Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers go out to all those affected by the devastating destruction of Hurricane Katrina. I know that the American people are a generous people. I know that the men and women of this Nation feel the suffering of their fellow citizens, and will continue to stand with them in any way that they can.

We are here today to discuss what our government must do in the wake of this disaster. The emergency appropriations bill set to be passed this afternoon is a step in the right direction. Everyone in this chamber realizes that more money--much more--will be needed in the days and months ahead. I'm confident that this Congress won't think twice about doing everything necessary to meet the critical needs of the desperate citizens in the affected regions of our country.

The shock and grief which has rightly motivated this degree of Federal support is, however, already giving way to anger. Over the past 4 years, a great portion of our national discourse has focused on preparedness. Members of Congress have created new government entities, spent billions upon billions of dollars on them, and spoken at great length about the need for our country to be perpetually vigilant and always ready to respond to any disaster which could befall it.

It is therefore not surprising that the loss of life produced by this hurricane--perhaps four times as great as the human cost of September 11, 2001--has incensed our citizens and shocked observers around the world. It has revealed that we are still unable to respond to homeland disasters in the fast and aggressive manner required.

But as is often the case, what has happened in the Gulf States has also revealed what can only be described as a skewed set of national priorities. Simply put, this was a tragedy which didn't have to happen. People at all levels of government have known for years that New Orleans was a greatly vulnerable city. In fact, in 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency produced a list of the worst disasters which could confront our country. A hurricane striking New Orleans was at the top of that list.

And so, it would be reasonable to expect that during the years leading up to this past week, local, State, and Federal Governments would have been doing everything within their power to prepare a complete and carefully planned strategy for how to deal with the aftermath of such an event.

They didn't. It was obvious that we still are not ready to evacuate a large number of people from their homes to safety quickly and effectively. This failing is a danger to all Americans, and must be corrected immediately.

But what is worse, our government spent the last few years actually undermining our readiness for disaster prevention in New Orleans and the surrounding region. Federal funds for flood control projects in that city have faced massive recent budget cuts. To cite but one example: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has so valiantly struggled against the rising floodwaters this week, had to struggle previously against an 80 percent cut of its funding for New Orleans in 2004. Predictably, one of the major motivators of cuts like these was the spiraling costs of American military operations in Iraq, which continue to siphon off tens of billions of dollars from domestic programs.

The natural defenses of New Orleans faced an assault as well. In 2003, the current Administration reversed a previous commitment to defending coastal wetlands which would have helped to mitigate the effect of storms on the Gulf coast. Instead, the areas were opened up for rapid development.

Nor were the people of the region given the tools they needed for survival. Poverty in America has been increasing year after year. Now, 12.7 percent of our population lives in poverty--that's four million more people than in 2001. As is overwhelmingly obvious, those damaged the most by Hurricane Katrina were some of our country's poorest citizens. Before the storm hit, they were out of direct communication with authorities. They had no means to evacuate themselves or their families. And during the critical hours when wealthier residents were fleeing, the poorest were left alone to fend for themselves.

It is true that the devastation vested upon New Orleans and the Gulf region was the product of an act of nature. But its severity was greatly exacerbated by a combination of a lack of vision by our leaders and a failure to properly prioritize our Nation's energies and resources. Despite all the talk to the contrary, our government has viewed elective foreign wars as more important than having a real system in place here at home which can respond to any contingency. It hasn't seriously worked to address the poverty which makes millions of people all the more vulnerable to disasters. And it has seen commercial activity as simply being more valuable than defending the naturally existent barriers to disaster which we should be perfectly willing to save.

If anything positive can come from this, I hope it's a wake up call. This week, our failures had horrific consequences for millions of people, and they were especially devastating for just those men and women our society should be focused on the most: the poor, the elderly, the sick, the needy, the displaced, and the homeless. We must meet these serious problems head on and work to solve them. Our errors should not be covered up with political grand standing and slaps on the back. This failure must not be swept under the rug. If we don't learn from this horrible, horrible mistake, I fear we will repeat it, at a new point in time, and at a new place on the map.

This Congress must do what is right for the people of this Nation. They will be watching.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to recognize and welcome Reverend Lawrence Hargrave, one of my constituents but, moreover, a friend and a mentor to be the guest chaplain in the House of Representatives today.

I am extremely proud of Reverend Hargrave, not only for his heartfelt prayer service this morning, but for his continued commitment to the Rochester community.

Lawrence Hargrave completed his degree in sociology from SUNY Buffalo in 1969. Remarkably, after working for almost 30 years in the private sector, he answered the call for service and completed a Master's of Divinity from Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School. Reverend Hargrave is currently the acting dean of Black Church Studies at the school and is the associate minister at Mt. Olivet Baptist Church in Rochester.

As a dedicated community servant, Reverend Hargrave is committed to interfaith discussion and dialogue. Specifically, he serves on the Rochester Interfaith Jail Ministry Board of Directors and is a member of the Commissions on Christian-Muslim and Christian-Jewish Relations.

On behalf of the House of Representatives, I thank Reverend Hargrave for being here with us this morning, and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Reverend Hargrave for his years of faithful service to the people of New York and to his God.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule before us this morning because, as was pointed out yesterday, the Republican leadership, in a clear attempt to circumvent the democratic process, tried to sneak the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act through the House under suspension of the House rules.

Now, suspension rules are supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial measures. They are most often employed for renaming post offices and honoring sports teams, but not for bills which attempt to alter America's trade policy. But this leadership wanted to force this bill through the House without a proper hearing in the committee, without the appropriate debate, and without any opportunity for amendment or improvement.

Fortunately for all Americans, that plot failed, and the measure was defeated on the floor. But to no one's surprise, they are back at it again this morning. The leadership once more has shut the door on the delivery of democracy by providing just 1 hour of debate on this measure. And more importantly, on a party-line vote, the Republicans voted to prevent any amendment by any Member of Congress from even being considered on the House floor today which would strengthen this bill.

That means they want all 435 Members of the House to accept the leadership's version of the bill; no changes, no arguments, no additions, no recommendations for improvement, just yes or no. This is like being given an opportunity to vote in an election with only one candidate on the ballot. It is a stretch to call that democracy.

The question is what is the House leadership afraid of? They do not want the membership of the body to have an opportunity to strengthen trade policies for American companies. This China trade bill is merely a public relations effort, and it is part of a last-ditch attempt to pick up votes for CAFTA which will come up later today, and nothing more.

It has no teeth, and that is exactly how the majority wants it: Long on rhetoric and short on substance. Even though it is called the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act, the bill provides little for those concerned about the ballooning trade deficit with the China and the destruction of U.S. jobs. It fails to include real solutions proposed by Members on both sides of the aisle.

It fails to include solutions such as strengthening remedies for American industries that were hurt by China's unfair trade practices. This is a very serious issue that the leadership is trivializing as a protection for a vote for CAFTA. But real American jobs are hanging in the balance, and a perfect example of this can be found in Buffalo, New York.

After 100 years of business, the Buffalo Color Company, the last domestic producer of indigo dye used to make blue jeans, is in the final throes, to quote the vice president, of bankruptcy. Buffalo Color is the victim, and it has already been adjudicated, of illegal Chinese dumping of indigo dye on the American market. For 2 years, we have been asking for help from the administration to stop the Chinese companies from circumventing our trade laws by shipping their cheap dye to the United States through Korea and Mexico. I have tried repeatedly to personally discuss this case with Commerce Secretary Gutierrez, and have yet to even hear back from him.

I want Members to understand that the unfair trade practices are going on because this administration will not stop them. The Secretary has been so busy going to China to give away more jobs and working up here to get CAFTA passed, he cannot even answer

a letter. We have called, we have written, we have issued press releases, but we cannot get the Bush Commerce Department to lift one finger to save an iconic American industry from annihilation at the hands of Chinese price dumping, which is already illegal.

The bottom line is that, much like the Bush administration, this bill will do nothing to help Buffalo Color Company or its employees. As a result, the only remaining producer of the dye for blue jeans, a powerful American icon, will be driven into bankruptcy by illegal price dumping, and more American jobs will be lost. Let me repeat that they have already won their case against China. The Commerce Department simply refuses to allow it to survive.

I hope the sad irony of this is not going to be lost on anybody here today, because Buffalo Color should be able to count on its Federal Government to provide protection from unfair trade practices. With this bill, the Republican leadership is failing to meet that responsibility.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that as this discussion on CAFTA moves forward that the majority will, once again, succumb to the temptation to twist, bend, and break off the rules of debate and consideration in order to meet their objectives, just as they did during the Medicare debate of the 108th Congress.

During that debate the vote on final passage was held open for a shameful 3 hours while the Republican leadership twisted arms and cut deals to make up their vote deficit. The events of that night constituted one of the worst abuses of power I have witnessed in my almost 20 years in this House.

In the aftermath, allegations of bribery were leveled by a Republican Congressman, and an Ethics Committee investigation followed closely behind, one that ended in the admonishment of the majority leader of this House.

It is no secret that, just like last time, the Republican leadership is desperately scrambling to find the votes necessary to pass this bill, which I and many of my colleagues strongly oppose. But I would warn my friends in the majority that we dare not see a return to those underhanded tactics used by the leadership during the 108th Congress. There should be no votes held open for 3 hours. There should be no unethical arm-twisting on this House floor. The American people are watching this time.

Sadly, though, we are already seeing evidence that this pattern of abuse will once again carry the day. Last night in the Committee on Rules, we were given a paltry 1 hour's notice by the Republicans that we would be considering the most controversial trade agreement this body has contemplated since NAFTA. And of the three contentious bills that we considered in the Committee on Rules, not a single amendment was allowed, nor even a single substitute. It was a shut-out of democracy. And coming from a country trying to export democracy to the rest of the world, it showed us on our side of the Committee on Rules that we do not have it right yet.

Even though the House rules clearly state that 20 hours of debate is appropriate for a trade agreement, we offered to accept only 8 hours as a compromise, but that was too much democracy for this leadership. For the most contested trade agreement this body has considered in 12 years, we will have a whopping 2 hours of debate, less time than it would take you to watch ``Saving Private Ryan'' on a DVD.

We were actually given more time to debate the renaming of five post offices Monday. Most high school debate teams spend more time considering the serious issues that face our country than we do here in the House.

But CAFTA clearly warrants our full and undivided attention. This is a major piece of legislation that will affect the lives of every American. CAFTA threatens to export even more American jobs and encourages American companies to relocate their factories in other countries. It does not provide adequate protection for workers, it turns back the clock on labor standards, and it does not provide any safeguards for improving environmental standards.

We need trade agreements that expand our access to the new markets and raise the standard of living for American families. This legislation falls far short on each of those standards.

As the arbiters of the rules of this hallowed institution, the Committee on Rules has a special responsibility to ensure that the integrity of the democratic process is preserved. That is why last night I asked the Republicans on the Committee on Rules for their assurance that we will not again see the egregious abuses of power and the trampling of the democratic process that we experienced in the last Congress on the Medicare debate, because we should be having 8 hours of debate and a 15-minute vote, not the other way around. Their reply was that ``rules would be followed,'' but they must not have meant the Rules of the House of Representatives when they made that promise, because what actually followed was a shut-down of any consideration of amendments to the medical malpractice bill, the prevention of any up- or-down votes on amendments to the China Trade Act, and the restriction of debate in consideration of CAFTA.

For the sake of the millions of American families depending on this Congress to spend the time and get it right on legislation, and especially on CAFTA, I hope that this time the debate lasts longer than the vote.

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, permit me first to say this morning that our thoughts and prayers are with our friends in London who today are coping with what seems to be a second terrorist attack in 2 weeks. Thankfully, the causalities appear to be minimal. And my colleagues and I in this House offer our most sincere hope that no one in London will have to suffer this pain again associated with the abominable actions taken 2 weeks ago and unsuccessfully attempted again today.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of nothing less than our national security, but national security is not just about protecting our borders. It is also about protecting our freedoms.

All of my colleagues understand that the PATRIOT Act has provided the law enforcement agencies with many valuable tools which facilitate their work in the struggle against terrorism. But with these new tools comes a very real danger that the liberty we seek to protect could be easily compromised in the overzealous pursuit of greater security. This struggle strikes at the heart of the debate over the legislation before us today. And while the restrictive rule we are debating this morning has allowed us to improve the PATRIOT Act in several important ways, the leadership has chosen to prohibit open debate in consideration of the most sensitive, controversial, and important issues that surround this bill.

I would also add that today we are considering the 32nd rule this year that has either been closed or severely restricted. It is ironic that on consideration of a bill which seeks to protect our freedoms, our freedom to debate and amend the legislation has been strictly curtailed, as is too often the case in this body.

Mr. Speaker, when the PATRIOT Act was passed in 2001, 16 provisions were set to expire in 5 years because some of them could possibly be used to violate the very freedoms our young men and women in uniform too often die to protect. These provisions provide the executive branch of this government with unprecedented powers of search, seizure and surveillance, too often without the due process we are guaranteed under our Constitution.

By party line votes, the Republicans on the Committee on Rules at the direction of the leadership refused to allow consideration of critical amendments that address these issues, and there are four particular issues I want to discuss this morning, reforms which Democrats believe are critical.

First, we are not considering a provision to allow people who are not terrorists to challenge the government when the FBI wants to sift through their personal information, including their private medical records. But we should be.

Second is the fact that the important work of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was cast aside by the House leadership. The version of the bill voted out of the committee on a near unanimous vote in that committee included a provision which allowed for a sunset review of the Lone Wolf provision of this bill, which was not included in the final version.

We are also not considering an amendment that would properly restrict the government's ability to come into your home when you are not there and execute a warrant, and even remove property without notifying you until later, if at all, an officially sanctioned breaking and entering if you will. Now, that remains perfectly legal under this bill because the Republican leadership would not allow the amendments to change it.

But perhaps most importantly, we are not even allowed to consider an amendment that would require Congress to do its job and fulfill our responsibility to the American people by going back and taking a look at these laws every few years because the leadership decided that none of them can be considered today by the Congress, even though they deal with the most sensitive and important security and civil liberty issues we face in this country today.

The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary stated last night in the Committee on Rules that sunset review is not necessary in the future because he and his staff are providing all the oversight needed of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the PATRIOT Act. With all due respect to the esteemed chairman, I do not think that is enough of a safeguard for the American people to accept in this case. After all, we will not have the benefit of his leadership and wisdom forever, and this Congress has a duty to consider and provide for the future. Our ability to ensure the proper oversight and protection of liberty must be larger in scope than the career or judgment of a single individual.

Also, agencies have proven to be more responsive to congressional oversight when a sunset review is looming on the horizon. The chairman has even acknowledged that the Justice Department has been uncooperative in his attempts to conduct the appropriate reviews and oversight of the bill thus far.

We have evidence which suggests, in contrast to information coming out of the Justice Department, that many of these measures have resulted in the violation of the civil liberties of American citizens. In addition, we understand that some of the extended search and seizure powers used by the law enforcement are apparently not being used for their intended purpose, which is strictly to fight terrorism, and that is unacceptable.

Whether this information is true or not, the fact remains that an honest discrepancy exists, and that is reason enough to ensure proper congressional oversight and why we should include sunset provisions in the bill. The Republicans support sunset review for the EPA, it is in the President's 2006 budget, but not for the PATRIOT Act. The idea of these measures was always that they would be temporary, and yet they are seeking to make them last forever.

Mr. Speaker, forever is an awful long time. We would do well to remember that they were passed into law in the frantic weeks after September 11, hastily, without our understanding of their potential impact or benefit, and that is why we created a sunset review in the first place and why we need a sunset review as long as these incredible powers are in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the head of the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can amend the rule and allow

the House to consider the Sanders amendment that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night on a straight party-line vote. I might also add that the extraordinarily important Otter amendment on the egregious sneak-and-peak law was voted down on a 9 to 4 vote last night.

This amendment would exclude booksellers and libraries from the scope of section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows law enforcement to conduct broad searches of the records of bookstores and libraries without demonstrating probable cause, and it forbids libraries and bookstore owners from even telling their patrons that their records have been searched.

Mr. Speaker, an identical version of this amendment was passed in the House a month ago during consideration of the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations bill. By a substantial vote of 238 to 187, the Members of this body expressed their support for the provisions of the Sanders amendment. It is clear that the PATRIOT Act's provisions on the search of library and bookstore records are overly broad and undermine our basic constitutional rights. For the sake of civil liberties and the privacy rights of our fellow citizens, this House needs to debate the Sanders amendment.

I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from considering the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill, and it will not block any amendment made in order under this rule. But a ``yes'' vote will block the House from considering the Sanders amendment.

Please vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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. Chairman, on rollcall No. 390, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 390, I was detained due to a meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the 157th anniversary of the first women's suffragists movement.

Western New York is often said to be the cradle of the women's rights movement, and I am privileged to represent the area where one prominent suffragette, Susan B. Anthony, of Rochester, fought so hard for the rights that women today enjoy.

Susan B. Anthony formed the Equal Rights Association, refuted ideas that women were inferior to men, and fought for a woman's right to vote. She also campaigned for the rights of women to own property, to keep their own earnings, and have custody of their children.

In 1900, she persuaded the University of Rochester to admit their first women students. Through persistent dedication, Susan B. Anthony, and other remarkable leaders, women were finally granted the right to vote in 1920. Since then, we have made progress, but still have a long way to go. We face the gender gap. And whether it is equal pay, health care, Social Security, or family leave, this Congress has refused to address issues critical to hard-working American women.

The suffragist movement had to overcome the rhetoric and the empty promises of Members of this House 85 years ago. Commitment to concrete policies, not grandiose words, honors the battle they fought so hard and won.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night in the Committee on Rules I attempted to strike an amendment that was put into this bill that I believe does not belong there. I believe it was inflammatory and totally unnecessary. It implied that those Americans who are concerned about the conduct of the war and talk about withdrawal are unpatriotic. Despite 60 percent of the American people being concerned about the war, the majority refused to remove this amendment from the bill.

Mr. Speaker, all Americans support the troops in Iraq. They are our sons and they are our daughters. We appreciate their commitment, we honor

their service and we do not need another resolution to demonstrate that appreciation. What we should do is live up to our commitment to the troops.

Mr. Speaker, it is the Democrats that have fought to raise the Veterans Administration budget the $2 billion it needs this year just to take care of the wounded from Iraq. Think about that for a moment. For what we spend on the war a week, $2 billion, we could take care of our wounded veterans for a year. We care very much about that, and that is how we honor our troops.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats in this House have pushed that debate, and again unsuccessfully, that our troops are not well equipped, that we have not given them the armored vehicles and things they need to save their lives. Now this leadership is going to use rhetoric to try to further divide the Nation. They would rather do that than take care of the troops.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this rule and particularly, as I mentioned, the Ros-Lehtinen amendment is fear politics at its worst. The underlying message the Republican leadership is sending could not be clearer. It is this: If you disagree with the policies of this administration, you are un-American. If you dare to question them, you will hurt our troops in the field. If you ask the tough questions, you are helping the terrorists.

I feel compelled to advise my colleagues that this is a democracy. What we need to do is defeat the previous question and consider the Ros-Lehtinen amendment separately as a freestanding bill. The way it is written now, there is no possibility even to amend it. It is either up or down, shut up or put up.

This is not the way we do things here, and we are leaving out half the population of this country who wants us to debate the war. Once again, we are attempting to cut out the voice of the people here, and we will try on the previous question to remove the Ros-Lehtinen amendment from the bill and immediately consider it later as a freestanding bill, giving Members the opportunity to amend it.

Mr. Speaker, during my life I've been called a lot of things from a microbiologist, to a mother of three and a grandmother of 7, to a Member of Congress, but today I seem to have earned a new title, one I never expected to have--I am now a walking chemical plant.

Recently, I was a surrogate blood donor for a study conducted by the Environmental Working Group and Commonweal. I participated in this important study to find out what toxic substances I in particular, and Americans in general, have been exposed to throughout our lives.

My stunning test results showed literally hundreds of chemicals pumping through my vital organs everyday. These chemicals include PCBs that were banned decades ago, as well as chemicals like Teflon that are currently under Federal investigation. Apparently, my body is home to toxic chemicals used to make insecticides, electrical cables, florescent lamps and even automobile engine oil, despite the fact that I tasked my husband with handling the car oil years ago.

I also have auto exhaust fumes, flame retardant chemicals, and in all, some 271 harmful substances coursing through my veins. That's hardly the picture of health I had hoped for, but I've been living in an industrial society for over 70 years.

While I was born in a coal mining mountains of Kentucky, I grew up in a bucolic area that did not have industrial pollution. So I have assumed my exposure to environmental chemicals occurred during adulthood. But for the ten newborn babies that also were part in this study, they were born polluted. On average each one had some 200 chemicals in their blood, before they ever touched a blanket, a bassinet, a car seat, or even took their first breath.

If ever this country had a wake-up call, it's the blood test results of these newborns. If ever we had proof that our nation's pollution laws aren't working, it's reading the list of industrial chemicals in the bodies of babies who have not yet lived outside the womb. Obviously, banning chemicals after they have entered the environment is not enough.

That we have children coming into this world already polluted, at the same time we don't know what the effects of that pollution will be on their mental and physical development, is both bad policy and immorally wrong. We must test chemicals before they go onto the market, not after they get into our bloodstreams.

Over the last 30 years, the U.S. has seen a steep rise in the occurrence of childhood cancers, testicular cancer, juvenile diabetes, attention deficit disorder, learning disabilities, thyroid disorders, cognitive impairment, and autoimmune disorders. Autism cases alone rose 210 percent between 1987 and 1998.

And we ask ourselves, why? What's happening? Is there a connection with the more than 75,000 new chemicals that have been introduced into our environment since the 1950s?

Amazingly, there is still a lack of data on the potential neuro- developmental effects on women, on fetuses, and on how long-term, low- dose exposure to environmental pollutants impacts children at critical stages of development.

For 5 years, I have called on Congress to enact legislation that would allow NIH to research the impact that these chemical pollutants have on women and children. Now, once again, I am introducing the Environmental Health Research Act. Specifically, this bill does two things. First, it authorizes the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to develop six multidisciplinary research centers to investigate the association

and impact of environmental factors on women's health and their offspring. It also authorizes the Director of this institute, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, to establish a comprehensive program to conduct research on the impact of hormone disrupting chemicals affecting maternal and child health.

We need to research the impact of these chemical pollutants now. Only then will we have the information we need both to detoxify and also to prevent developmental disabilities and other environmentally related diseases in future generations.

Let's pass this legislation. Let's clean up our environment. Let's clean up our bodies, but most importantly, let's not permit our babies of the future to be polluted before they are even born.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, we now know that Karl Rove is one of the White House officials directly involved in the outing of a covert CIA agent.

Rove and his attorneys can parse the words all they want, but it is now clear that while Rove may not have given a reporter Plame's name, he clearly identified her by telling the reporter that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.

Does Rove expect us to believe that any reporter worth a byline could not easily find out the actual name of Wilson's wife? And, as disturbing as this is, it is even more disturbing that President Bush continues to support Rove.

In September 2003, President Bush told reporters, ``If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.'' Well, the President now knows at least one of the persons in his administration is responsible for this leak. The question is, will he keep his word and fire Mr. Rove?

President Bush should not forget the comments of his own father who in a speech before the CIA in 1999 said, ``I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.'' And right on, first President Bush.

If this President agrees with his father, he will fire Karl Rove and clear the way for his prosecution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. And frankly, if this business had been taken care of in the JOBS Act we would not be here today trying to pass this amendment.

And no corporation just happens to go to Bermuda to incorporate. They go so that they can avoid paying taxes. You know, let us be realistic about it.

I want to support this amendment because new contracts would have to go to companies that pay taxes and operate in America. Corporations who set up the offshore tax havens cost us approximately $5 billion a year in tax revenue. And of course, as you say, the employees that they have here pay taxes. But all of us pay more taxes when corporations get out from under their tax liability. These companies received $1.4 billion in Federal contracts in 2002 alone.

Now, corporations located in the United States that conduct their business in the United States and employ most of their workforce in the United States should not skirt their tax obligations by opening a Post Office box in Bermuda. And it is unconscionable that we would reward these corporate tax cheats with millions of dollars in taxpayer funded Federal contracts. The corporate expatriates hurt the other U.S. taxpayers by shifting more of the tax burden on to their shoulders. This is a point that somehow we fail to grasp here. When other people get out of the burden of paying taxes the taxes do not go away. They are simply shifted to the rest of us. They drain funds from this budget that are desperately needed here in America for essential services, Medicaid, Social Security, health care for veterans from Iraq. You have heard already that that is underfunded by $2 billion. For education, housing, child care, transportation programs, that just names a few.

This government needs a stronger safeguard to ensure that we are not pumping hardened American tax dollars into the coffers of the same corporations that maneuver and scheme to exploit tax loopholes. This is a pro business amendment that ensures that only the responsible U.S. companies can benefit from Federal contracts.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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 thank my colleague, the gentleman the Florida (Mr. Putnam), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Florida has explained, this rule would do two things. It would allow the House to consider legislation under suspension of the rules, and it would waive a provision in the Congressional Budget Act that prohibits the House from adjourning for more than 3 days unless it has completed consideration on reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, in general, I think far too much of the legislation passed around here is done by suspension, a process that waives all House rules and prohibits all amendments, and even precludes a motion to recommit. Having that said, however, I must add that tonight is somewhat different.

I would ordinarily have more concern about allowing yet another day for considering legislation in this manner, but I do realize that in limited instances, it may be necessary to waive this rule in order to expedite legislation that is truly emergency in nature. It is evident today that two of the four items which are to be considered under suspension are indeed particularly urgent.

One is the temporary extension of the highway bill. Without this legislation, the highway programs will be shut down and significant layoffs will occur. I am hopeful, as I am sure many of my colleagues are as well, that this will be the last time that we will have to pass a short-term extension of this bill. The conferees must finish their work on the highway authorization bill quickly so we can begin building and repairing our Nation's decaying highways and infrastructure.

The other critical bill before us today is the emergency supplemental bill for veterans medical care. We Democrats attempted to address this emerging veterans crisis earlier this week when we advocated for the Edwards amendment and also in March when the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) brought in a resolution asking for an amendment to be approved by the Committee on Rules to include $1.3 billion more. They were turned down.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is being flooded with veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, four times as many as had originally been budgeted for. Trying to help 103,000 of our brave men and women with a budget designed to assist just over 25,000 has produced a shortfall in the Veterans Department funds of more than $1 billion this year, a staggering sum.

The gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Edwards) amendment would have filled in a shameful gap between our Nation's professed support for its veterans and its actual action on their behalf; but, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority in our House was not concerned with this chasm separating rhetoric from reality.

As I said, the Edwards amendment was voted down on a party-line vote. Not a single Republican voted for the necessary health care for our wounded veterans; and on the emergency supplemental bill, as I mentioned before, the Baird-Hooley amendment to provide $1.3 billion that was in March was not allowed by the Committee on Rules on a party- line vote.

This issue is not about Republicans or Democrats. It is about our soldiers. We have a patriotic duty to uphold our end of the bargain and properly care for the fighting men and women of this country.

This is a sacred bond of trust, a contract that the majority has violated; but my fellow Americans believe that refusing to care for our veterans after having voted to send them to war is the height of hypocrisy, and the public is outraged.

As a result, House Republicans have reversed course. They received the wake-up call. They have come back to the table so we can hammer out the funding we need to care for our troops, as we should have earlier this week and in March.

This is a pattern that has become all too familiar. The majority does something unpopular, the public gets incensed, and the majority backs off. It has happened over and over with the ethics crisis in the House. It happened with the recent Republican attempt to kill public broadcasting in America; and now less than 7 days later, they are at it again, having to fess up to the fact that their priorities are out of step with the American people, their values are out of the mainstream.

Have they had a change of heart regarding the issue before us? Perhaps, or perhaps they just do not want to go home to July 4th parades in their districts before they have dealt with the tangible and pressing need of the veterans they will be saluting.

Let me say I find it absolutely scandalous that the Veterans Administration failed to tell us of this shortfall.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while I give my friends on the right credit for admitting their error and working to fix it, I regret to report that their proposed solution is just not good enough.

They have proposed increasing veterans spending by $975 million, which is still $25 million short of what the Veterans Affairs Department says it needs just this year, and more than half a billion dollars short of what the Senate pledged yesterday. Their bill does nothing to address the issue of veterans funding in 2006, where we are told there will be another more than $1 billion deficit.

I hope and pray we do not have to have this embarrassing debate again next year and can instead solve this problem now. We should always remember, Mr. Speaker, that it is easy to make the right decision when the whole world is watching, but what defines our character is what we do when no one is watching.

The Members of the majority have repeatedly been coerced by popular pressure into doing what is right when all eyes are on them. Now, both I and my colleagues on the Democratic side implore them to do something more: to summon the courage and the wisdom to do what is right when the only eyes on them are their own.

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

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

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

(Mr. BAIRD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that if we pass $1.5 billion, we can do the same thing, take the Senate bill and get it finished tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

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

Before I start, I will insert in the Record the news release from Senator Craig, Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman, and the New York Times editorial today called ``The True Cost of War.''

Senate to Quickly Take Up $1.5 Billion Measure for Veterans If Sent

From the House

Washington, DC--The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee

retreated its position today that the Department of Veterans

Affairs need $1.5 billion to fill a spending gap for the

Department of Veterans Affairs. In a unanimous vote, the

appropriators voted to authorize the Senate to quickly take

up a $1.5 billion emergency supplemental if the House

approves such a measure.

That action came after the Bush Administration indicated

earlier today that the agency needs $975 million.

``Clearly there is disagreement here on the number, but

it's clear that we all want to do the right thing for

veterans. We do not want to leave the Department of Veterans

Affairs short of funds,'' said Sen. Larry Craig who serves on

the Appropriations Committee and is Chairman of the Senate

Committee on Veterans' Affairs. ``Working with our colleagues

in the House, I'm sure we can achieve that objective.''

[From the New York Times, Jun. 30, 2005]

The True Cost of War

In anger and embarrassment, Congressional Republicans are

scrambling to repair a budget shortfall in veterans' medical

care now that the Bush administration has admitted it vastly

underestimated the number of returning Iraq and Afghanistan

personnel needing treatment. The $1 billion-plus gaffe is

considerable, with the original budget estimate of 23,553

returned veterans needing care this year now ballooning to

103,000. American taxpayers should be even more furious than

Congress.

The Capitol's Republican majorities have shown no

hesitation in signing the president's serial blank-check

supplemental budgets for waging the war, yet they repeatedly

ignored months of warnings from Democrats

that returning veterans were being shortchanged. One

Republican who warned of the problem--Representative

Christopher Smith of New Jersey--lost his chairmanship of the

Veterans' Affairs Committee after pressing his plea too

boldly before the House leadership.

But partisan resistance melted in a flood of political

chagrin once the administration admitted the budget error,

which was first discovered in April but only now disclosed.

The explanation offered--the gaffe was due to using dated

formulas based on prewar calculations--left Republicans

sputtering all the more.

All wars necessarily involve mismanagement, even successful

ones. But there is no excuse for treating the needs of

wounded and damaged warriors as a budgetary afterthought.

Congressional Republicans were far from innocent victims of

administrative ineptitude or deception. After years of

approving record tax cuts and budget deficits, they stuck to

this year's pre-election script of fictitious ``budget

tightening'' that underestimated inevitable expenses and

shortchanged returning veterans with higher health care

enrollment fees and drug co-payments. The only comfort for

the American public is that unlike many of the war's

problems, this one can be repaired, providing partisan combat

is suspended in the Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to immediately consider H.R. 3136, legislation introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that provides an immediately desperately needed $1.5 billion in funding for veterans medical service. This amount is the same level that was approved by the Senate last night and is what is needed to fully care for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the White House and the VA were not honest about this shortfall in the first place because if they had been, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said, we would not need to be here tonight. But I think now even the most skeptical of my colleagues in the House realize that our veterans' health care system is in a serious crisis. And while it is encouraging that after feeling the pressure brought to bear by the American people that the Republican leadership has reversed course and agreed to take some action, it is unclear to me why they are providing only $975 million instead of the full amount needed. How can we believe the same people who told us there was no problem?

Senator Craig is asking the leadership of this body to pass a bill and let him have that $1.5 billion out of here so they can finish work on this in the morning. Clearly, clearly, we must do that for our veterans. Remember, we have a contract with them. When we sent them off to war, we guaranteed that we will meet their needs.

So please vote ``no'' on the previous question, and we can vote today for full funding of our veterans.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

The funding is critical to achieving our national goal of eradicating childhood lead poisoning by 2010. HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control provides grants to cities and States to correct serious lead hazards in their homes. These grants are targeted to individuals vulnerable to the effects of lead, particularly children under the age of 6.

Lead poisoning affects nearly 434,000 American children between the ages of 1 and 5, and that is criminal. In my district, 1,200 Monroe County children fall victim to lead poisoning each year, and in response, Monroe County and the City of Rochester with its partners have used funding from HUD's lead hazard control grants to make 220 housing units lead free and safe for children.

The lead hazard control grants work, but only if they are available, and already one of my counties was forced to stop accepting applications this early in the year because the money had run out.

Last year, HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control was unable to fund two-thirds of the requests it received due to the lack of founding. This year, the office is slated to be cut by $47 million. This cut will further reduce the number of grants awarded and leave children exposed to lead hazards.

It is a tragedy that failing to deal with this problem renders children many times brain damaged, with asthma and other seizures. They are going to continue to be at risk for hearing loss, developmental delays, osteoporosis, and kidney damage simply by breathing the air in their homes.

I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment to help eliminate lead poisoning exposure for our children. We can do better, and we should not squander this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 322 and 323. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 322 and 323.