Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I don't need to remind anyone in this Chamber of the saying that all politics are local. This budget has real effects on the local level, especially in my home State of California.

As a former welfare recipient, I am concerned with the increased work requirements to TANF. The Legislative Analyst's Office (California's version of the Congressional Budget Office) has said that the State will not be able to meet these new requirements, costing them $400 million in the first year alone.

These requirements undermine the bipartisan work that has been done on the State

level to help people get the education they need to obtain a decent paying job. Work requirements without the support of education and child care fail to address the real needs of the working poor.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is too important to be buried in a budget conference report. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and give the reauthorization of TANF the careful consideration it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, in a difficult week, well, weeks, following September 11th, Congress passed the U.S. PATRIOT Act in an effort to comfort and protect a shocked and grieving Nation. Yet even in the face of all that, Congress found 16 of the PATRIOT Act's provisions to be so egregious and far-reaching that they were not made permanent, and were slated to expire within 4 years.

Yet somehow, here we are, in the midst of having learned that our President has authorized the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant, still debating if it is a good idea to further compromise our privacy, and make permanent some of the PATRIOT Act's worse provisions, such as roving wiretaps and expanded access to personal information like medical, library, financial records.

Threats to our civil liberties and freedoms are mounting, an open- ended war, a President copping a ``I can because I say I can'' attitude, and a dangerous view of what executive powers are bestowed on our President in the U.S. Constitution. We cannot continue on this slippery slope.

As the elected leaders this country, we must vote to protect Americans from dangerous infringements of civil rights and liberties. That is why I encourage my colleagues to oppose extending the PATRIOT Act today.

Mr. Speaker, merely hours after the Bush administration was celebrating the Iraqi election as a triumph for human freedom, what did we discover courtesy of the New York Times? That our own government, through the National Security Agency, is secretly spying on the phone calls and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant or a court order. And they have been doing so for nearly 4 years at the explicit direction of the President of the United States of America himself.

This is even more egregious than any of the other suspensions of civil liberties that we have seen in the last 4 years. It makes the PATRIOT Act look like it was written by the ACLU. Has anyone in the White House read the Bill of Rights and the fourth amendment about the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures? It is a part of the same Constitution that the President has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend.

Mr. Speaker, I am not exaggerating when I say that sometimes I do not recognize my own country. Secret gulags in Eastern Europe, the Vice President personally lobbying Senators to give the CIA the right to torture detainees, and now this. What do I tell my grandchildren about what America stands for?

Does this White House believe in any transparency or oversight for anything they do, or do they think that getting 51 percent, or 51 out of every 100 votes gives them a mandate to operate behind a veil shielded from the day-in and day-out accountability that sustains a functioning democracy?

Remember, this is coming from the folks who preach about limited government. It turns out that they only want limited government as long as it would protect the wealthy and the powerful from high taxes and burdensome regulations. When it comes to privacy rights and ordinary Americans, they are in favor of the most intrusive and invasive big government imaginable.

The whole thing is Orwellian, Mr. Speaker. To defeat totalitarian extremism, we are adopting extremist totalitarian tactics of our own. In defense of freedom, we are undermining freedom. The whole thing is morally incoherent.

Let us remember that the war on terrorism is partly an ideological struggle. It is about winning over hearts and minds. But when we violate the very principles of freedom that we are preaching in the Middle East, what happens to our moral authority? What happens to our global credibility? Why should anyone take us seriously?

Those around the world who are skeptical of American values are surely noticing that we do not honor those values ourselves. And those who hate us will hate us even more when our government's hypocrisy is exposed.

And even if you do not believe this surveillance authority holds the key to victory on the war on terrorism, let us think for a minute about whom we have empowered to exercise it. The very same intelligence apparatus that has proven itself dysfunctional time and time again over recent years.

After all, the President himself just got through telling us this week that the U.S. intelligence community got it wrong on the most monumental and consequential issue it has faced in decades: whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If they blew it on something as fundamental as that, why should we have confidence that they are conducting this domestic spying operation competently, without any abuses or overreach.

Mr. Speaker, is that what more than 2,100 Americans have given their lives for in Iraq, the right for a government to snoop and eavesdrop on its own people without probable cause? If we, the

supposed liberators, endorse and adopt these kinds of oppressive tactics, then what was the point of toppling Saddam Hussein, especially given that he did not even have weapons of mass destruction?

This disgraceful episode makes me believe more strongly than ever that we must reevaluate our entire approach to providing national security, and it should start with bringing our troops home from Iraq. Not one more American should have to die for values that our government is willing to sacrifice here at home.

Mr. Speaker, today, without a doubt, we should congratulate the Iraqi people for what appears to be a successful, high-turnout election.

For the third time this year, courageous Iraqi citizens have enthusiastically exercised their democratic rights.

But successful elections do not, and cannot, obscure the devastating national tragedy that is the Iraq war.

It doesn't change the fact that over 2,100 Americans have died for weapons of mass destruction that never existed.

It doesn't change the fact that this war has turned Iraq into a hotbed of terrorist activity.

It doesn't change the fact that our troops are sitting ducks for the insurgents, who have been emboldened--not deterred--by our military presence in Iraq.

Here's the bottom line: a successful Iraqi election should, at the very least, reinforce the imperative of bringing our troops home. If Iraq is truly able to self-govern, then we have no business occupying their country and meddling in their affairs.

I've argued all year long that it's time to restore Iraqi sovereignty and give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. If the election is a watershed moment as the White House claims . . . then what is the continued justification for having our troops over there in harm's way?

Now is the time to enlist the support of the international community to establish an interim security force for Iraq. But that's just the start.

As I've written to the President in a letter signed by 61 other members of the House, the United States must also launch a ``diplomatic offensive,'' recasting our role in Iraq as reconstruction partner rather than military occupier.

We must also lead the way in establishing an international peace commission to oversee the post-war reconciliation and coordinate peace talks between Iraq's various factions.

The majority of the American people aren't behind it. Our global allies aren't behind it. The Iraqi people aren't behind it. Even Iraqi leaders--Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish alike, who agree on practically nothing--have united around a call for the United States military to leave.

With the Iraqi people having voted once again, let's offer the ultimate vote of confidence in their democracy. Let's reward the self- sufficiency they've demonstrated--by giving them their country back and bringing American soldiers home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I congratulate the Iraqis for their successful election and request an open debate on Iraq on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor Scott Tucker, of Petaluma, California. On January 1, 2006, Scott will officially retire after 13 years as the San Francisco District Manager, and 38 years with the United States Postal Service. He is the longest serving postal service executive at any major metropolitan area in consecutive years.

Mr. Tucker's career with the United States Postal Service began in 1968 in Hanford, California as a letter carrier. He held a succession of managerial positions in postal operations, until in September 1992, he was appointed to his current position as the San Francisco District Manager.

As the District Manager, Scott is responsible on a daily basis for the delivery of approximately 10 million pieces of mail to 3 million customers throughout northwest California that ranges from Sunnyvale in the south to the Oregon Border in the north. He supervises a workforce of 10,400 mail carriers, mail handlers, mail clerks, postmasters, and operations managers. In the North Bay we have grown to approximately 3,000 employees spread throughout 205 postal facilities under Scott's leadership.

The San Francisco postal district has for nine consecutive quarters, under Scott's leadership, received the ``Order of Yellow Jersey'' award for excellence in customer satisfaction and commitment to professionalism. The district has been repeatedly recognized by IBM's Business Consulting Services Unit, as one of the best on-time mail services for any metropolitan area in the Nation.

In the past 13 years, Scott has helped increase awareness of multicultural groups within the district. Under his leadership, numerous diversity leadership advisory councils were established including the Women's Council, African American Council, Asian American/Pacific Island Council, and the Hispanic Council. The Bay Area Federal Executive Board recognized his efforts and presented him with a diversity leadership achievement award.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that we honor Scott Tucker today for the years he has dedicated to consistently improving upon how we all receive our mail. The San Francisco District of the United States Postal Service employees and customers will greatly miss him. He has left some very big shoes to fill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to those applauding the outstanding disaster response work of the U.S. Coast Guard.

My district is fortunate to host one of the Nation's three Coast Guard highly trained oil spill and hazmat response teams, the Pacific Strike Team located at Hamilton Field in Novato. We are also proud of Coast Guard training center Petaluma, located in the rural Two Rock area. Men and Women from both bases had important roles in the aftermath of Katrina.

For the Pacific Strike Team, quick response to emergencies is normal operating procedure. On the night of August 29, Commander Anthony Lloyd and a dozen or so members of the team flew out of California to join the two other units of the National Strike Force at the forward operating base in Alexandra. In the following weeks they participated in the largest oil cleanup spill since the Exxon Valdez, containing oil spills from 8 or 9 refineries on the Mississippi and the Gulf. With oil spill cleanup almost completed, the Pacific Strike Team has joined the Louisiana environmental officials and the U.S. EPA in an effort to remove hazmat materials scattered along Lousiana's broad coastal zone. To date this unified command, combing the wetlands and bayous, have collected about 1 million commercial 55 gallon drums.

In an emergency, the Coast Guard also relies on its personnel stationed at bases and at sea . . . everyone lends a hand.

Coast Guard Training Center Petaluma, commanded by Captain Brian Marvin, is no exception. Nine Two Rock coasties have recently returned from a 30 day rotation in the Gulf where they performed a variety of duties which exemplify the diverse mission of the Coast Guard. Two chaplains helped with spiritual support and stress management both for hurricane victims and responders; a doctor helped to mend bodies at a relief center in New Orleans; an officer was sent to be in charge of a relief boat command and control center; another officer was sent as a planner; two petty officers served in law enforcement, repairing aids to navigation and participating in search and rescue operations; and another petty officer conducted incident debriefings and helped develop support systems for personnel out in the field.

All these activities were conducted with the highest professionalism, dedication, and compassion--Coast Guard hallmarks. They deserve the highest praise and ongoing support for their mission.

Madam Speaker, American workers know that a defined pension plan is a promise from their employer, a promise that, when they retire, they will receive a benefit they can rely on. In fact, they have planned their retirement future on that promise. This bill allows companies to break that promise. It allows companies to switch midstream to cash balance plans, ignoring that promise to their workers.

These workers have trusted that this benefit will be there. It will be there at the end of their service to a company. In fact, these workers have quite often given up pay raises or other benefits for their retirement security. These pension benefits have been earned. They have been promised. They must be honored.

Actually, earlier this year, the Republican majority tried but failed to destroy the Social Security system by going back on their promise to every American that at a certain age they would receive a defined benefit, a benefit they could count on.

Americans overwhelmingly stood up to the Republicans and said Social Security is ours, you promised it, we rely on it, you cannot have it.

So the Republican majority could not take Social Security away from Americans with privatization. Now, they are trying to pull the rug out from under people who have dedicated their lives working hard for their companies.

Madam Speaker, these workers were promised defined retirement benefits. They earned those benefits, and this Congress cannot allow companies to go back on their word. We must ensure that these hardworking Americans get the pension benefits they have been promised that they have earned.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2830. Protect American pensions.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Madam Speaker, with the holidays upon us, some Members of this body have been working really hard to divert attention from much of the pressing issues that we should be working on in this Congress. They have been doing this by complaining about some kind of war on Christmas.

You can always tell when their poll numbers are down. That is when they reach into their bag of culture war tricks and gin up a divisive controversy that has nothing to do with Americans' real challenges and Americans' real aspirations. It is really interesting, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very interested in preserving the symbols of Christmas. But the war they are supporting and the budgets they are passing, more Scrooge than Santa, demonstrate that they have forgotten the true meaning of Christmas, particularly the part about peace on Earth and goodwill towards all.

Besides, how many casualties have there been in this so-called war on Christmas? Here is a hint. Several thousand less than the war on Iraq. Today, without a doubt, we should congratulate the Iraqi people for what appears to be a successful, high turnout election. For the third time this year, courageous Iraqi citizens have enthusiastically exercised their democratic rights.

But successful elections do not, and cannot, obscure the devastating national tragedy that is the Iraq war. It does not change the fact that over 2,100 Americans have died for weapons of mass destruction that never existed. It does not change the fact that this war has turned Iraq into a hotbed of terrorist activity. It does not change the fact that our troops are sitting ducks for the insurgents who have been emboldened, not deterred, by our military presence in Iraq.

Now that the elections are over, the question is, What now? What next in terms of U.S. policy towards Iraq? Aside from trying to spin it and take credit for it, what is the President's reaction to this Iraqi election? All indications are that even with a modest reduction in troops, he will insist that we must stay the course. That means continuing with this bloody occupation that has killed or maimed thousands of our people, has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and turned the entire world against us. Furthermore, he will not see the irony in celebrating Iraqi democracy while we use United States taxpayer money to manufacture propaganda and spread it in the Iraqi press. He will ignore the contradiction in praising Iraqi freedom while violating civil liberties at home by pushing for a more heavy-handed and invasive sequel to the PATRIOT Act.

Here is the bottom line: a successful Iraqi election should, at the very least, reinforce the imperative of bringing our troops home. If Iraq is truly able to self-govern, then we have no business occupying their country and meddling in their affairs.

I have argued all year long that it is time to restore Iraqi sovereignty and give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. If the election is a watershed moment, as the White House claims, then what is the continued justification for having our troops over there in harm's way?

Now is the time to enlist the support of the international community to establish an interim security force for Iraq. But that is just the first step. As I have written to the President in a letter signed by 61 other Members of the House, the United States must also launch a diplomatic offensive recasting our role in Iraq as a reconstruction partner, rather than a military occupier.

We must also lead the way in establishing an international peace commission to oversee the post-war reconciliation and coordinate peace talks between Iraq's various factions.

Madam Speaker, sometimes it seems like the only people who still support this war work in the big white building down Pennsylvania Avenue. There is barely any constituency left for our Iraq policy. The majority of the American people are not behind it; our global allies are not behind it. The Iraqi people are not behind it. Even Iraqi leaders, Sunnis, Shiite and Kurdish alike, who agree on practically nothing, have united around the call for the United States military to leave. With the Iraqi people having voted once

again, let us offer the ultimate vote of confidence in their democracy. Let us reward the self-sufficiency they have demonstrated by giving them their country back and bringing our American soldiers home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations and thank yous to the many grandparents and other relatives in California and across the Nation who are providing loving homes to some of our most fragile citizens. Children who may have suffered from neglect or abuse through the death of a parent, military deployment, poverty or other causes can be raised in warm, stable homes through subsidized guardianship programs.

Dedicated relatives who step forward to offer such care--sometimes at considerable personal sacrifice--guarantee these children the safe and nurturing upbringing that will enable them to be tomorrow's leaders. Today there are more than 6 million children living in relative-headed households, and I am proud to honor their service during National Caregiver Month and throughout the rest of the year.

Mr. Speaker, the President and his administration continue its rhetoric that anyone calling for a withdrawal of troops or questioning the intelligence that led us into the Iraq war is unpatriotic, while,

on the other hand, using this war as an excuse, a PATRIOT Act was passed that recklessly violates our civil liberties and attacks the very freedoms our troops in Iraq are told that they are fighting to protect.

This administration and the leadership in this very House we are standing in has tried every trick in the book to spread the blame, pass the buck on this misguided war. They continue to filter the debate in our very own country and to discredit those who disagree with them.

This bill they want us to pass today would continue to limit our constitutional freedoms in our very own country. Though they did not seem to care one bit about the facts before 9/11, they now believe the United States will benefit from hoarding insignificant and ill-gotten information on innocent Americans. They believe that this makes us a safer Nation.

If you want to talk about dishonesty, look at this administration's policies that have led us to ignore facts in order to manipulate the very policies that fly in the face of our own honesty, and this is an administration that also pays for ``canned'' news overseas.

The real patriots have been those who stand up and question the misleading intelligence and dishonest tactics that got us into this war, those who have challenged the PATRIOT Act and its impact on the civil rights and civil liberties of every American. Actually, it is patriotic to question how the PATRIOT Act affects the very rights that we live under in this country of ours.

Vote ``no'' on this PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, it is time for a lot less talk and a lot more action. The other side of the aisle talks a good game on protecting our oceans, but they control the Resources Committee. They control the House floor schedule. They control this Congress. And what have they done? At any time, they can use the House Resources Committee to bring up legislation to protect the oceans, but they have yet to have hearings or move legislation on marine protected areas, regional governance or coastal management. Instead, they have continually tried to open up our coasts to offshore drilling.

I have introduced H.R. 1712 to protect the coast of Sonoma County, California, as part of the National Marine Sanctuary Program, but there have been no hearings on this bill or any other bill to protect our oceans. Let us be clear with the American people: This task force that this bill creates will have no ability to truly affect policy.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that instead of talking a good game, that they start bringing up bills, such as H.R. 1712, that would truly protect our oceans.

Madam Speaker, nobody enjoys Christmas more than I. But today we have roughly 160,000 men and women in Iraq putting their lives on the line for an immoral, senseless war. Here at home many of our vulnerable citizens will face a cold, bitter winter because they do not have home energy assistance from the Federal Government. Many others will not get the health care or education they need because of harsh cuts in Medicaid and student loans.

Naturally, the majority does not want to talk about this, and one can always tell when the right wing is in political trouble. They invariably cook up some divisive culture war that has nothing to do with our real challenges in this country.

What American families really want is the ability to afford more gifts for their children this season regardless of whether there is a wreath in the local department store.

Meanwhile, how many casualties have there been in the so-called ``war on Christmas''? Here is a hint: several thousand less than in the war on Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, the White House is fast approaching a new low when it comes to smearing those of us who oppose the disastrous Iraq War. Before the Thanksgiving recess, Vice President Dick Cheney declared that suggesting the administration deceived the Nation to justify the Iraq invasion, and I quote him, ``is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.''

Well, first of all, being called ``dishonest'' by Dick Cheney is kind of like being told by Imelda Marcos that you have a shoe fetish. I thought it was

ironic that the Vice President made these remarks at an event sponsored by a group called the Frontiers of Freedom. Asking hard questions and demanding answers from your government is one of the very foundations of freedom, but Dick Cheney seems to consider it borderline treason.

Well, shame on him and shame on him for implying that criticism of this war amounts to criticism of the brave men and women in uniform who are on the front lines. The fact is there was exaggeration, manipulation, and down right deception in the run-up to the war. There is report after report of the Bush administration ignoring or downplaying serious misgivings in the intelligence community about the weapons of mass destruction case.

It has been well confirmed that the Vice President himself visited CIA headquarters to lean on analysts and to make sure that they were reaching ``right'' conclusions.

Then there are the Downing Street memos, which claim the intelligence was being fixed around the policy. The Vice President claims that it is a few opportunists who are raising questions about trumped-up intelligence.

Well, guess what, Mr. Vice President, for more than half of the American people, there is a belief that the administration deliberately misled us into war. As the New Republic points out, that is not a few opportunists, more like a few million American citizens. Actually, more than 150 million who do not believe the President and his team told the truth.

What you are seeing is a desperate White House losing its ability to shape public opinion and consequently twisting the truth beyond recognition. This push-back is a clear sign that the wheels are coming off. By roughly a 2 to 1 margin, Americans have lost confidence in the Bush Iraq policy. A majority thinks we need to reduce our troop levels. Before Thanksgiving, 79 Senators voted for an amendment that indicates an interest in moving forward towards full Iraqi sovereignty in the year 2006, and demands more accountability from the administration on the conduct of the war.

And recently, my good friend and esteemed colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Jack Murtha, a Marine Corps veteran with strong defense credentials, came out for bringing our troops out of Iraq.

But instead of engaging in an honest dialogue with him, the first reaction from the other side of the aisle was to resort to fearmongering and character assassination. Representative Murtha was subjected to the most vile and devious accusations. He was compared to a prominent al Qaeda terrorist. He was said to be emboldening our enemies. It was implied that he was a coward. And then the majority resorted to a gimmick, a cheap stunt distorting Mr. Murtha's words in an attempt to gain political advantage. I wish that those on the other side of the aisle were half as honorable as they are clever. The American people deserve better. Our troops deserve better than this. They deserve a thorough, substantive, honest debate on the war, not a bill that could not be amended, not a bill brought to the House floor for no other reason than partisan gamesmanship.

Mr. Speaker, a group of Democrats has written a discharge petition to bring the Iraq debate to the House floor, to bring it through legislation around a piece of legislation called Homeward Bound, H.J. Res. 55, to bring it to the House floor so that we can have the debate we need. This discharge petition will allow 17 hours of debate on the Nation's Iraq policy. And unlike the sham bill presented by the majority in response to Representative Murtha's call to the end of war, it would be brought up under an open rule, a rule that allows amendments to be introduced. I urge my colleagues to sign the discharge petition, allow for a real debate.

Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor Scott Tucker, of Petalum a, California. On January 1, 2006, Scott will officially retire after 13 years as the San Francisco District Manager, and 38 years with the United States Postal Service. He is the longest serving postal service executive at any major metropolitan area in consecutive years.

Mr. Tucker's career with the U.S. Postal Service began in 1968 in Hanford, California as a letter carrier. He held a succession of managerial positions in postal operations, until in September 1992, he was appointed to his current position as the San Francisco District Manager.

As the District Manager, Scott is responsible on a daily basis for the delivery of approximately 10 million pieces of mail to 3 million customers throughout northwest California that ranges from Sunnyvale in the south to the Oregon border in the north. He supervises a workforce of 10,400 mail carriers, mail handlers, mail clerks, postmasters, and operations managers. In the North Bay we have grown to approximately 3,000 employees spread throughout 205 postal facilities under Scott's leadership.

The San Francisco postal district has for nine consecutive quarters, under Scott's leadership, received the ``Order of Yellow Jersey'' award for excellence in customer satisfaction and commitment to professionalism. The district has been repeatedly recognized by IBM's Business Consulting Services Unit, as one of the best on-time mail services for any metropolitan area in the Nation.

In the past 13 years, Scott has helped increase awareness of multi- cultural groups within the district. Under his leadership, numerous diversity leadership advisory councils were established including the Women's Council, African American Council, Asian American/Pacific Island Council, and the Hispanic Council. The Bay Area Federal Executive Board recognized his efforts and presented him with a diversity leadership achievement award.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that we honor Scott Tucker today for the years he has dedicated to consistently improving upon how we all receive our mail. The San Francisco District of the U.S. Postal Service employees and customers will greatly miss him. He has left some very big shoes to fill.