Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Viktor A. Yushchenko on being sworn in as the President of Ukraine on January 23, 2005. After enduring personal hardships, President Yushchenko enters office as

powerful symbol of victory over tyranny. His inauguration ends a bitter chapter in Ukraine's history and paves the way for the country to become a democratic leader in the former Soviet Union.

As a founding member and former Co-Chair of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, I have regularly spoken out in favor of a democratic Ukraine. In 2002, I introduced a resolution urging the Government of Ukraine to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process leading up to the March 2002 parliamentary elections. This resolution passed overwhelmingly and let the Ukrainian government know that the U.S. would not simply rubber-stamp aid to the Ukraine without also considering the serious issues involved in Ukraine's democratic development.

Unfortunately Mr. Speaker, the former Ukrainian government continued to turn a blind-eye to the international community's insistence on truly democratic elections. The November 21 runoff presidential race was plagued by voter fraud, intimidation, and widespread use of counterfeit ballots. However, a truly significant event occurred after Viktor Yushchenko's opponent was initially declared the winner. Thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets in protest, surrounding the government buildings and refusing to leave until a new and fair election was announced. Their faith and determination was signified by the donning of orange scarves, and came to be known as the Orange Revolution. It was instrumental in forcing the Ukrainian government to hold new elections on December 26, which Yushchenko won handedly. I want to commend the Ukrainian people for their commitment to ending their political crisis in a peaceful and democratic way.

The United States Congress stands ready to work with President Yushchenko as he undertakes the political and economic reforms necessary to bring about a bright future for Ukraine. I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that President Bush will soon invite President Yushchenko to Washington so that Congress can congratulate him and hear firsthand his vision for bringing about a reformed Ukraine dedicated to freedom and justice.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor the memory of former Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, who was a national role model.

I followed in the footsteps of Rep. Chisholm in several respects, having served both in the New York State Assembly and in the House of Representatives. To my knowledge, we are the only two Democratic women from New York State to have that distinction.

Shirley Chisholm was a tireless advocate for social justice, and for that legacy our country will be eternally grateful.

As the first black woman to be elected to the U.S. Congress and to run for president of the United States, Shirley Chisholm threw open the doors to greater opportunities for women and minorities.

Along with Congresswoman Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan--also great women's rights leaders--Shirley Chisholm founded the National Women's Political Caucus in 1971. She also helped found the Congressional Black Caucus. Both of these organizations have served an important role in increasing representation of women and minorities in Congress.

I think it is important to note her life-long passion for improving educational opportunities for our Nation's youth, carrying on this tradition after her years in Congress by serving as the Purington Professor at Mount Holyoke College.

She also promoted increased assistance for urban areas, land rights for Native Americans, fair treatment of Haitian refugees, and more help for working-class families trying to make ends meet.

I join together with our Nation in honoring her life's work. Along with my colleagues, I cosponsored a Congressional resolution today

that would honor her life. This resolution will help ensure that her legacy and the positive momentum that she initiated through her work would continue, and I urge the House to bring this resolution up for a vote without delay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my most sincere condolences to everyone affected by the devastating tsunami that ravaged Southeast Asia on December 26. My thoughts and prayers go out to those who perished that day and to their families.

The destructive tsunami that shook Southeast Asia claimed the lives of over 156,000.

Just this morning, I read the heart-wrenching story of a 13-year-old boy in Indonesia who lost his father, mother, and brother to the shocking natural disaster. Countless other families have been altered: thousands of children have lost their mothers and fathers, parents have lost their sons and daughters, men and women have lost their husbands and wives. The world has not seen a tragedy of this magnitude in decades, and my heart breaks for those who grieve the death of their family and friends.

Despite the horrendous impact of this overwhelming tragedy, I am moved by the international outpouring of support and compassion to help the tsunami victims as they struggle to overcome the loss of loved ones and piece their lives together. The people of the world and of Southeast Asia have come together to take care of one another. Strangers, who themselves are struggling to find sufficient food and clean water, are taking in orphans who lost their families. International aid workers from countries, rich and poor, and large and small, have traveled to Southeast Asia to help provide essential materials to tsunami victims.

Back in my district, a telethon hosted by a local television station along with efforts of the local branch of the American Red Cross helped Rochesterians raise $365,000 to help fund the disaster relief efforts. In Buffalo, various religious organizations have come together to raise money. The India Association of Buffalo raised $38,000 in a benefit held last Thursday and plans to continue fundraising.

The number of people attempting to give money overwhelmed charity organizations collecting money for tsunami relief. Donations have ranged from $10 to thousands of dollars, and people from all economic brackets are giving what they can to help alleviate the suffering of their fellow fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, and children.

When speaking of international natural disaster relief, President Dwight Eisenhower once said, ``These are deeds of peace. They speak more loudly than promises or protestations of peaceful intent.'' I hope that the worldwide generosity will continue until the need no longer exists, and that the solidarity among people from around the world will persist.

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

Mr. Speaker, all over Washington and in the country, people are talking today about the majority's last-minute decision to abandon rules changes that would have eviscerated longstanding ethical guidelines in this House, and, with that, the integrity of the institution. And while in the end the majority was right to withdraw these provisions, they hardly deserve our congratulations. The Republicans simply succumbed to tough criticism from every major ethics group in Washington, several major news organizations and House Democrats. The rules changes in question were so egregious that rank- and-file Republicans would not support their leadership's plan. The proposals were so offensive that the Ethics Committee chairman broke with his own leadership on the issue.

One of the changes would have permitted Members, indicted by a grand jury on felony counts, to continue to hold House leadership positions. The measure was similar to a conference rule the House Republican Conference passed last fall to protect its leadership in the event that one of them is indicted. The fact that they ever considered changing the rules of the House in this disgraceful manner is a sad commentary on the ethical compass of this body's leadership.

They also planned to eliminate a 30-year standing rule that Members of Congress could be disciplined for actions that brought dishonor and discredit on this House, the people's House. This standard is similar to the one that exists for the men and women serving in our military. How could they even think about changing the House rules in this regard when to do so would mean demanding a higher ethical standard from an 18-year-old private in the Army than we who sit in this hallowed Chamber? How could we ask more from our young people than we ask of ourselves?

It is hard to believe that there was a time in the not too distant past when the Republicans touted their high ethical and moral standards. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this entire episode has been a violation of the public trust. When Americans enter their voting booths and cast their ballots for Congress, they give us a very precious gift, their trust. American voters expect, and rightly so, that we as Members of Congress will conduct ourselves at the highest ethical standard and uphold democratic principles such as integrity and accountability. How can we as the guardians of democracy spread the values of self-governance across the world if we refuse to govern ourselves right here in this Chamber?

Mr. Speaker, though we should all be relieved that the Republicans were shamed into abandoning the most overtly egregious provisions, the remaining ethics provisions in today's legislation will still destroy the House ethics process. I cannot say it more plainly than that. The ethics process will be destroyed. The tactics have changed, but the end result is the same. The House ethics system will be gutted.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is the only evenly divided committee in the House. As the rule stands today, if the five Republicans and five Democrats on the committee do not reach agreement about the merits of an ethics complaint, it is automatically referred to investigators. This approach was designed to take the partisan politics out of the equation and to ensure that meritorious complaints would be investigated regardless of the political winds of the day. Under the Republican rules package, one- half of the committee will now have the power to bury complaints, even the most meritorious ones. Under the rules package before us today, if the committee is deadlocked,

the ethics complaint dies. This one provision gives the Republicans an enormous amount of control over who is and who is not investigated by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

In practical terms, the Republicans have granted themselves veto power over any complaint it does not deem palatable. Mr. Speaker, this rules package would effectively eliminate the 45-day deadline the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct currently has to act on complaints. The 45-day requirement was designed to prevent ethics complaints from being buried away from public view and to ensure that those Members who should be held accountable for corruption would be. This provision ensures that no ethics complaint will move forward against a Republican without their leadership's consent.

Mr. Speaker, we can be sure that if these rules changes had been in place in the last Congress, no ethics complaints would have seen the light of day. Under the Republicans, the ethical climate in Washington has eroded enormously. When I speak to constituents, I find myself telling them to forget what they learned in school about how a bill becomes a law. In times past, our laws were written to serve the public interest. But today the sad reality is that corporations like Enron write our Nation's policies. The Medicare drug bill that was rammed through Congress in the dead of night stands as a potent example of the ethical erosion of the House of Representatives. When the dust settled on the prescription drug vote, former Representative Billy Tauzin, the key author and then chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, had himself a $2-million-dollar-a-year job lobbying with the drug industry. After the ethical circus surrounding the prescription drug vote, this body should be acting to strengthen the ethics systems in this House, not to destroy it. We were even unable, Mr. Speaker, to ascertain from any official of the Federal Government how much the bill actually cost.

The Republican rules package will reduce this committee to a paper tiger. The American people deserve much better than to have a ``for sale'' sign placed on the United States House of Representatives. They deserve to be able to trust their elected leaders and have faith in the integrity of this institution. They should be able to expect accountability from their government. Unfortunately, the lesson we have here today is if you have the power and you break the rules, you can just change the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are Members on the other side of the aisle, because I know them, who care greatly about the integrity of this Chamber, and I know that there are freshmen Members here today eager to cast their first vote on behalf of the constituents whose trust they hold and the Constitution they love. I challenge those new Members, and any other Republican who values integrity and the sanctity of the democratic process, to stand up for the values of those who trusted you to represent them.

Mr. Speaker, at the close of this debate, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can strike from the rules package language that would allow the Republicans to run out the clock on serious ethics complaints. Immediately following that vote, I will ask for a ``yes'' on a motion to commit the resolution so that we can add two important rules changes. The first would prohibit Members from negotiating lucrative job deals that capitalize on their committee membership. The other would guarantee that Members have at least 3 days to read a House report before voting on it. When bills are rushed to the floor, cobbled together at the last minute, warm from the machine, pages are missing or, worse, outrageous provisions are slipped in by committee staff.

Lest we forget, the provision that opened up private taxpayers' records that was sneaked into last year's omnibus spending bill was by just such a staff member.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to strike the egregious ethics changes in this package. We owe it to the constituents we serve, to this institution, and to the Constitution that we adore and revere to restore the ethics and integrity to the people's House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request 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 myself the balance of my time.

I urge every Member of this House to vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to strike from the proposed rules package a provision that effectively guts our already ailing ethics process. This provision would halt the investigation of properly filed ethics complaints if, after 45 days, the chair and ranking Member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct have not set up an investigation committee.

I urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to vote no on this previous question so we can delete this offensive provision.

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

Mr. Speaker, after the vote on the previous question, I will call for a yes vote on the motion to commit. My motion to commit will prohibit sitting Members of Congress from negotiating for future employment with any person who has a direct interest in the legislation referred to any committee on which that Member serves.

It also includes a rules change that would require a two-thirds vote in the House to waive the requirement in our standing rules that Members must have 3 days to read the committee reports.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert a statement as part of that immediately prior to the vote on the motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question.

I call on all Members of this House, particularly the freshmen casting their first vote, please vote for ethics today. Do not vote against the Constitution. Vote for this House that you will love and revere as all of us do on both sides of the aisle. Please vote no on the previous question and vote yes on the motion to recommit.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend two colleagues who will not be here when the next congressional session begins-- Congressman Amo Houghton and Congressman Jack Quinn. It has been a true honor to work with them. They will be greatly missed.

While we did not share the same political party, that fact never prevented us from working together to improve Upstate New York. These two men had very different backgrounds: Jack Quinn was a union steelworker and teacher before entering politics; Amo Houghton was head of Corning Glass Works. Yet, they are good friends who have represented the working families in their districts well and with grace.

In 2002, when a State redistricting plan proposed to match these two men against each other, I think their statements at the time reflect their character and friendship:

``In my heart, I don't want to knock out Jack Quinn,'' Houghton said. ``He's an extraordinary guy.''

``I hope it is not against my good friend, Amo Houghton,'' Quinn said. ``If it is, I'll just invite him to dinner, maybe take our wives, and talk about what is best for the people of western New York.''

Through their committee posts, both moderate Members fought for the interests of New York State.

As the former chairman of a Fortune 500 company, Amo Houghton understood how the Federal Government could play a role in sustaining and creating local businesses. As a senior member on the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative Houghton partnered with me to help create and maintain the wool duty relief program, which is credited with stemming the loss of manufacturing jobs in the suit industry. Duty relief on imported wool suiting fabrics has proven critical to the survival of Hickey-Freeman, a high-end suit manufacturer that has long operated in Rochester.

I was privileged to work closely with Representative Quinn after the redistricting process in 2002 when we came to share the city of Buffalo. Jack went out of his way to introduce me to the area and its people. He is truly the ``Big Man from Buffalo.'' As one example of his effort to improve the local economy, we cohosted a widely attended forum with local manufacturers to discuss what action the Federal Government must take to ensure that western New York and the rest of the United States will remain competitive in the manufacturing sector.

I will miss the partnership I enjoyed with both men, and their decency and respect for this institution. I have heard it said that legislation is the art of compromise, and both of these men understood that principle. We need more people with the ability to reach across the aisle.

I know that this is not the last we will hear from either of them. Both of them still have much to contribute to public discourse and Upstate New York.

I wish both of them the best of luck and continued success in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to honor the work and life of Dr. Melvin Dyster of Niagara Falls, New York, a family practitioner, who this past weekend was honored by the Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center for 50 years of practicing medicine.

Dr. Dyster is 77 years old and still makes early morning rounds seven days a week at Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center, sees patients at his office, and students at Niagara University in Lewiston, New York.

Dr. Dyster has had many accomplishments over the years. He started a Family Practice Residency Program in 1976 at the hospital to avert a shortage of primary care doctors. He became involved with a fledgling migrant worker clinic 25 years ago. He secured donated drugs for the clinic, and encouraged residents and medical students to become involved with the clinic, the County Health Department, and Memorial Medical Center, which now sends its mobile clinic to the farms in the area.

His accomplishments have led to many honors and awards. In 1995, Dr. Dyster was recognized as Doctor of the Year by the New York State Academy of Family Practice. He has received an honorary doctorate degree from Niagara University and the University of Buffalo Medical School Dean's Award for community involvement. He also received the Niagara University College of Arts and Sciences Dean's Award for his establishment of the Dr. Melvin B. Dyster Health Science Resource Center in 2003.

Dr. Dyster goes out of his way to provide services for those in need, working at the Hamilton Mizer Primary Care Center in Niagara Falls, which serves predominantly inner city residents.

Dr. Dyster is a consultant for the Niagara Falls City Task Force for Bioterrorism Preparedness, a member of Niagara County's Health Emergency Alert Response Team and an advisor on Memorial's Disaster Planning Committee.

Dr. Dyster's efforts on behalf of the Niagara Falls community extend beyond the medical world; he was instrumental in saving the former Niagara Falls High School from demolition, which has become a well used arts and cultural center.

Dr. Dyster is a retired full colonel in the Army Reserve and was chief of staff at the 865th General Hospital at the Niagara Falls Air Base.

I am honored to have such a caring and compassionate man as Dr. Dyster live and work in my district.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. John DiPofi of Niagara Falls, NY, who passed away this week at the age of 106. He was the oldest living Marine in the United States at the time of his death.

Mr. DiPofi joined the Marines on November 10, 1922, and served for 3 years in Haiti. He was an expert rifleman and was assigned to guard the country's agricultural assets.

Mr. DiPofi was born in Italy and came to America in 1913 at the age of 15. He lived and worked in Niagara Falls after his tour of duty.

It was an honor to have Mr. DiPofi living in the 28th Congressional District. I was privileged to meet him last year and congratulate him on his good health and service to our nation.

I offer my sincerest condolences to Mr. DiPofi's family. The nation has lost a good soldier, and Niagara Falls has lost a good friend. His extraordinary life will never be forgotten.

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, we are here to consider a package of reforms that, despite garnering broad bipartisan support throughout the Nation, was not cleared for the floor until today.

The House received this blueprint for making America safer in the form of the September 11 report in July, well over 5 months ago; and upon release of the report, and ever since, the commissioners have been appealing to the House to respond to its recommendations with a great sense of urgency.

To its credit, throughout the summer recess the House undertook an ambitious schedule of hearings on the 9/11 report; and as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I heard the impassioned testimony from both Governor Kean and Representative Hamilton as they presented a compelling case for why structural reforms were essential to enhancing the security of the American people from the threat of terrorism.

At the time, I believed we would get this intelligence reform package cleared by both Houses of Congress well before the third anniversary of the 9/11 attacks; but as we all know, despite broad bipartisan support in both bodies, it simply did not happen. Instead, it was left in sort of suspended animation for months while the House leadership secured support from the majority of the majority in the House.

Mr. Speaker, in my 18 years in the House of Representatives, I have never heard of such a standard. Whether it is the product of an arrogant belief that the views of the minority in the House are now somehow subordinate or it is the manifestation of leadership drunk with power, I truly do not know; but if this is any indication of how the House leadership intends to do business in the 109th Congress, be warned that the American people will not like it.

It is not just the red States that are populated with patriotic, moral Americans who serve courageously in our Armed Forces or as first responders. Patriotic, moral Americans live in blue States and every State of this Union. We are all Americans. We are all equal under the law, and we all have an important role to play in the life of this Nation.

I would also caution the majority to bear in mind the words of the 18th century philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau who said, ``It is unnatural for a majority to rule, for a majority can seldom be organized and united for specific action, and a minority can.'' I think we saw that well-demonstrated today.

Satisfied that it has secured support from a majority of the majority, the House leadership is now rushing this bill to the floor, denying Members adequate time to review each and every critical provision.

Have we learned nothing from the debacle surrounding the omnibus spending bill? The privacy rights of millions of American taxpayers were put at risk by one small provision inserted into that 3,000-page bill. Under the regular order of the House, we should have had 3 days to review the report; but with a martial-law rule, we do not even get one.

In the 108th Congress, the Committee on Rules has reported 29 martial rules and 17 in the second session alone. At the rate we are going, the regular order of business is becoming the irregular order of business.

Mr. Speaker, the majority has delayed this bill long enough. I would have preferred this bill, so crucial to defending our country, be considered by unanimous consent; but I know there are many people who would be happy if this legislation never saw the light of day.

Before I close, I want to reiterate my support for the intelligence reform package. Despite my opposition to the way it has come to the floor, I intend fully to vote for it later.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

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

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, could the attacks of September 11 have been prevented if someone had connected the dots? Could the war in Iraq have been avoided if intelligence had been better? I honestly do not know. But what both situations tragically highlight is one fundamental truth: Our Nation needs intelligence reform.

The September 11 Commission report released over 5 months ago outlined the gaps and weaknesses in our current intelligence system. It also made 41 recommendations to Congress that, if implemented, would make America safer.

Today the House at long last is poised to consider the conference report to S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act. This measure seeks to implement the core intelligence reforms recommended by the 9/ 11 Commission and makes significant improvements to emergency preparedness and aviation and border security.

Since July, Governor Kean and Representative Hamilton have tirelessly worked to ensure their recommendations are not relegated to the circular file of history. Throughout the summer, they testified before congressional committee after congressional committee in the hopes of building momentum before the third anniversary of the attacks. After reading their fine report and participating in a hearing with them in the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I, like most, if not all, of my Democratic colleagues in the House, endorsed all 41 recommendations.

The Commission report attributed structural weaknesses as partially to blame for the intelligence failures prior to the 9/11 attacks. A culture of isolation and separation exists between the 15 intelligence agencies that must be dismantled if we are to transform the environment and foster information-sharing among government agencies. We need to have a strong Director of National Intelligence to coordinate all intelligence efforts.

It is my understanding that last-minute changes were made to the conference report. We only received it an hour ago. I sincerely hope that the final version of this report vests the new Director with the people and the budget authority necessary to assert control over all 15 intelligence-collection agencies.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the men and women on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan need to be assured that the intelligence they get is good intelligence. No one in this body would ever agree to reform our intelligence apparatus in any manner that would undermine our soldiers.

Today we mark the 63rd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Yesterday terrorists opened fire on Americans working in the U.S. Consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia. Whatever changes we make cannot be simply cosmetic. Our Armed Forces, Congress, the President, and the American people need to have confidence in the quality of their intelligence.

In the post-September 11 world Americans demand a national Intelligence Community that works together for the benefit of the national security, and Congress must act decisively to bring about those structural reforms. The stakes are very high. There is no room here for egos. There is no room for turf war. There is no room for bureaucratic haggling.

The report also closes critical gaps in aviation and border security. With respect to aviation security, it calls for the deployment of new explosive-detection screening technologies for carry-on bags and blast- resistant cargo containers. On border security the report calls for unmanned aerial vehicles to be placed along the 5,500-mile border between the United States and Canada, especially in areas far from a legal port of entry. This is an issue I care deeply about as my western New York district is a major gateway to Canada, the second busiest at Niagara Falls, New York.

Ever since the 9/11 Commission recommendations were released in July, there has been a steady drumbeat of support from my district. Like me, my constituents believe that an overhaul to the Nation's intelligence apparatus is critical to the future of this great land, and much of what is being considered here today will accomplish this vital end.

Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating that we could have passed these reforms months ago, but the leadership did not want to act. Now, today, they want us to consider the report under martial law, even though Democrats have been ready to act for months. Moreover, if Democrats had not insisted on a recorded vote to correct a taxpayer privacy provision in the omnibus bill, Congress would not have returned to Washington, and this bill would not have passed before adjournment.

Democrats have worked hard to make the country safer, and we look forward to working with the new Director of National Intelligence to do everything we can to make sure this tragedy is never repeated.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to an active debate on this critical piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

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 Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage about a dangerous antiwoman provision that is in this omnibus bill. I know that is not going to be changed, but I do want all women in America to know what is coming for them.

Let us say a woman is the unfortunate victim of a partial spontaneous abortion. Under the law that has been passed now in the United States, that woman may not go to the hospital and have that completed unless the hospital wants to do so. Presently, the law requires that a woman be taken care of; but even if a woman's life is at stake, even if she is going to die, the hospital does not have to do it.

Now, what happens if the hospital does it in defiance of what this law says? They then put into jeopardy every cent of money they bring in from the Labor-HHS bill, which would include all their State Children's Health Insurance money, all their Head Start money, all their child care development block grant money, all social services money, and perhaps all senior nutrition programs. This is really draconian when it comes to saving a woman's life.

States will not be allowed anymore to require an HMO that is participating in Medicaid to either cover abortions for a rape victim or tell them that they are eligible to get services and where to get it. What a step backwards for the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record an article from today's Washington Times announcing what is yet to come.

[From the Washington Times, Dec. 6, 2004]

Pro-Lifers Set Sights on New Congress

(By Amy Fagan)

The pro-life movement, which helped pass several

initiatives in the 108th Congress, thinks Republican gains in

the Senate will aid the chances for bills to enforce state

parental notification laws and to alert pregnant women about

fetal pain.

``There is enough of a shift that we think bills such as

these two . . . have a real chance,'' said Douglas Johnson,

legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

The Senate has been the biggest blockade to pro-life bills.

Republican pickups in this year's election mean the chamber

will have about three additional pro-life votes come January,

Mr. Johnson said.

He said he hopes the defeat of Senate Minority Leader Tom

Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, might make some pro-choice

senators ``who marched in lock step with the abortion lobby .

. . less inclined to get out on thin ice'' in blocking

abortion restrictions.

Both sides of the abortion debate are anticipating a

Supreme Court vacancy, particularly after deteriorating

health has forced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to miss

several sessions.

Mr. Johnson said a battle over any Supreme Court nominee

would take top priority for his group.

Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion

Federation, also said a Supreme Court vacancy would be a

``huge priority'' for her side. She promised a ``tremendous

fight'' over any nominee who would ``turn back the clock'' on

abortion or other rights.

Until that fight erupts, however, the pro-life lobby will

focus on other legislation.

One priority, introduced as a bill for the first time in

May, would require doctors to tell women seeking abortions

after 20 weeks about the capacity of the fetus to feel pain

and offer the option of pain-reducing drugs.

The fetal-pain issue garnered interest during a federal

court case in New York, in which the government was defending

the federal ban on late-term partial-birth abortions. The

judge in that case said the defense presented ``credible

evidence'' that a fetus feels pain.

Mr. Johnson said there is growing support for the fetal

pain bill in the House, and he hopes it can pass both

chambers this term.

A bill returning to the scene next session would make it a

federal crime to circumvent a state's parental-notification

law by transporting a pregnant teen across the state line for

an abortion without parental involvement.

The measure passed the House three times but stalled in the

Senate.

Miss Saporta said the fetal-pain bill is ``part of their

campaign to separate the fetus from the woman.''

Although the teen-transport bill likely will be introduced

in both chambers, she said, passage would ``put the most

vulnerable teens at risk'' by forcing those in dangerous

family situations to involve their parents in abortion

decisions and by making other family members criminals if

they intervene.

Connie Mackey, vice president for government affairs for

the Family Research Council, said her group also will push a

ban on cloning human embryos for any purpose.

The legislation stalled last session, but House and Senate

sponsors plan to bring back their bills next session. ``We

will be working hard'' to pass them, Mrs. Mackey said.

She said her group will fight for more federal funding for

adult stem-cell research, as a more promising alternative to

embryonic stem-cell research. Pro-life lawmakers also are

considering proposals to regulate abortion clinics and ban or

limit RU-486, a home drug treatment that induces an abortion.

Miss Saporta said she also suspects conservative lawmakers

will try to ban or limit RU-486 but predicted they will fail.

``It will be somewhat easier for anti-choice forces to pass

further restrictions on abortion, but they won't be

successful in all of their initiatives,'' she said.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to express my great regrets about the inclusion of the Weldon-authored provision that undermines the rights of a State to enforce its own laws.

If this bill passes, and I am sure it will, that means that from now on State and local governments failing to comply with the Weldon provision put at risk all of their State Medicaid funding, all their SCHIP funding, all their Head Start money, all their child care development block grant money, and all their social services block grant money. In short, anything that comes to the State or local government from the Labor-HHS bill. How is that for coming down with a pretty heavy hand?

Simply put, it restricts the States' autonomy and right to self- governance and undermines States' ability to enforce their own constitutional protections.

If a State chooses to enforce its own laws and require an HMO to provide abortion counseling or services, it will pay a very heavy price. None of us, I believe, are going to want to explain to the senior citizens that the nutrition programs are over, that Medicare is gone, that the Social Security check will not be there, denying the Federal funds for State and local governments that attempts to ensure that a woman has full access to reproductive health services and information. Information. Once again, the land of the free and the home of the brave is going to control the information going to its citizens.

In fact, the way the proposal is worded, even Federal programs could be stripped of their funds if they were to comply with this law. Moreover, it interferes with State and local governments' responsibility to set the parameters of their Medicaid programs, something that they are very concerned about. And I know that New York, which I represent, is very concerned about the cost of Medicaid.

Right now, if a woman is raped and receives her health care from Medicaid, States can force all HMOs that participate in Medicaid to either pay for her abortion or tell her that she is eligible to get that coverage and where she can get it. If this provision passes, the States will not be able to enforce this requirement and Medicaid HMOs can simply refuse to cover the woman's abortion and not give her any information that she can get coverage elsewhere. I am sure that is what the intent is.

It even interferes with, and possibly overrides, current Federal laws, such as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which ensures that women in life-threatening circumstances receive the medical care they need.

Suppose a woman comes into the emergency room of a hospital with an incomplete miscarriage which can threaten her life. Under present law, the hospital must stabilize her. If stabilizing requires completing the abortion, they have to do it no matter what their religious belief. But when Weldon passes, the hospital can say it is discrimination to force them to do this and so the woman can just die.

I call on my colleagues to understand what is happening here. I know when the women in America find out what is happening here, there is going to be great outrage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Steven J. Sarkees, on his appointment to Chief Petty Officer in the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps. While a high school senior in Grand Island, New York, Cadet Sarkees is a member of the Sullivans Division, Naval Sea Cadet Corps located in Buffalo, New York. Cadet Sarkees' appointment to Chief Petty Office is bestowed on less than one half of one percent of the ten thousand Naval Sea Cadets in the program, and is a reflection of his exceptional leadership skills and mastery of seamanship training.

The U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps was established in 1958 in order to provide youth with a drug-free and gang-free environment where individuals between the ages of 11 and 17 could develop an appreciation for the United States' naval history, customs, traditions and its significant role in national defense. The goal of the Sea Cadet Corps is to encourage young people to develop an interest in basic seamanship and teach Cadets patriotism, courage, self-confidence and self- reliance. Chief Petty Officer is the highest level a Cadet can attain and reflects years of hard work and dedication.

Cadet Sarkees has developed into a mature leader, and is a fine example of what the Sea Cadet Corps strives to develop in young people. He has earned his appointment to Chief Petty Officer by completing a challenging course load, passing a leadership exam, completing 6 months time in rank, and attending 2 weeks of advanced training. Again, Cadet Sarkees is a positive role model to his fellow cadets, and exemplifies the best qualities of a patriotic American.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating Cadet Sarkees for his significant achievement as a member of the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps.

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the Prevention of and Response to Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence in the Military Act. This bill will address the ongoing problem of violence against women in our U.S. Armed Forces. There have been at least 261 reported cases of sexual assault in current operations in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Bahrain between August 2002 and November 2004, as well as at least 27 cases of sexual assault prior to deployment. My legislation will help address this issue by improving prevention programs, enhancing victim treatment services and changing the Uniform Code of Military Justice to more effectively deal with perpetrators of these crimes.

For too long, the problem of sexual assault in the military has been brushed under the rug. Women and men who report sexual assault are often ignored or demoted, while perpetrators go unpunished--or are even promoted. We cannot continue to tolerate this culture of abuse, which has destroyed lives, careers and families. A soldier's job is perilous enough--how can they serve with a criminal in their own ranks?

My bill seeks to transform the process used by the military to handle abuse of its own soldiers. It will make important changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice to make certain that those who commit crimes are dealt with swiftly and harshly. The legislation will ensure that victims are protected and have access to both physical and mental treatment and care. We must change entirely the culture that permits this kind of abuse to occur. It is my hope that this bill is a first step in that direction.

This legislation updates and revises the Uniform Code of Military Justice to incorporate Federal statues addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, family violence and stalking. The definition of sexual assault is expanded to include a wider range of sexual misconduct. The bill also closes loopholes in Federal law relative to interstate domestic violence and enforcement of protection orders.

Moreover, the bill establishes two senior executive level offices, Director of Special Investigations and Office of the Victims' Advocate. The Director of Special Investigations would support timely and appropriate investigations of sexual assault, domestic violence, family violence and stalking and would implement and

support Sexual Assault Response Teams (SARTs) and Domestic Violence Response Teams (DVRTs). The Office of the Victim Advocate would improve access to services for victims and survivors.

Under this legislation, services and treatment for victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and stalking will be enhanced and made more widely available. Such services would be expanded within the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans' Affairs to include health care response teams, community health centers, additional sexual trauma counseling centers to furnish both inpatient and outpatient services, and services for reservists victimized by sexual assault or domestic violence. The proposal would also entitle a servicemember to extended emergency leave in order to seek medical treatment, obtain psychological counseling or victim services, and participate in safety planning as a result of sexual or domestic violence.

My bill will also enhance the rights of victims to safety and justice. It will better protect a victims' privacy, including communication between a victim and her advocate. It will also provide restitution to victims.

As co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, I have been helping to lead the charge to end sexual assault in the military. For example, last March, I chaired a hearing at which Jennifer Machmer, an Army captain from Buffalo who was assaulted in Kuwait, testified before Women's Caucus members. I also offered a successful amendment to the FY 05 National Defense Authorization bill that codifies many of the recommendations made the Department of Defense Task Force on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault.

This bill encompasses a comprehensive framework to deal with all aspects of violence against women in the military. It represents the continuation of an ongoing dialogue between legislators, the Pentagon, victims and the advocacy community to address these issues.

On Veteran's Day last week, we honored and commemorated all of the brave women and men who have so valiantly served our Nation within our U.S. Armed Forces--both in the past, as well as those who continue to serve our country today. We must do everything that we can to ensure the safety and well-being of all of our U.S. servicemembers. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative.

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, as of yesterday, the national debt hit $7,444,423,020,967.95. It translates to over $25,000 owed by each and every one of us. The national debt is growing so fast, $1.6 billion every single day, that the last seven digits on the national debt clock in New York City are flipping faster than can be seen by the human eye.

No one is spared this heavy economic burden, not even America's children. In fact, today every child born in America comes into this world owing a birth tax of $25,255 which is their share of payment on a national debt that they had no part in creating.

To my friends on the other side of the aisle that fought with such fervor and passion against the so-called death tax, I ask, where is the moral indignation when it comes to the birth tax which is levied on this Nation's most innocent Americans, its children?

This is a moral issue. The Federal Government cannot continue to borrow 20 cents of every dollar it spends, run up historic deficits, and add to the Federal debt without seriously harming the economy for generations yet unborn.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a measure to raise the debt ceiling for the third time in 3 years. The debt ceiling is a statutory limit, imposed by law on the total amount of debt that the United States of America can incur. It currently stands at $7.384 trillion. At the beginning of President Bush's first term, Congress was told that the debt ceiling would not need to be raised until the year 2008 at the earliest. However, if we count the $800 billion increase provided for under S. 2986, the bill to be considered later today, the debt limit will have been raised by more than $2 trillion since President Bush took office.

On this day, with Americans coming together in Little Rock, Arkansas, to open the Bill Clinton Presidential Library, I find myself waxing nostalgic for the budget policies of the 1990s: the PAYGO rules, the spending caps and other critical budget policies that set our Nation's budget on a path to historic surpluses and allowed us to pay down the national debt for 7 straight years. It was not easy but it was the right thing to do.

Last night in the Committee on Rules, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), offered an amendment to S. 2986 to help us get on the path of fiscal discipline. The Thompson amendment, co- authored with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), one of this body's most thoughtful Members on budget issues, would have allowed this body to restore the PAYGO rules and spending caps that were allowed to lapse in 2002. Regrettably, the Thompson amendment was rejected and my colleagues are being denied the opportunity to restore some budget discipline.

Mr. Speaker, our national deficit keeps hitting historic highs, $413 billion by the end of September, and no end in sight, particularly as we are spending $5 billion a month on the war. At this rate, deficits will continue for years to come, adding several trillion at a minimum to the colossal debt we have already incurred. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates that at the current rate of deficit spending, by the year 2014 the debt ceiling will have to be raised to $14.5 trillion.

Chronic budget deficits also undermine the economic security of Americans. As the government's appetite for money increases and it consumes more and more of the capital available in credit markets, more Americans will face higher interest rates and find it harder to finance their homes, their education, and their businesses.

Moreover, there is cause for alarm when we look at how this debt is being financed. I have serious concerns about how this Nation will maintain its sovereignty as foreign governments and nationals continue to bankroll us.

Today, the Japanese hold over $600 billion in U.S. debt paper and the Chinese hold between $225 and $275 billion. When 90 percent of new debt is purchased by the likes of the Bank of China and Japanese interests, how can we be sure that we have the resources to provide for the national defense? How do we ensure our independence when foreign governments who do not share our Nation's values or views on foreign policy issues buy up our bonds?

I strongly believe that the level of foreign holdings is a grave and gathering threat to our Nation's sovereignty.

Mr. Speaker the closed rule before us today only allows an hour to debate the national debt. That is simply not enough time to debate an issue that affects every man, woman and child, living and unborn, in this country. Moreover, the majority's refusal to let the Simpson- Stenholm PAYGO amendment come to the floor for a vote is foolhardy. Without a major change in course, we are on the path to debt for generations to come.

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 17, 2004]

Soaring Ceilings

This week the lame-duck Congress will have to raise the

federal debt ceiling. For several weeks the Treasury

Department has

been doing the governmental equivalent of scrounging for

spare change in the couch cushions to pay its obligations.

Now, with the election safely past and Treasury at the limits

of its ingenuity, lawmakers will do the inevitable and

increase the government's borrowing authority by as much as

$800 billion--raising the debt ceiling to more than $8

trillion.

This will be the third time in three years that the debt

limit has been increased, for a grand total of more than $2

trillion during President Bush's first term. The last hike

was nearly $1 trillion, but it took less than 18 months for

the government to hit the newly raised ceiling. By way of

comparison, the entire federal debt in 1980 was less than $1

trillion;

There will be some noisy debate about this, only partly on

point. The debt limit, as now defined, both overstates and

understates the problem of the national debt. It overstates

the problem by including not only what an ordinary person

would think of as ``real debt''--the $4.3 trillion the

government has borrowed--but also money the government

essentially owes itself. These are the ``trust funds'' to

finance future obligations, such as Social Security and

Medicare, that the government ``borrows'' from to pay its

current bills. To the extent this reflects a debt, it's of a

different sort from a Treasury bond. But if this is a debt,

the ceiling understates the problem because the trust fund

IOUs the government issues to itself don't come close to

reflecting the full cost of its future commitments to those

programs.

This much is beyond question: The government is living far

beyond its means. The deficits it racks up year after year

impede economic growth, burden future generations and force

the United States to rely on foreign governments and

investors. Since Mr. Bush took office, foreign holdings of

U.S. debt have grown from 30 percent to 43 percent of the

total, and 90 percent of the new debt has been purchased by

foreigners. Meanwhile, as the government has to pay more

interest on its debt, it has less for health care, education

and other programs. According to the Congressional Budget

Office, the government's interest payments are expected to

more than double between 2003 ($153 billion) and 2010 ($319

billion); interest costs will account for almost 10 percent

of federal spending in the next decade.

``We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now,''

Mr. Bush said in his first State of the Union address. He was

speaking about his plan to pay off over the next decade the

entire $2 trillion in government debt held by the public.

Now, instead of being eliminated, debt held by the public--

real debt--is on track to reach $6.5 trillion by 2011. How do

Mr. Bush and all the lawmakers who have enabled his

irresponsibility plan to explain that to the grandchildren?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 second just to say that President Bush, in his first State of the Union said, ``We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now,'' speaking about his plan to pay off in the next decade the entire $2 trillion in government-debt held by the public.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

I will be calling for a no vote on the previous question so we can change the rule and add the Stenholm amendment to reinstate pay-as-you- can-go programs in our budget process.

This amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules last night and defeated on a straight party-line vote. I want to emphasize that this no vote will not in any way prevent or block the consideration of the underlying bill to increase the debt ceiling, but a yes vote will block us in voting to restore the pay-as-you-go provisions in the budget process. I urge a no vote on the previous question

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 494-497, 502, 505, 507-508, 510-512, 517, 518, 520-524, and 526- 527. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 495, 496, 497, 502, 505, 507-508, 510, 511, 512, 517, 518, 520, 521, 522, and 527. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 494, 523, 524 and 526. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record.