dedicated and successful public service. If a man can be judged wealthy because he has friends and colleagues who both respect and admire him, then Thomas F. McHugh is truly a wealthy man. He leaves a great legacy that can serve as an example to all of us. My most sincere and heartfelt congratulations go out to Mr. McHugh for a job well done.

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, I want to do something I have never done before and that is talk about the process in the Rules Committee.

I listened to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I really am astonished at the deterioration of process in this House. I want it strictly on the

record for this debate today that those of us in the Rules Committee, the four Democrats, all voted to expunge from this bill the matter of the 45 pages of liability added after the conference was over. I realize that we waive everything in Rules, but I did not think that all the rules of the House back to Jefferson's Manual had just been waived.

We are very distressed about it. The process has been awful. We have been here for 2 days doing suspensions, for heaven's sake. What we are doing here, this is so critical, and I can guarantee every Member here that you are going to spend your whole time home in January and I understand we are working 6 days in February, so we are going to be around the district a lot, you are going to be explaining what was in this bill and why you did not know it and why you did not do something about it.

In doing so, I have to say that probably two of the the nicest people in the House of Representatives, Chairman Young and Chairman Lewis, I think have their names attached to this. I feel badly for them as well.

This bill determines how we as a Nation will spend our resources, at home and abroad, and in order to do the best to protect our fellow Americans, our shared values and our common interests. And in doing so, people around the world will rightly view this legislation as a testament to the values our Nation has chosen to embrace and promote, how we have chosen to define ourselves at this critical moment in history.

Our international credibility and the moral weight of our words continues to be damaged by every new allegation of detainee mistreatment at the hands of our forces and our government. With every new revelation of secret detention facilities operating beyond public scrutiny, we take a perilous step toward that which we wish to defeat.

Stories of undisclosed domestic spying and wiretaps approved by this White House and carried out by our top law enforcement agencies, without congressional knowledge or judicial review, force citizens, here and abroad, to question this Nation's commitment to its own ideals. How determined are we to create an open world ruled by clear and established laws if we are abandoning them at home?

The creation of clandestine CIA facilities beyond the oversight of Congress and the world community, the troubling misuse of American power, undermining the goodwill born of the sincerest efforts of our fighting men and women, that is not the work of my America.

My America won two world wars and faced down fascism without resorting to torture. My America survived those troubling times without abandoning the civil and personal liberties which made us different and made our way of life so worth fighting for. My America practices what it preaches.

I applaud the fact that Senator McCain's torture amendment has been added to this appropriations bill. Mr. McCain understands that torture is not just morally reprehensible. It also gives us bad intelligence, undermines our credibility and endangers our troops by providing their enemies with an excuse to mistreat them if they are captured. I am relieved that most of my fellow Members in this House see the wisdom in Senator McCain's words.

At the same time, there have been reports suggesting that the Army Field Manual, enshrined by Mr. McCain, is being quietly amended in a way which threatens to undermine his efforts. If this is true, this Congress must vigilantly monitor what is added to the list of acceptable interrogation procedures given to our troops, and we must further guarantee that our Nation continues to exemplify the kind of society we hope to encourage.

Today, we fund continued operation of the defense community and all those who are part of it. We do so gladly because we believe, as we always have, that ours is the way of life that should not perish.

But to change the values of our society at the moment we are fighting to preserve them at home and champion them abroad would not just be the height of irony, Mr. Speaker, it would be the height of tragedy.

We have many questions to answer about how the United States will define itself in the years ahead and how we will interact with the world. I hope that we will use the upcoming holiday to reflect on what kind of America we in Congress wish to create for future generations. I hope we take that question seriously in the second half of this session.

I have faith in this body just as I have faith in this Nation that we possess the wisdom to do what is right and the courage to right what is wrong if only we will use it. The very nature of our democracy depends on it.

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

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

ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

Let me take just a second to say I agree with Mr. Burton, and also it does not just include vaccine. It is some other medical devices as well that are indemnified.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

I recall the last time ANWR was debated that major oil companies said they had no interest in ANWR and it was purely speculative whether there is oil there or not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip, to make a good point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May I inquire how many requests my colleague has?

Let me take my remaining time, then, to close.

Mr. Speaker, let me end as I began, deploring the process. This is the third legislature that I have served in. I am always proud to have been elected by people to represent them and their interests.

We cannot take care of their interests any more, Mr. Speaker. We can only stand here in the middle of the night, when obviously I am beginning to think that is the plot, because we know that nobody is going to be listening to this, not even those who love us most.

But a lot of harm is going to be done here. Not the least of it is the fact that the process was so flawed that even after the conference report was signed, 45 more pages were added to do harm. I deplore that. I look for better days for the Congress of the United States for it to get back to the rules, and that once again, Mr. Jefferson's Manual, and not a Senate and House conference, will rule this House.

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, I am disappointed and sad to say that the content of the budget, and the way we are approaching it, confirms the fears of the American people instead of their hopes.

The bill the Republicans reported less than an hour ago is a bill that no one has seen, but one that will have far-reaching impact on the future of our country. We do not know everything it does, and yet we are being asked to vote on it before the ink is even dry.

Our form of government requires the trust of the people, a trust that this leadership has not earned. Being asked to take the Federal budget on faith, in a year when the majority has itself lost faith in the values that matter most to our democracy, integrity, honesty and openness, is simply asking too much.

One thing we do know about this budget is that its very foundation is fundamentally dishonest. The majority has titled it the Deficit Reduction Act when the facts clearly show that the bill, when combined with the Republican tax giveaway to the rich, will actually increase the deficit by billions of dollars. Supporters will also claim that they have addressed criticisms of the legislation, but they are not being honest either.

It is true that the leadership was shamed by the public, the Democrats, and even by Members of their own party into abandoning some of the most egregious attacks on the less fortunate. But the fact remains that the bill still takes over $1 billion from child support services. It cuts education spending by $16.2 billion so that our Nation's children will find it harder to go to college and to realize their dreams. And it slashes Medicaid by $5 billion, putting health care for those who need it further out of reach.

The budget does all this while adding to the deficit and giving away tens of billions of dollars to the rich and the super rich in tax cuts, dramatic cuts that middle-class Americans will not share in, but will be asked to pay for.

Is this really what our constituents sent us here to do, to spend the holiday season taking from the needy so that we can give even more to those who need it the least?

Mr. Speaker, this year has repeatedly shown us the consequences of poor leadership. We saw a natural disaster turn into a national tragedy because of failed government response, casting doubt on our readiness to respond to future challenges. We saw self-interest run amok, as top lawmakers violated the people's trust and were indicted

and forced to step down in the wake of scandal.

We saw our troops and the people of Iraq struggle heroically to lift not just the weight of a vicious insurgency but also the burden of poor planning and unfulfilled promises from the White House.

And here again today, the American people will be made victims of unscrupulous, disingenuous leadership.

On the opening day of the 109th Congress, almost 1 year ago, the first act of this leadership was to try to destroy the House ethics committee under the guise of ethical reform.

Unfortunately, my colleagues in the majority have committed to ending this session of Congress on the same sad note with which they began it, by employing unacceptable, unprecedented tactics and trying to deceive the American people out of pure political self-interest at the expense of this body and our shared values.

We cannot afford another year like this. We need to start investing in America's future, not letting those in power invest only in their friends at America's expense. It is time for real reform, for real integrity, for real leadership. It is time for a change, and together we can do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, due to a technical error my vote was not recorded for rollcall 618. I should have been recorded as voting ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following this vote. H.R. 4440, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, rollcall No. 618, ``yes.''

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, just 2 weeks ago, the majority forced a budget vote by two votes to cut $50 billion from education, from health care, from foster care, child support, and a host of other vital programs. They claimed that they were simply eliminating waste and promoting fiscal responsibility and, most importantly, curbing our national debt.

But today, they want us to agree to a tax cut for $56 billion. If we take away the $50 billion in the budget tax cuts, but we add $56 billion in tax giveaways, we end up with more debt, not less. In fact, we end up adding $6 billion to the largest deficit in our country's history, the one created by this Republican Congress.

Now, if reducing the deficit is not a priority, what has made the majority's agenda? How we control the purse strings in our hands reveals who we work for. Of the proposed $56 billion in cuts, 50 percent, that is, $28 billion, will go to the superrich, those among us who need it the least. This bill is for them, the men and women among us who earn more than $1 million a year, a mere fraction of 1 percent of Americans.

At the same time, the middle class will continue to be squeezed, while workers who make $40,000 or less, in other words, those who need help the most, will receive 1 percent of today's cuts.

That is what this is about. Does the Republican Party really think the American people do not see what is going on here?

What this bill shows us today is that Republicans care about entrenching privilege, the work of a corrupt and inefficient government, all while talking about tough choices and cutting government waste; but their rhetoric does not add up.

If they were serious about making government work better, they would fulfill their responsibility to conduct proper congressional oversight and ensure that the money we do spend is spent efficiently.

They would look for the $9 billion misplaced during Iraq reconstruction, and we have tried time and time again to have amendments approved that would do just that. Now, the loss of $9 billion in Iraq is what I call government waste, but there is not a court in this country which could find Republicans guilty of enforcing accountability in government. There would not be the evidence to convict them. Instead, they cut social services for the needy and send the savings to the rich.

Have tax cuts for the rich become the sole agenda of the majority party? Sadly, in the face of numerous challenges from both abroad and home, this increasingly seems to be the case.

Their solution to rehabilitating the lives of those devastated by natural disasters? Cut taxes for the rich. Their solution to curbing an out-of-control national debt? Cut taxes for the rich.

My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the agenda of reform, but they have controlled the Congress for over 10 years, and now they are the status quo. As much as they may want to say they are the solution, we know that they have become the problem.

If they were committed to solutions, they would not funnel money to the rich while they leave the working middle class to fend for themselves, all while cutting education and health care programs and adding billions to the massive debt that is crushing this Nation. Let me point out that the 400,000 persons who lost their food stamps in the budget cuts and over 300,000 children who lost their breakfast programs, that money is being used today to finance these tax cuts.

The pursuit of such an agenda violates the trust our constituents have invested in their elected representatives, and it is an abdication of the most fundamental responsibilities of this Congress.

America can be better than this. We can do better than selling out the vast majority of our citizens so that Congress can give another tax cut to a tiny minority. We can do better than increasing our staggering national debt and calling it fiscal responsibility.

This leadership has forgotten what made America great. It has forgotten what made the 20th century the American century, which was investment in the middle class, investment in society, investment in education, investment in opportunity, investment in the future, not investment in the rich.

It is time for a new direction. Together, America can do better than what this leadership is proposing here today.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and defeat this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) to explain AMT.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker. May I inquire if my colleague is about ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

As it happens, I have extra time, and I yielded to Mr. Rangel to respond to your comments.

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

I would like to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, a ``no'' vote on the bill, and say to every Member of the House of Representatives if they want the AMT fix protected, the only way in the world they can do it today is to vote for the Democrat substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.