Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on Friday and was regrettably unable to cast my vote on rollcall No. 315, rollcall No. 316, rollcall No. 317, rollcall No. 318, rollcall No. 319, rollcall No. 320, and rollcall No. 321.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 315, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 316, ``no'' on rollcall No. 317, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 318, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 319, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 320, and ``no'' on rollcall No. 321.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 282. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following this vote.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tomlinson ought to go. Mr. Tomlinson had people do some polls. What they found on these polls is 80 percent of Americans say PBS is fair and balanced; 90 percent said they had high-quality programming, more than any channel, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out.

But Mr. Tomlinson did not reveal those results to anybody. He kept it all to himself. You bet there is bias at CPB. It is embodied in this chairman, who must cease and desist his politicization of the agency, which is why I urge you to vote for this amendment. How the House can best aid public broadcasting would be to vote this amendment and for the President of CPB to submit his resignation.

Yesterday, this body voted by a substantial margin to restore funding for public broadcasting. We did so after an unprecedented outpouring of public sentiment. Over 1 million people signed petitions within one week's time--proving Americans demand their public broadcasting continue. But we did so mainly because it was the right thing to do.

For almost 40 years, only one television channel among the 500 operating today has consistently been regarded by the public as the gold standard of broadcasting.

Chairman Tomlinson discovered that for himself when he hired the right-leaning Tarrance group to investigate claims of bias. After conducting two ``National Public Opinions,'' his handpicked pollsters found that 80 percent of Americans saw PBS as ``fair and balanced,'' while 90 percent believed that PBS ``provides high quality programming.'' Further, a majority of respondents called PBS ``more trustworthy than CNN, Fox News Channel and other mainstream news outlets.''

Does it surprise anyone to hear that Chairman Tomlinson did not reveal the results in his annual report to Congress--or even to PBS and NPR? Yes, there is bias in action at CPB. It's embodied in its chairman, who must cease and desist his politicization of the agency, which is why I urge you to vote for this amendment. That's how the House can best aid public broadcasting. What the chairman could do for CPB is to submit his resignation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the 33rd anniversary of Title IX, the landmark 1972 law that blocks gender discrimination in education. I am a proud supporter of this law that has helped girls and women move toward equality in athletics at every level and in every community across the Nation.

As opportunities have been made increasingly available, women's participation in sports has grown exponentially. Nearly 2.6 million high school girls and over 135,000 women in college now participate in organized sports. That is more than 2 million women and girls having a chance to score a goal, slide into home plate, or sink that winning basket. For many young athletes, the scholarship opportunities provide the only means by which they can attend college.

Moreover, they tend to graduate at higher rates, perform better in school, are less likely to use drugs and alcohol. They also tend to have more confidence, better body image, and higher self-esteem than female nonathletes, the critical attributes that help them succeed throughout their lives.

We build on these advancements in the name of the equality, and I want those here to stand for and defend the integrity of this pioneering civil rights law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start with a quote from Lyndon Johnson: Today we rededicate a part of the airwaves which belong to all the people,'' a thing we should always remember, ``and we dedicate them for the enlightenment of all the people.''

President Lyndon Johnson spoke these words at the White House ceremony which marked the official creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1967. Much has changed in the 37 years since then, but in the realm of television, Mr. Speaker, a PBS program that reaches millions of families every day has been the only constant.

PBS programming is first and foremost about children. At a time when so many television networks are wary of producing educational programming because it will not be cost-effective as they define it, PBS stands alone. They are proud to present wonderful programs that teach children how to read, how to share, and how to be tolerant of others. But PBS is not just for children, it is for minds of all ages that seek to question and learn about our world.

PBS has the best documentaries, the best programs about American history and about the new scientific discoveries which are constantly changing our world. There is a reason that Peggy Noonan of The Wall Street Journal, an unabashed conservative, has written that ``At its best, at its most thoughtful and intellectually honest and curious, PBS does the kind of work that no other network in America does or will do.'' Ms. Noonan wrote this because it is true. And what is most important, PBS programming is free to all.

Big Bird reaches all the children in America, regardless of whether they are in urban or rural areas, regardless of their economic class or whether or not their parents can afford 500 channels of cable, but the majority leadership is speaking out against Big Bird here today and the other great children's programming. They are speaking out against quality news and arts and entertaining programs that have no other place to call home on television today.

The Labor-HHS appropriations bill we will consider today offers cuts of more than $100 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding. And, all told, this bill imposes a staggering 42 percent cut in funding for PBS this year.

Now, why would the Congress do this? There is only one reason, Mr. Speaker, and that reason is the leadership of this body does not like PBS. In fact, Republicans have been after PBS for years. Ronald Reagan tried to slash CPB funding, so did Newt Gingrich. And now the conservatives have redoubled their efforts.

They claim that PBS is the lapdog of the left. But the notion that PBS is partisan runs against the very grain of what PBS is and what the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was designed to accomplish.

President Johnson stated that CPB was intended to be carefully guarded from government and party control. It will be free, it will be independent, and it will belong to all of our people.

PBS and CPB, therefore, should be neither liberal nor conservative and should instead be honest and objective; and it always has been. The real problem with our friends on the right seems to be confusing intellectually honest and independent programming with so-called liberal bias, simply because they are not espousing their own narrow conservative world view 24 hours a day.

Most Americans, no matter their political persuasion, understood the benefits of hearing views from different perspectives; and they like the idea of truly independent, stimulating public programming. They understand that Big Bird cannot be replaced by 500 channels of cable.

That is why Roper polls taken in 2004 and 2005 found that the people of our country thought that spending money on PBS was the second best use of their tax dollars, right behind the funding of our military.

But the independence of PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is somehow a threat to this Republican leadership. Why else would Kenneth Tomlinson, the new Republican chairman of CPB, attempt to appoint Patricia Harrison as the new head of the Corporation For Public Broadcasting?

Ms. Harrison is a strange choice for the leader of a broadcasting corporation in as much as she has never even worked in broadcasting. On the other hand, she was at one time the cochair of the Republican National Committee, and so perhaps her qualifications for the position speak for themselves.

Mr. Tomlinson also felt that such prominent PBS programs such as ``NOW,'' with Bill Moyers, were liberal in their orientation. He therefore did the honorable thing and hired several ombudsmen to secretly spy on the programs and report on their activity.

And just last week, we learned that in 2004 the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, now firmly under partisan Republican leadership, gave two Republican lobbyists $15,000 and did not tell anybody they had done so.

By the way, Mr. Tomlinson was head of Voice of America, and we understand that Voice of America is to be outsourced to Asia. How do you like that, America? Is this what we have come to, spying on the network that brings us ``Sesame Street,'' ``The Electric Company,'' ``Captain Kangaroo''? And if so, what is next?

Will we have satellite surveillance of the ``Antiques Road Show''? Wire taps in Oscar's trash can? Are the American people going to allow these same individuals who actively manipulate the media, who have allowed political operatives to pose as journalists in the White House, who have paid commentators and pundits to falsely pose as journalists, to manipulate public opinion?

Are we going to allow them to tell us that now Public Broadcasting is the enemy? I certainly hope and pray not. If there is any doubt that this is their true intention, my fellow Americans, we need look no further than this very bill, approved in a subcommittee where the Republican leadership successfully eliminated funding for PBS and the Corporation For Public Broadcasting.

As with so many other things in this Congress, they were shamed by the American people into reversing course, but I imagine that the right wing assault on PBS will continue.

President Johnson feared that if placed ``in weak or even in irresponsible hands,'' public television could generate controversy without understanding, could mislead as well as teach.

It could appeal to passions rather than to reason. That was very far- seeing for President Johnson. Let us not succumb to the misguided partisan passions of the leadership which threaten to destroy this cherished American institution. Let us preserve public networks across our country.

Mr. Speaker, Sesame Street teaches children to be fair and just. And we learned that from Sesame Street, our children learned it from Sesame Street, let us practice it today, and we expect no less from Members of this Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

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

I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can consider the Obey amendment that was rejected in the Rules Committee on a straight party-line vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would give $11.8 billion in needed funding for the priority job training, education and health programs which have been underfunded in this bill. A $50 increase in a Pell grant, let me state, is not going to help anybody get a college education. The cost of this amendment will not add one dollar to the deficit. It is fully offset by reducing the substantial six-digit tax cuts for those making more than $1 million from about $140,000 to $36,500 for the coming year. That cannot hurt too much. That means that America's millionaires will only be getting $36,000 in special tax breaks so that we may properly fund education for our children and provide adequate health care for working Americans, a sacrifice, I believe, that is well worth the cost.

In addition, the Obey amendment would reduce the deficit by $11.8 billion while at the same time protecting these valuable social programs for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the activities included in this bill fund many of the government's most important social services and touch almost every American in some way. Most of the programs and services in the bill are considerably underfunded, many funded at last year's levels or below. And those that have received increases have generally not received enough to keep pace with inflation. Most education programs are cut or frozen at fiscal year 2005 levels. Job training is funded below last year. NIH funding, though slightly increased from last year, still is receiving the lowest increase in 36 years. The Centers for Disease Control is funded at $293 million below last year.

The list goes on and on, and the amendment will help reverse these serious shortfalls in our Nation's top education, health care, and job training programs. Members should know that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment to restore funding shortfalls in the bill, and a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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.

1. Gunnery Sergeant Jeffrey Edward Bohr Jr.

2. Staff Sergeant Terry Wayne Hemingway

3. Staff Sergeant Riayan Augusto Tejeda

4. Corporal Jesus Angel Gonzalez

5. Lance Corporal David Edward Owens Jr.

6. Specialist Gil Mercado

7. Private First Class John Eli Brown

8. Specialist Thomas Arthur Foley III

9. Corporal Armando Ariel Gonzalez

10. Specialist Richard Allen Goward

11. Private First Class Joseph Patrick Mayek

12. Corporal Jason David Mileo

13. Corporal John Travis Rivero

14. Chief Warrant Officer Andrew Todd Arnold

15. Specialist Roy Russell Buckley

16. Chief Warrant Officer Robert William Channell Jr.

17. Lance Corporal Alan Dinh Lam

18. Specialist Edward John Anguiano

19. Sergeant Troy David Jenkins

20. First Lieutenant Osbaldo Orozco

21. Specialist Narson Bertil Sullivan

22. First Sergeant Joe Jesus Garza

23. Sergeant Sean C. Reynolds

24. Private Jason L. Deibler

25. Chief Warrant Officer Brian K. Van Dusen

26. Chief Warrant Officer Hans N. Gukeisen

27. Corporal Richard P. Carl

28. Lance Corporal Cedric E. Bruns

29. Lance Corporal Matthew R. Smith

30. Lance Corporal Jakub Henryk Kowalik

31. Private First Class Jose F. Gonzalez Rodriguez

32. Staff Sergeant Patrick Lee Griffin Jr.

33. Lance Corporal Nicholas Brian Klieboeker

34. Specialist David T. Nutt

35. Master Sergeant William L. Payne

36. Corporal Douglas Jose Marencoreyes

37. Specialist Rasheed Sahib

38. Captain Andrew David LaMont

39. Lance Corporal Jason William Moore

40. First Lieutenant Timothy Louis Ryan

41. Lieutenant Nathan Dennis White

42. Sergeant Kirk Allen Straseskie

43. Lieutenant Colonel Dominic Rocco Baragona

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut. This decision served as the foundation for improvements in women's reproductive health, felt even to this day.

It is difficult to believe that just 40 years ago, it was actually illegal for American women to use birth control. But as late as 1965, 30 states still had laws prohibiting or restricting the sale and use of contraception.

The case of Griswold v. Connecticut involved Estelle Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and the League's Medical Director, Dr. C. Lee Buxton. Ms. Griswold and Dr. Buxton were arrested and convicted under Connecticut's 1879 law forbidding the use of contraception or assisting anyone seeking contraception. They challenged this law--ultimately fighting their case all the way to our Nation's highest court. And, on June 7th 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Connecticut law, opening the door for nationwide counseling and use of contraception.

Griswold v. Connecticut paved the way for future decisions regarding a women's right to reproductive health and privacy--including the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended the right to access contraception to unmarried women.

Why was Griswold v. Connecticut so important? Well, consider the fact that in 1965, 45 percent of births to married women were unintentional. But, today, only 14 percent of births to married women occur sooner that planned. In 1965, only 38 percent of women used some form of birth control. Today, nearly 70 percent of women do.

With good cause, a recent poll shows that 80 percent of Americans strongly support women having access to contraception. With newfound ability to control how many children to have and when, women have been able to achieve educational and professional goals that before 1965 were extremely difficult. Access to contraception has dramatically changed women's health, giving them dignity and control over their lives and their futures. Control over their own bodies has also contributed to reductions in maternal and infant mortality through better birth spacing and better health status. Because of contraception, couples can decide when they are financially and emotionally ready to start a family. So children are born into families that are ready and able to fully care for them.

Access and use of birth control are essential components of basic preventative health care for women across the U.S. and has successfully helped reduce national rates of unintended pregnancies.

And, who would have predicted in 1965, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would recognize the significant impact of birth control on American society? But they did. In 1999, the CDC included family planning in their list of the ``Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century.''

However, despite these achievements, access to contraceptives is far from guaranteed. Today, we, as political leaders, stand at a crossroads. We can maintain the status quo, or we can further strive to improve reproductive health and reduce unintended pregnancies in this country. My Prevention First bill would permit women to take greater control over their reproductive health. This legislation would allow greater access to contraception by increasing funding for family planning services to low-income women and requiring insurance companies to cover contraceptives if they cover other prescription drugs.

Today, as we commemorate the momentous Griswold v Connecticut Supreme Court decision that made such a great impact on reducing unintended pregnancies by allowing women to control their reproductive health, I urge my colleagues to support common sense legislation like the Prevention First Act and join me in taking action to further reduce unintended pregnancies.

We have certainly come a long way in just 40 years, but we must remain vigilant to ensure that all women have access to the most basic reproductive health care services and that they are empowered to make the best personal decisions about when they are financially and emotionally ready to start a family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Committee on Rules considered H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies' appropriations bill for FY 2006. And while I am pleased that the committee reported an open rule, as is customary with appropriations bills, we all know the amendment process for these bills is very restrictive. This makes it easy for the majority to allow an open rule and still maintain tight control over what is debated and deliberated on the floor through the waiver process.

If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule, not just appropriations bills, which are already restricted. An open process should be the norm and not the exception.

That being said, I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for working together to create a bill that seems to be

a fair and responsible piece of legislation.

I have always said that budgets are moral documents. Where and how we decide to spend the taxpayers' money says more about our values as a society than any speech or political rhetoric possibly could. If any of my fellow Americans really want to know who and what each party cares about in this country, look at where the money goes and the truth will be what follows. That is exactly what an appropriations bill such as this does. It gives us a road map to see what is important to our elected leadership.

That is why I want to congratulate my friends across the aisle for having the courage to essentially reject the White House's inadequate budget request for this bill. Clearly, many Republican Members in this body do not share the same values as the President, and I congratulate you for having the courage to demonstrate this rare moment of independence and moderation to the American people. The bill clearly rebuffs the White House's agenda on spending issues, such as funding for the National Science Foundation, which is still inadequate, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Justice, and the Drug Enforcement Agency by providing adequate, if not ideal, funding.

Also, I am pleased that Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan saw fit to prohibit the use of funds in this measure to support or justify the use of torture by the United States Government. Unfortunately, this language is both necessary and appropriate.

We also have language included today that will prohibit the White House from blocking the importation of discount prescription drugs through trade agreements. That means this body is acting to ensure that the White House does not try to subvert our authority and take further steps to prevent the American people from having access to life-saving, affordable prescription drugs. I strongly believe that access to affordable medication and health care should be a right in this country and not the fodder of a political power struggle.

Mr. Speaker, just when I saw the rays of hope sprinkled throughout the bill that this typically extreme leadership has finally begun to place the needs of everyday, hardworking Americans before their agenda, I was offered a reality check last night in the Committee on Rules. The moderation I had seen had merely been an illusion.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, brought to the Committee on Rules a necessary, important, and reasonable amendment to this bill. The amendment would have increased funding by $410 million for local law enforcement agencies and for COPS grants, which is the most successful crime prevention program in our Nation's history; and we have decimated it. It would have put more police on the streets in America's neighborhoods.

Additionally, it would have increased funding for EDA grants by $53 million, which spur the public and private investment in order to create new jobs in our struggling communities.

The cost of his amendment would have been offset through a less than 1.5 percent reduction in tax benefits for only the wealthiest Americans, those with annual incomes in excess of $1 million, and would have meant about a $2,000 decrease in their refund. But the Republican majority opposed it on a party-line vote, choosing the rich over safer neighborhoods.

This issue, I believe, gives us a clear picture of exactly the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in the House. If anyone had a doubt who was fighting for everyday Americans, they should not any more. If there was a question over which party is the champion for the middle class, the safe neighborhoods, and for job creation, that question has been answered because the majority was willing to sacrifice placing police officers on the streets in our neighborhoods in order to protect a small tax cut for only the richest Americans.

Since 2001, our police have been asked to do more with a billion dollars less in Federal funding so that the millionaires can keep their extra $2,053. Today, we will have another opportunity to stand with the vast majority of everyday Americans and families instead of millionaires, and I will be asking Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can try once again to allow the Obey amendment to be considered on the floor today.

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 on the Committee on Appropriations.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a no vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider the Obey amendment that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night on a party-line vote.

The Obey amendment would give additional badly needed funds for grants to State and local law enforcement assistance and to the Economic Development Administration Grant Program. Specifically, it would increase by $410 million funding for formula grants to State and local law enforcement agencies as well as for the COPS Program, one of the most effective programs in its history.

It will also increase funding for Economic Development Assistance grants by $53 million, and restore this assistance to State and local governments to last year's level, money they badly need to create new jobs.

I also want to assure my colleagues that the cost of this amendment will not add a single dime to the deficit. It is fully paid for by making a very slight reduction of less than 1\1/2\ percent to the tax break received by people of annual incomes of over a million dollars, tax benefits that these fortunate individuals received as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax cut legislation and will lose only $2,000 on their tax refunds if the Obey amendment is accepted.

I want to assure my colleagues that a no vote will not prevent us from considering the Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill under the open rule, but a no vote will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment to help our State and local governments with law enforcement and economic development. A yes vote will cancel the consideration of this amendment. I urge a no vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert 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. Speaker, as we debate the agriculture appropriations bill today, we will consider funding for the Food and Drug Administration. I am very disappointed that the Hinchey FDA reform amendment will not be allowed under this rule. The amendment would give the Food and Drug Administration two new authorities that are badly needed to improve the FDA's drug safety operations and ensure that FDA has the tools to take timely action to protect Americans from unsafe drugs.

It would have empowered the FDA with the authority to require companies to conduct post-marketing studies of FDA-approved drugs and would also have given the FDA the authority to mandate changes to the labels of FDA-approved drugs. Unfortunately, efforts to include the amendment were defeated in the Committee on Rules on a party-line vote.

I am deeply concerned about the FDA's handling, or rather their mishandling, of the consideration to allow emergency contraception to be sold over the counter. For almost 100 years, the FDA has overseen the safety of food, cosmetics, drugs, and medical devices consumed by the American public, but we cannot trust them unconditionally any more.

The agency defines itself as a scientific, regulatory and public health agency. But for what appears to be the first time in the agency's history, the FDA has jettisoned the rigorous standards of science and health in evaluating emergency contraception and has instead taken the counsel of religious and political extremists in its consideration of this important pregnancy-preventive drug.

And the results of such counsel have been predictable. Despite the fact that 23 of 27 members of the FDA's advisory panel voted in favor of allowing over-the-counter sales of Barr Laboratories' Plan B emergency contraceptive and despite the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of the application, the FDA made the unusual decision to disregard its own advisory panel's recommendation and reject the application.

One of the dissenting panelists was evangelical conservative Dr. W. David Hager. In October of 2002, I sent a letter to President Bush expressing my deep reservations about appointing Dr. Hager as Chair of the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs at the FDA. Based on Dr. Hager's past conduct, I believed he would not be impartial in his decisions. On numerous occasions, Dr. Hager had already displayed a willingness to substitute his personal beliefs for science. My request, unfortunately, went unheeded by the administration.

Now recent reports have alleged that the FDA, while considering allowing over-the-counter sales of emergency contraceptive, requested a minority opinion by Dr. Hager to justify a politically motivated decision to Barr Laboratories' application, a truly outrageous request which, if true, has further jeopardized the scientific integrity of the

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 232, 233, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, we find ourselves here today debating the rule for next year's Defense authorization bill. But while we should be discussing ways to better support our hardworking men and women in uniform, we find ourselves revisiting a debate I had assumed we settled years ago. Buried within H.R. 1815 is section 574, a provision that would severely limit the participation of women in our military. To say that I am disappointed would be an understatement of enormous proportions.

Some will say that section 574 merely codifies existing military policy; but if this provision is passed, we will be sending an entirely different message, not just to the brave women currently serving our Nation throughout the world but to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, those who have been wounded or even killed. We will be telling them and indeed their families, We have seen you at work defending freedom and liberty here at home and abroad and you aren't good enough. I cannot think of a more disgusting message to be sending our troops, especially in a time of war.

This year, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel has not held hearings, commissioned studies, or released reports on this important issue. In fact, we have not seen a shred of evidence that a problem even exists with the integration of women in the Armed Forces. Yet the religious right wing in this country, against the advice of our military leaders, has once again decided to bend the process of government to their political will and force this issue upon America without research, without fact, without debate, and without the benefit of the democratic process.

We are in the middle of a war, in Iraq and on terror. Now is not the time to be telling more than 20,000 women that we do not value their service, especially when you consider that we are having serious problems meeting our recruitment goals. What woman is going to join a military that treats them as if they are second-class citizens not worthy of respect and dignity? Last night in the Rules Committee we watched as the coalition of members who stand rightly beside our women in uniform were slapped down on a party-line vote by the majority in their attempts to approve the Skelton-Snyder amendment which would remove this ill-conceived provision from the bill. The Secretary of the Army and the Army Vice Chief of Staff wrote the Armed Services Committee voicing their strong opposition to this provision.

Likewise, we can have no real discussion on the future of America's defense without talking about the base realignment and closure process. I share the concern of many experts and many of my colleagues across the political spectrum when I say that we are a Nation at war. Now is not the time to be closing America's military bases.

Many experts are also concerned that we are overconsolidating our resources in too few locations, especially when the greatest threat to our security comes not from a massive invasion but from a sneak attack by a terrorist organization on a target of opportunity. Did we not learn after Pearl Harbor not to put everything in one place? Does it not make more sense to have our resources strategically placed across the country? Moreover, as record numbers of Guard and Reserve troops are dying in combat defending this country, the Defense Secretary's proposed BRAC list would ground a third of the Nation's Air National Guard and Reserve units and shutter hundreds of other armories and readiness centers across the country.

Many local leaders and homeland security specialists, including the National Guard Association of the United States, has said that the consolidation would hamper State responses to local emergencies and domestic terrorist threats.

Unfortunately, the DOD did not adequately take into account a military installation's value to homeland security when developing their criteria. For example, the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station has been recommended for closure despite the fact that it is the closest base to three major United States cities and the two largest cities in Canada. The Guard and Reserves who train there assist the Department of Homeland Security in interrogating suspicious individuals detained at the northern border. Yet the Air Force proposes to reduce the Air Mobility Command by 54 percent in the Northeast, incapacitating homeland defense in a region which comprises 20 percent of the entire United States population. I understand this is also a problem for other major cities and population centers around the country.

That is why I offered an amendment last night that would have required the commission to evaluate bases for their homeland security value, but unfortunately it was voted down.

All of us know that recruitment is another major issue that we are facing today. We have a recruitment crisis in America and an Armed Forces already stretched way too thin. But the DOD wants to close bases that regularly exceed their recruitment goals for the Guard and military reserves, like Niagara Falls. We do not know what will happen to the large Guard and Reserve units who serve at bases recommended for closure. We know exactly where their equipment is headed, but even the Pentagon admits it does not know what is going to happen to our most valuable assets, and those are the people stationed at the bases.

But perhaps what is most troubling about the BRAC list that was submitted to the commission is that according to an Air Force BRAC spokesman, the extensive criteria used to evaluate the strategic military value of each base was not even adhered to by the Pentagon when compiling their closure list.

Instead, they used a collective judgment. I do not even know what ``collective judgment'' is supposed to mean, but I know that in Niagara, thousands of people are losing their jobs and are at risk at a base that is highly ranked in performing its duties, and one that has always been evaluated highly that is on the chopping block. This is unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable to this body.

This BRAC constitutes a complete reorganization of our military resources during a time of war with very little thought, doing untold damage to the National Guard and military Reserves, and does not consider the homeland security role.

But there are a lot of concerns about the Pentagon that we have that we will not talk about today because we did not get enough amendments approved.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

(Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow three very important amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules last night and defeated on party-line votes.

The first amendment is by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and would provide members of the selected reserves access to the TRICARE military health care program on a permanent basis for the duration of their service. The second amendment, by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), would provide eligibility for payment of both retired pay and veterans disability compensation for certain additional military retirees with compensable service-connected disabilities. The last amendment is by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) and would repeal the dependency and indemnity compensation offset from survivor benefit plans' surviving spouse annuities.

Let me make it clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the authorization bill, but a ``yes'' vote will preclude the House from considering these three amendments critical to the debate of our national defense. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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

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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to offer this very important amendment that will help the Department of Defense improve their capability to provide care to victims of sexual assault in the military.

Earlier this month, the Department of Defense released their first annual report to Congress on sexual assault in the military. And the findings were not good. Of the 1,275 cases of sexual assault among service members, only 113 cases resulted in a court martial.

More discouraging is the fact that 278 cases were not pursued because the perpetrator could not be identified. And, another 351 cases were not pursued because of unsubstantiated or insufficient evidence. Mr. Chairman, this amounts to 629 sexual assault cases, nearly 50 percent of those reported, where the perpetrator is still out there, free to commit further assaults on our brave service women defending our country.

Surely the Department of Defense can and needs to do a better job of training new and existing first responders to respond to sexual assaults occurring in the military. Criminal investigators, medical professionals, and victims advocates all need to be trained on gathering, protecting, and processing evidence.

The Defense Department must do a better job of providing the best possible care for service women who are victims of sexual assault. And that is what my amendment will do.

Last March, servicewomen spoke before the Congressional Women's Caucus about the inability of some military healthcare facilities to appropriately care for women who had been sexually assaulted. In some areas, medical providers are not familiar with the gathering and processing of rape kits. More dismaying, some facilities are not even equipped with rape kits. With great emotion, these service women recounted the military's failure to provide them with a private examination or tests for pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow women to be victimized once by their perpetrator and then again by the lack of appropriate, compassionate care at military healthcare facilities.

My amendment seeks to prevent our women in uniform from experiencing this egregious treatment. It requires the Secretary of Defense to assess the training and resource gaps, which have prevented victims of sexual assault in the military from receiving the best possible care. Based on this assessment, my amendment also requires the Secretary to develop a plan to address these gaps by enhancing the accessibility and availability of supplies and trained personnel by military victims of sexual assault.

It is my hope that through this plan the Secretary will require military healthcare facilities to carry emergency contraception (EC). Although emergency contraception has been available in the U.S. by prescription since the late 1990s, it is not available to U.S. servicewomen. EC is widely recognized as an integral part of comprehensive and compassionate emergency treatment for sexual assault survivors. We do a disservice to women in the military by not requiring EC be available to them after a sexual assault.

Women in the service put themselves in harms way to protect us and our Nation from threats at home and abroad. The least we can do is ensure they are protected when facing a horrible tragedy. My amendment helps the Defense Department provide military victims of sexual assault with honor, respect, and the best possible care that they deserve.

I urge everyone to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bradley amendment. We are a nation at war and now is not the time to be closing American military bases.

In formulating the BRAC list, Secretary Rumsfeld ignored the base- closure criteria that Congress approved. Just yesterday, an Air Force BRAC spokesman admitted that the extensive criterion used to evaluate the strategic military value of each base was not adhered to by the Pentagon. Instead, the Base Closure Executive Group used their ``collective judgment'' to recommend closure for bases that had higher rankings--such as the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station--than many others which were kept off the list.

This amendment would let the DoD know that a group's ``collective judgment'' is not good enough. Secretary Rumsfeld better have some stronger arguments than ``collective judgment,'' because his proposed BRAC list would cripple Guard and Reserve recruitment and weaken our homeland defense.

By passing this amendment, Congress would recognize that the DoD's base closure recommendations were budget-driven and did not take into account the military's long-term needs. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Bradley amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the Record an article that appeared in the Buffalo News on May 24. The article details how a former Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan has disagreed with Secretary Rumsfeld's recommendation to close Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station.

[From the Buffalo News, May 24, 2005]

Close Base on Long Island, Not in Niagara, Says Pentagon Official From

Reagan Years

(By Jerry Zremski and Sharon Linstedt)

A former assistant secretary of defense under President

Ronald Reagan has rushed to the defense of the Niagara Falls

Air Reserve Station, saying the Pentagon should consider

closing a base on Long Island instead.

Lawrence J. Korb, who oversaw personnel and base issues at

the Pentagon from 1981 to 1985, wrote an op-ed article for

the New York Times' Long Island regional edition Sunday that

criticized the proposed Niagara closing.

He urged the independent commission that is reviewing the

Pentagon's base-closure recommendations to instead consider

shutting an Air National Guard station at Francis S. Gabreski

Airport in Westhampton Beach.

``It should take a close look at Niagara and Gabreski,''

Korb wrote.

The two bases perform different tasks. The Niagara base

services a Guard unit that performs refueling missions and an

Air Reserve unit that hauls cargo, while the Gabreski base

services a search-and-rescue Guard unit.

Korb suggested that the search-and-rescue team be moved to

Stewart Air Force Base in Newburgh, north of New York City,

and that Niagara stay open for several reasons.

For one, he said, such a move would keep jobs in-state and

prevent the Niagara operations from being dispersed to

Arkansas, Maine and Georgia.

``Moreover, the Pentagon will need to spend a lot just to

bring Gabreski up to minimum standards,'' Korb wrote.

``Paradoxically, Congress allotted Niagara more than $14

million last year for upgrades.''

Korb, a native of Long Island, noted that while Gabreski

contributes about $100 million to Long Island's economy, the

Niagara base generates more than $150 million. ``Suffolk

County is better positioned than Niagara to absorb the

cutbacks,'' he said.

In an interview, Korb said he decided to write the opinion

article after reviewing the Pentagon's proposed closures.

``This just doesn't make sense'' that Gabreski would stay

open and Niagara would close, he said.

He said that it would be very difficult for part-time air

personnel from Niagara to travel to out-of-state bases to

train and that Long Island would be better able than Western

New York to withstand a base closing economically.

Korb, now a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Center for

American Progress in Washington, is one of Washington's most

prominent and oft-quoted defense experts.

In another development, the Niagara Frontier Transportation

Authority board of commissioners is throwing its support

behind efforts to keep the Niagara Falls base open and will

ask NFTA workers to do the same.

The NFTA board Monday unanimously approved a resolution

backing the Niagara Military Affairs Council in its efforts

to get the base off the list for closing.

Commissioners also approved a plan to send letters to the

NFTA's 1,500 employees asking them to write to the Base

Realignment and Closure Commission showing their support for

keeping the base open.

``This is an important issue for the Niagara Falls

community and all of Western New York. I think we need a

full-court press,'' said Commissioner Henry M. Sloma, who

represents Niagara County.

``It makes a lot of sense to show support,'' NFTA Chairman

Luiz F. Kahl said of the USA Niagara-led effort to amass

10,000 letters before a June 27 hearing in Buffalo on the

Pentagon proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Castle- DeGette amendment. I have a friend who is alive today because of stem cell research and injections that he has had. He would love to have been here today to tell you about it. He is in the bloom of health.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, a very close, longtime personal friend of mine, John McCaffery, was diagnosed with lymphatic leukemia. He underwent radiation and chemotherapy treatments. But he remained critically ill. His doctor suggested that he have a stem cell transplant.

John was fortunate enough that his brother proved to be a match. After causing John's brother to overproduce stem cells, doctors at Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, removed the excess stem cells and put them in John. Unlike a painful, complicated bone marrow transplant, John received his stem cell transplant via an IV.

Without advancements over the years in stem cell research, John would not have had the option for a stem cell transplant. Rather, he would have had to continue with chemotherapy treatment until the cancerous cells eventually took over his body and he died.

Mr. Speaker, stem cell research saved John's life. And, I am very happy to report that today, John is once again leading a healthy, productive life.

The U.S. has the finest research scientists in the world, but we are falling far behind other countries, like South Korea and Singapore, that are moving forward with embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cells from umbilical cord blood will likely lead to treatments for some diseases. But this must complement, not substitute, scientific research on embryonic stem cells--which is much more promising and will yield to advancements in the prevention and treatment of almost every disease American families face. The United States must be on the cutting edge of this important research. We have a responsibility to promote stem cell research which could lead to treatments and cures for diseases affecting millions of Americans.

Without question, the U.S. should set high standards for moral and ethical use of stem cells. But how can we do this, if we are not actively involved in the research?

Mr. Speaker, John is one person whose life was saved by stem cells. There will be thousands and one day, millions more lives saved if we do the right thing today. I urge all my colleagues to support both adult and embryonic stem cell research by supporting the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record an editorial by the Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna, on the crisis surrounding Devils Lake.

[From the New York Times, May 12, 2005]

Hell From High Water

(By Frank McKenna)

Washington.--A crisis looms on the United States border

with Canada, and it could easily be averted with some

research and a little patience.

The problem stems from a body of water in North Dakota

known as Devils Lake. The lake has no natural drainage, and

because North Dakota has drained surrounding wetlands, it has

risen 26 feet since 1993, flooding nearby communities. In

Canada, we are sympathetic to the plight of the lake's

neighbors, but not to the solution their state has proposed.

In June, North Dakota plans to open an outlet that will let

Devils Lake water travel into the Sheyenne River and on into

the Red River, which flows north into Canada. From there the

water will eventually stream into Lake Winnipeg and the

Hudson Bay watershed.

Devils Lake, a remnant of a shallow glacial sea, is a

closed ecological system that has been geographically

separate from the surrounding Hudson Bay basin for more than

a thousand years. Its salty waters have high concentrations

of nitrogen, sulfates and phosphates--minerals that could

cause severe digestive distress if consumed and could be

lethal to aquatic life. Because of these contaminants, North

Dakota does not allow Devils Lake waters to be used for

irrigation.

Once the canal is opened, the pollutants will enter the

water supply of downstream communities in North Dakota,

Minnesota and Manitoba. Moreover, species of fish, plants,

parasites and viruses previously confined in Devils Lake, in

some cases for millenniums, will spill out into the Sheyenne

and Red Rivers. There they could kill the native plants and

fish of the larger ecosystem. The consequences for Lake

Winnipeg, the largest freshwater fishery in North America,

are particularly worrisome.

Despite concerns on both sides of the border about

maintaining safe water sources, North Dakota has decided to

pump out Devils Lake water without undertaking any

environmental assessment or establishing ecological

safeguards.

There is a solution to this impending crisis. Nearly 100

years ago, Canada and the United States established the

Boundary Waters Treaty. Under that treaty the two governments

set up an International Joint Commission to address

differences of opinion involving boundary waters. So far, of

the 53 issues the two countries have jointly referred to the

commission, 51 have been resolved by mutual agreement.

For over a year, Canada has been requesting that North

Dakota put off pumping water while the United States and

Canada refer the issue to the commission for a time-limited,

independent, scientific review. Both the Canadian and

Manitoban governments have stated that they will support the

commission's finding, whatever it may be. The governors of

Minnesota and Missouri, as well as many other officials, have

expressed support for the Canadian request in letters to the

United States secretary of state.

At their March meeting in Waco, Texas, President Bush,

Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada and President Vicente

Fox of Mexico pledged to enhance water quality ``by working

bilaterally, trilaterally and through existing regional

bodies.'' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should

demonstrate the strength of that commitment by joining Canada

in referring the Devils Lake project to the joint commission.

If instead the Devils Lake project goes forward without a

review, it will damage not only the region's environment and

economy, but also North America's most important bilateral

water management arrangement. There is a better solution.