Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, on April 12 at Fort Hood, Texas, President Bush told an audience of thousands of servicemembers that for the first time Iraqi soldiers outnumbered U.S. soldiers in Iraq. That was April 12. Specifically, he put the number of trained and equipped Iraqi forces at 150,000.

This rosy assessment of the situation in Iraq is shocking not only for its arrogance but also for its ignorance. The President was either totally oblivious to Iraq's true security failures, or he was intentionally misleading the American people into thinking peace has taken hold. His statement was uninformed at best, deceitful at worst. Either way, the President's assessment misleads the American people in knowing the true situation in Iraq.

Take, for example, his claim that 150,000 Iraqi soldiers have been trained. Iraq's military leaders reveal the number is closer to 75,000, half of the President's statement; and we are not sure what the quality of training is and how those trained individuals are measured.

Also, the actual number of trained security personnel committed to a secure and democratic Iraq is probably less because, as the chief of police in Basra, General Hassan al-Sade stated, at least half of his 14,000-member militia is openly opposed to a secure Iraq, and another quarter are politically neutral but do not follow his military orders. General al-Sade recently told the Guardian newspaper, ``I trust 25 percent of my force, no more.''

After giving his Fort Hood speech last April, the President never again mentioned that 150,000 Iraqi security personnel have been trained. Perhaps that is because he realized his assessment was entirely inaccurate; but the President never admitted to the American people that he was wrong in his assessment, and he has still not told the American people when he will determine Iraq to be secure or how and when he plans to bring the troops home.

Mr. Speaker, the best way to secure Iraq is to remove U.S. troops from the country. Nothing enrages and unites the Iraq insurgency more than the presence of nearly 150,000 American soldiers on Iraqi soil. One option is to bring one American soldier home for every Iraqi soldier that has been trained. If 75,000 Iraqi soldiers have been trained, half of the President's April 12 assessment, why can we not remove the same number of our own soldiers and bring them home? This is just one idea for exiting Iraq. I encourage the President to come up with his own plan. I am not against supporting the President's plan if it is a good one, but right now he does not even have a plan.

Fortunately, there is a plan that would secure America for the future, SMART security. SMART is Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism for the 21st century.

SMART will help us address the threats we face as a Nation. SMART security will prevent acts of terrorism in countries like Iraq by addressing the very conditions which allow terrorism to take root: poverty, despair, resource scarcity and lack of educational opportunities. SMART security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address pressing global issues. SMART addresses global crises diplomatically rather than resorting to armed conflict. Efforts to help give Iraq back to the Iraqis must follow the SMART approach: humanitarian assistance, coordinated with our international allies, to rebuild Iraq's war-torn physical and economic infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 2 years since the United States started this war in Iraq; and now the American people, especially the soldiers who are bravely serving our country halfway around the world, need and deserve a plan for ending this war. It is time for the President to create a plan to end the war in Iraq and to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, I am more than disappointed by reports that last month's conference to review the nuclear nonproliferation treaty was not a success. At the treaty review conference, representatives from more than 150 nations met at the United Nations headquarters in New York for a month of meetings to address the most urgent global threat we face, the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This conference provided a great opportunity for the global community to improve its collective efforts to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons capabilities, deter terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons, and ensure that the current nuclear states work to reduce their nuclear stockpiles.

Let us not forget that the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which the United States ratified in 1972, does not just declare that non-nuclear states cannot develop nuclear weapons. It also states that the countries currently in possession of nuclear weapons must work to reduce their stockpiles, with the ultimate goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons altogether. Clearly, the goals for the treaty review conference were challenging; but the United States could have, and should have, made headway by living up to our international commitments.

Unfortunately, a major reason that the NPT conference was considered a failure was America's focus on the threats posed by Iran and North Korea, while at the same time failing to agree to reduce our own nuclear arsenal. The United States currently possesses more than 10,000 nuclear weapons. In fact, at the same time the NPT conference was taking place, the Bush administration and many Republicans in Congress were actually pushing ahead with plans to fund a new nuclear weapon, the so-called bunker buster bomb. The Bush administration's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, while demanding that Iran and North Korea disarm, demonstrates a rare level of supreme arrogance and hypocrisy, even for this most arrogant of Presidential administrations.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree that the threats posed by Iran and North Korea must be taken seriously. If we fail to take the proper diplomatic actions, both nations could soon possess a sizable and dangerous nuclear arsenal. But why would we expect other countries to dismantle their nuclear infrastructures unless we maintain our nonproliferation commitments?

SMART security, H. Con. Res. 158, which is a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism, is a positive approach to this very challenge. SMART security promotes efforts to reduce the buildup of nuclear weapons and materials, using the cooperative threat reduction program as an

example of how to accomplish this important goal. Through CTR, the United States and Russia are working together to dismantle excess nuclear weapons and materials in the states of the former Soviet Union. And because of CTR, 20,000 Russian scientists who formerly worked to create nuclear weapons are now working to destroy them.

SMART security also urges an expansion of the successful CTR program to countries like Libya and Pakistan. Using our diplomatic relationships with these countries to encourage them to give up their dangerous nuclear materials is part of SMART security. But CTR is merely one of the broad array of national security initiatives in the SMART security platform. Any attempt to rid the world of nuclear weapons must begin with nonproliferation efforts here at home, in the United States of America. We must fulfill our international pledge to reduce our own nuclear stockpiles and resist building new nuclear weapons. President Bush's continued efforts to study and fund the bunker buster bomb is the exact opposite of these efforts.

The United States must set an example for the rest of the world by pursuing smart policies, policies that promote nuclear reduction, not nuclear proliferation; policies that support global initiatives to secure nuclear materials, not global nuclear buildup. It is time to end the era of nuclear weapons. This effort begins here in the United States Congress with SMART security.

Mr. Speaker, the common theme to the war in Iraq has been the Bush Administration's ability and willingness to mislead the American people. First, they misled about weapons of mass destruction. Then, nearly 2 years ago, they falsely declared the end of major combat operations.

Now they are openly declaring success of the mission, and President Bush regularly speaks of an increasingly democratic Iraq. This assessment suggests the degree to which the President fails to comprehend the disastrous lack of security that has plagued Iraq over the last 2 years. Personally, I am frightened that our own President has such a failed understanding about the reality of the war that he started.

Just as disturbing were recent comments by the Vice President, Dick Cheney. In an interview, he said that the Iraqi insurgency was in its last throes. I am not sure which press reports the Vice President has been reading, but somehow I do not think his optimistic assessment of Iraq's insurgency is grounded in fact.

Unfortunately, misleading assessments of the war like these do not magically secure Iraq from the true threats that it faces; and the true threats are an increasingly strengthened Iraqi insurgency, encouraged by the continued U.S. military occupation.

On the ground, a violent wave of car bombings and other attacks killed 80 U.S. soldiers and more than 700 Iraqis in the month of May alone. Vice President Cheney calls this the last throes?

At some point, the Bush Administration needs to admit what the rest of the American people know, that its current strategy in Iraq is failing. Recent pools show that 58 percent of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of the situation. Now it is time for the President to start listening to the American people.

Members of Congress in both parties understand that our Iraq policy is a disaster. When the House recently debated the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, 122 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 Independent, totaling 128 Members of Congress, voted in favor of my amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the President should establish a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are less secure, not more secure as a result of the war in Iraq. This war has created a whole new generation of terrorists whose common bond is their hatred for the United States and our aggressive militarism.

Unfortunately, we do not follow a smart plan, but fortunately there is a plan that would secure America for the future, the Smart Security Resolution, H.Con Res 158, which I recently re-introduced with the support of 49 of my House colleagues. Smart is a sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism for the 21st century; and it will help us address the threats we face as a Nation. Smart security will prevent acts of terrorism in countries like Iraq by addressing the very conditions which allow terrorism to take root: poverty, despair, resource scarcity, and lack of educational opportunities, as starters.

Instead of rushing off to war under false pretenses, smart security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global issues, dealing with global crises diplomatically instead of resorting to armed conflict.

Instead of maintaining a long-term military occupation in Iraq, our future efforts to help the Iraqi people should follow the smart approach: humanitarian assistance, coordinated with our international allies, to rebuild Iraq's war-torn physical and economic infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, the President must create a plan to bring home the hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq, helping to secure Iraq by giving Iraq back to the Iraqis and saving the lives of thousands of American troops. We must end this long and destructive war.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to take a good, hard look at the role the United States is playing in Iraq and whether or not it is in our national interest to maintain a military presence.

We need to acknowledge the fact that Iraq's insurgency is growing in strength, not diminishing, and that the very presence of 150,000 American troops on Iraqi soil appears as though they see us as occupiers that actually unites the growing collection of insurgent forces.

Since our military presence actually encourages further fighting, this war will continue as long as U.S. troops remain in Iraq. That is why Congress must accept the fact that we cannot possibly bring our involvement in Iraq to any kind of successful conclusion through military means.

Yesterday, during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, I offered an amendment urging the President to develop a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Surprisingly, this was the first time the House has formally debated the possibility of withdrawal from Iraq. We were allotted only 30 minutes for the debate: 15 minutes on my side, 15 minutes on the side opposing my amendment. But it is no surprise, of course, the amendment was defeated. But in spite of that, it is clear that the Congress is starting to get serious about a plan for leaving Iraq. 128 Members, including five Republicans, voted for this amendment.

But there is much more work to do, Mr. Speaker. The Iraq war has now raged on for more than 2 years, and we are no closer to winning this conflict than we were when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations under an arrogant banner declaring ``Mission Accomplished.''

Despite this lack of progress, the war has exacted a deeply troubling human and financial toll. In just over 2 years of war, more than 1,600 American soldiers and an estimated 25,000 Iraqi innocents have been killed. The Pentagon lists the number of Americans wounded as just over 12,000. But that does not take into account even the invisible wounds many of our soldiers will be bringing home and have already brought home, the painful mental trauma they have contracted from months and years of fighting. When accounting for these psychological injuries, the number of wounded jumps to nearly 40,000.

To date, Congress has appropriated more than $200 billion for military operations in Iraq, despite little to no oversight as to how these funds are going to be spent, which has allowed $9 billion in reconstruction funds to just vanish from the coffers of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was the American governing body that managed Iraq until the year 2004.

Given what is at stake here, do the American people not deserve a plan? Do our brave men and women, who are selflessly sacrificing their lives, not to mention their arms, legs, for a war that we should not be in in the first place, not deserve a plan?

Let us not forget that the legislative branch is constitutionally mandated to oversee expenditures from our National Treasury. Instead of allowing fat-cat war profiteers like Halliburton and its subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root, to line their pockets as war profiteers, it is time Congress started fulfilling our responsibility.

We must develop a smarter agenda. We must develop an agenda that will help Iraq, and we will then be able to reduce our military occupation. We must insist on planning by the Bush administration. This 2-year war has left us disturbingly weak against the true security threats we face. Let us not forget that Osama bin laden is still at large and al Qaeda continues to recruit new members in Iraq as well as the rest of the Middle East.

Fortunately, there is a plan that would secure America for the future: the SMART Security concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 158, which I recently reintroduced with the support of 49 of my House colleagues. SMART is a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century. It will help us address the threats we face as a Nation. SMART Security will prevent terrorism by addressing the very conditions which allow terrorism to take root: poverty, despair, resource scarcity, and lack of educational opportunity. Instead of rushing off to war under false pretenses, SMART Security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global issues.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment because every time we send our young men and women into a combat situation, we are asking them to make a sacrifice for the rest of us. When they return we must honor them by giving them the services they need. The lives and health of our soldiers are the real cost of war.

The new England Journal of Medicine recently reported that a many as one out of four veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq treated at VA Hospitals in the past 16 months were diagnosed with mental disorders. Alarmingly, veterans of these wars are already showing up in our homeless populations.

We must take steps to protect those who protect us. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the DeLauro amendment to expand mental health services to our soldiers.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Davis-Harman amendment. Today, and over the last few years, we continually have voiced our support for our troops many, many times over, passing resolutions of support, providing our troops with adequate training and equipment, just the beginning. And I know of no better way to demonstrate our genuine support than by finally giving women in our Armed Forces and the wives and the daughters of the men in our military, the ability to exercise their constitutional right to choose, to choose their reproductive options while being stationed abroad.

We routinely ask servicewomen to put their lives on the line in defense of our country and our country's ideals. That is why we must not require them to put their lives on the line when seeking constitutionally protected reproductive services. Please join me in supporting our troops by supporting this much needed amendment. Lift the current ban on life-threatening procedures withheld from our women serving overseas.

Mr. Chairman, when a woman enlists in the military to serve her country honorably, she expects that the resources will be there to take care of her in the unfortunate tragedy of rape. But a recent report from the Miles Foundation revealed that three fourths of the female veterans who were raped did not report the incident to a ranking officer. One third didn't know how to; and one fifth believed that rape was to be expected in the military. Even if they had reported the incident, if the service woman who had been sexually assaulted seeks care at a military healthcare facility, she may not be granted a private examination or tests for pregnancy and STIS. This is an outrageous way to treat our female military volunteers. That's why I urge my colleagues to support the Slaughter amendment, which would assure that our service women have access to the medical care and evaluation that they need when this type of strategy strikes. We owe them no less.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the members of the Committee on Rules for making this important amendment in order. It has been a long time coming for Congress to discuss this war in Iraq and how we will plan to end the terrible suffering it is causing our troops, their families, and the Iraqi people.

First and foremost, I honor and I support the brave men and women who are serving our country in Iraq, and I believe that the best way to support them is to establish a plan to bring them home.

In just over 2 years of war, more than 1,600 American soldiers and an estimated 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. The number of American wounded, according to the Pentagon, is greater than 12,000, and that does not even count the invisible mental wounds they are bringing home, afflicting tens of thousands of our soldiers.

And, of course, with more than $200 billion on the line, do the Members not think that the American people deserve to know what the President plans to do in Iraq?

I also honor the many voters who risked their lives to ``give Iraq back to the Iraqi people.'' But our continued presence in Iraq after the election has caused America to be seen by the Iraqi people as an occupying power, not as a liberating force. Our continued presence in Iraq works against efforts for democracy, provides a rallying point for angry insurgents, and ultimately makes the United States less safe.

My amendment expresses the Sense of the Congress that the President

must develop a plan to bring our troops home and that he must submit this plan to the appropriate committees in Congress. We can truly support our troops by bringing them home.

At the same time, withdrawing U.S. troops must not result in abandoning a country that has been devastated. We must assist Iraq, not through our military but through international humanitarian efforts to rebuild their war-torn economic and physical infrastructure. We need to defend America by relying on the very best of American values, our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership.

Mr. Chairman, Congress must support our troops, and we must begin the difficult recovery process from a long and destructive war. But first, the President must create a plan to bring our troops home. Our troops deserve nothing less.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to thank the members of the Rules Committee that made this important amendment in order. It is about time that in the Congress we discuss what is going on in the war in Iraq. And it is only too bad that we had only 15 minutes for this, well, a half an hour, 15 minutes on both sides, for this very, very important issue that is facing everybody in the United States of America, our troops and their families and the Iraqi people.

My amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that the President must develop a plan to bring our troops home, that he must submit this plan to the appropriate committees in Congress so that we can truly support our troops and bring them home where they are safe.

So in closing, Mr. Chairman, Congress must support our troops. We must begin the difficult recovery process from a long and destructive war. The President has to create a plan and tell us what he is going to do, and he must get these troops home before we lose any more lives. This is the best way to support our troops, and they deserve nothing less.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to discuss the war in Iraq and how to end the terrible suffering that it is causing our troops, their families and the Iraqi people.

First and foremost, I honor, I support the brave men and women who are serving our country in Iraq, and I believe that the best way to support them is to establish a plan to bring them home. In just over 2 years of war, more than 1,600 American soldiers and an estimated 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. The number of American wounded, according to the Pentagon, is greater than 12,000 and that does not count the invisible mental wounds they are bringing home, which afflict as many as 25,000 more of our soldiers.

The war in Iraq has also cost our country about $200 billion in slightly more than 2 years. With this much money on the line, do the American people not deserve to know what the President's plan is for Iraq? How long he expects U.S. troops to remain there? How much this war will cost all told and how he plans to pay for it?

I credit the many brave individuals in Iraq who risked their lives to give back to the Iraqi people by voting in their January election, but after the election, our continued presence in Iraq has caused America to be seen by the Iraqi people as an occupying power, not as a liberating force.

Our continued military presence in Iraq works against efforts for democracy. It provides a rallying point for angry insurgents and ultimately makes the United States less safe. That is why earlier today I offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill for fiscal year 2006. My amendment expressed the sense of the Congress that the President must develop a plan to bring our troops home and that he must submit this plan to the appropriate committee in our Congress.

We can truly support our troops by bringing them home. At the same time, withdrawing U.S. troops must not result in abandoning a country that has been devastated. We must assist Iraq, not through our military but through the international humanitarian efforts.

This humanitarian approach is reflected in the SMART Security legislation, H. Con. Res. 158, that I have introduced with the support of 49 of my House colleagues.

SMART security is a sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism for the 21st century.

The SMART approach would defend America by relying on the very best of American values: our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. This is the very essence of SMART security.

SMART security will prevent terrorism by addressing the very conditions which give rise to terrorism in the first place: poverty, despair, and resource scarcity. SMART will ensure America's security by reaching out and engaging in the Muslim world. Instead of rushing off to war for the wrong reasons, SMART security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global issues.

There is a demonstrated link between debt relief and lack of support for terrorism. That is why SMART security encourages the world's wealthy nations to provide debt relief and developmental aid for the world's poorest countries.

SMART security encourages democracy-building, human rights education, conflict resolution through nonmilitary means, educational opportunities, particularly for women and girls, and strengthening civil society programs in the developing world.

Mr. Speaker, our future efforts in Iraq must take the SMART approach: humanitarian assistance to rebuild Iraq's war-torn physical and economic infrastructure. Congress must commit to this type of support for Iraq, not a continuation of a military approach.

It is time to support our troops and begin the difficult recovery process from a long and destructive war. The best way to do this is to bring our troops home. Mr. Speaker, our troops deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill and all of the promise that comes with funding embryonic stem cell research. This bill represents an important step forward for the scientific and medical communities in our country, offering hope to the millions of Americans who suffer from diseases that stem cell therapies may be able to cure.

Unfortunately, President Bush has threatened to veto this bill when it arrives on his desk. I am appalled that a President who talks so much about embracing a ``culture of life'' would deny funding for a possible cure that could save a child from suffering from juvenile diabetes; repair a damaged spinal cord to allow a person to walk again; save a grandparent from the onset of Alzheimer's disease; or put a halt to the ravages of Parkinson's disease.

The potential benefits from embryonic stem cell research are almost boundless and would certainly touch the life of a friend or family member of everyone in America. Mr. Bush's ban on providing Federal funds for stem cell research has seriously damaged our Nation's efforts to be a leading voice in the development of this new technology.

Allowing Federal funding for research on stem cells is vital to making real progress as quickly as possible to find real cures. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill that will certainly have long-lasting effects in improving the health and well being of millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, in the first Presidential debate of the 2004 Presidential election, moderator Jim Lehrer asked the candidates what they believe is the single most serious threat to the national security of the United States. Without delay, Senator Kerry responded ``nuclear proliferation.'' When President Bush had the opportunity to respond, he agreed that nuclear nonproliferation is the biggest threat we face as a Nation.

If the President agrees that nuclear nonproliferation is such a grave and immediate threat, why does he and why does his administration continue to seek the creation of new nuclear weapons? Why does the President continue to seek funds to study the creation of the robust nuclear Earth penetrator, otherwise known as the ``bunker buster'' bomb? Why does this year's defense authorization bill continue this ridiculous trend by recommending a Department of Defense study about the possibility of creating the bunker buster?

Mr. Speaker, the stated purpose of the bunker buster is to destroy caves and difficult-to-reach terrorist hideouts, but the bunker buster is completely unnecessary. The United States military already is capable of bombing these remote locations, and they do not need to use nuclear weapons.

The bunker buster is also extremely dangerous. A detonation of this deadly weapon would create an enormous, uncontrollable explosion, spreading toxic, radioactive materials over a large area; and an explosion could cause the death of thousands of innocent civilians and devastate large tracts of lands.

How many times must we consider the merits or lack thereof of the bunker buster bomb? How many times must sensible nonproliferation priorities compete with a dangerous nuclear arms race?

To address the true security threats we face, I have introduced the SMART Security resolution, H. Con. Res. 158, with the support of 49 of my House colleagues. SMART is a Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. It encourages renewed nonproliferation efforts over continued nuclear buildup.

SMART urges sufficient funding and support for nonproliferation efforts in countries that possess nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. One of the best ways to accomplish this goal is through CTR, the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program successfully works with Russia to dismantle and safeguard excess nuclear weapons and materials in the states of the former Soviet Union.

Under this program, more than 20,000 Russian scientists, formerly tasked with creating nuclear weapons, are now working to dismantle them. That is why SMART Security includes robust support for the current CTR model, including expanding the program to other nations such as Libya and Pakistan, nations that possess excess nuclear weapons and excess nuclear materials.

To promote these efforts, earlier today I introduced an amendment to the Defense authorization bill to expand CTR. My amendment would bring this important program to Libya and Pakistan, two countries that are known to possess nuclear materials.

We need to utilize our diplomatic relationships to encourage these two countries to give up their dangerous nuclear materials, and the best way to do so is through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program.

CTR is but one of the broad array of national security programs in SMART security and an effective one at that. But any attempt to rid the world of nuclear weapons must include nonproliferation efforts at home, in the United States. We must set an example for the rest of the world by fulfilling our international pledge to end our nuclear program and dismantle our existing weapons.

Mr. Speaker, continued efforts to study the feasibility of the bunker buster bomb are the very antithesis of these international commitments. When the United States engages in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we lower the threshold and actually encourage other countries to proliferate with the possibility of actually using nuclear weapons. Instead, let us get smart.

Let us be smart about this issue and work both here at home and abroad to end the proliferation of any and all nuclear bombs. We owe this to our children and we owe this to their children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 606, out of order. I was working patiently at my desk. I flew in on the red eye so that I could talk about Angel Island and how wonderful it is. And I want to thank the ranking members of this committee for making this possible for me, and allowing the consideration of a piece of legislation that is very important to my district, the San Francisco Bay area, and to Asian Americans throughout the United States.

As you know, I have worked for the past 3 years with the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation and the gentlewoman from California (Leader Pelosi) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) in an effort to preserve the historic Angel Island Immigration Station. It is located just east of Sausalito in the San Francisco Bay. Sausalito is in my district, California's 6th Congressional District.

This landmark is a particular high priority because of what it means to Asian Americans nationwide. Many of you are familiar, all of us are familiar with the symbolism of Ellis Island to European Americans. The same feelings of legacy and pride can be equated to the Americans of Asian heritage on the west coast. In fact, Angel Island was the first American soil most Asian immigrants stepped on.

With over one million people having been processed through the sites, millions of Asians and Asian descendents nationwide are eager to see their roots in this country honored in the same way that we honor Ellis Island.

In addition, Angel Island Immigration Station also houses a unique literary display of Asian American culture. The walls of the main building hold layers of poetry reflecting the record of hardship endured and the indignity suffered by the early Chinese as they were being processed into America. If these walls crumble, we will lose this one-of-a-kind documentation forever. And thank you for voting not to let that happen.

Because of its rich history, the site is currently used as a teaching tool for

students and a museum for visitors. Hundreds of school children and researchers have made the trip by ferry out to the site each year to learn about its rich history.

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the foundation to find additional sources of funding for the restoration project to ensure future generations can learn from the site. The current estimate to complete the preservation is over $30 million, $16 million already raised through Federal grants, State funding, and private donations; $15 million still remains to finish the project.

With no more grants available and the State of California contributing close to half of the funding, it is important that the Federal Government become a part of this preservation effort, and that is what we are doing today. And I thank you for making that happen in the House.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall and the House Leadership for allowing us to consider this piece of legislation that is important to my district and the San Francisco Bay Area.

As you may know, I have worked for the past 3 years with the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation and Leader Pelosi and Congressman Mark Souder in an effort to preserve the historic Angel Island Immigration Station, located just east of Sausalito in the San Francisco Bay.

This landmark is a particularly high priority because of what it means to Asian Americans nationwide. Many of you are familiar with the symbolism of Ellis Island to European Americans. The same feelings of legacy and pride can be equated to the Americans of Asian heritage on the west coast. In fact, Angel Island was the first American soil most Asian immigrants stepped on.

With over one million people having been processed through this site, millions of Asian descendants nationwide are eager to see their roots in this country honored in the same way we honor Ellis Island.

In addition, Angel Island Immigration Station also houses a unique literary display of Asian American culture. The walls of the main building hold layers of poetry reflecting the record of hardship endured and the indignity suffered by the early Chinese as they were being processed into America. If these walls crumble, we will lose this ``one-of-a-kind'' documentation forever.

Because of its rich history, the site is currently used as a teaching tool for students and a museum for visitors. Hundreds of school children and researchers make the trip by ferry out to the site each year to learn about its rich history.

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the Foundation to find additional sources of funding for the restoration project to ensure future generations can learn from this site. The current estimate to complete the preservation is over $30 million. With $16 million already raised through Federal grants, State funding and private donations, $15 million is still needed.

With no grants available, and the State of California contributing close to half of the funding, it is important that the Federal Government become a part of this preservation effort. That is what we are doing today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Alice Yarish of Marin County, California, who died at the age of 96 on May 9, 2005. Alice was a fixture of the Marin community for many years, known as much for her outspoken and occasionally flamboyant personal style as for her crusading journalism.

Born in Nevada and raised in Redondo Beach, CA, Alice's first foray into journalism was a stint as the high school correspondent for the city's South Bay Breeze. She graduated from the University of Southern California during the depression and, unable to find a job, enrolled in law school, continuing a family tradition. She could not afford to complete the program and supported herself as a social worker for the next five years.

In 1942 Alice married Peter Yarish who was in the Air Force. A few years later the couple moved to Hamilton Air Force Base in Marin where Alice lived the life of a military wife for several years while raising four children. In 1952, when her children were school-age, she was able to return to journalism at the age of 43. First a reporter for the San Rafael Independent Journal, she later worked for the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and the Novato Advance before establishing the Marin News Bureau for the San Francisco Examiner. In 1970 she became the assistant editor of the Pacific Sun where she gained a reputation for dry wit, investigative coverage of local government, social commentary on the hippie scene, and a strong passion for social justice.

Prison reform became one of Alice's special crusades after she met well-known inmate George Jackson who was later killed in an attempted outbreak. ``Jackson opened my eyes and filled me with information which I had not known before,'' she wrote. ``I was shocked by what I learned . . . prisons tend to be breeding grounds of crime, generators of bitterness, destructive of men's souls. They are a failure.''

A 1972 series on abuses in the Marin County Drug Abuse Bureau led to its abolition and replacement with an agency which operates under review by elected officials and city managers. This series led to an Award for ``Best Story in a Bay Area Paper'' from the San Francisco Press Club. Alice's enjoyment of her work and zest for life were contagious, whether leading her home-town parade in her newly purchased red convertible at the age of 77 or serving actively with community agencies such as the Adult Criminal Justice Commission, the Marin Association for Mental Health, and others.

Alice is survived by her four sons, Peter, Tom, Anthony, and Robin Ell, and by seven grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, as a self-described ``outspoken broad,'' Alice championed those who couldn't speak out for themselves and inspired others to do likewise. We will miss her fearless voice, her compassion, and most of all her undaunted spirit.

Mr. Chairman, actually, it sounds like the author of this amendment does not quite understand the need to preserve our beautiful coastline.

The coast of Marin and Sonoma counties, my district, is one of the most biologically productive regions in the world. While it comprises only 1 percent of the ocean, it is home to 20 percent of the world's fish.

The coastal estuaries are important passages for endangered salmon, steelhead, essential haulouts for seals and sea lions, and prolific nurseries for hundreds of aquatic species.

The coastal communities in my district rely on tourism and the fishing industry that could be severely hurt if offshore oil drilling and gas drilling were permitted off our coasts.

The people who live in my district do not and will not support offshore drilling. They realize that we need an energy policy that focuses on investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, not oil rigs, not an endless depletion of our natural resources.

Mr. Chairman, here we go again. For some reason, the Majority Party feels that if we just keep drilling for more gas then our emergency crisis will be over. Unfortunately, they aren't looking for a solution to our energy crisis and rising gas prices, instead, they are looking to line the pockets of big oil companies by supporting offshore oil drillings.

Let's not forget the irrevocable damage to our environment that offshore drilling causes. This devastation can be seen in the Gulf of Mexico where OCS pipelines crossing coastal wetlands are estimated to have destroyed more coastal sale marsh than can be found in the stretch of coastal land running from New Jersey through Maine.

It sounds like the author of this amendment doesn't understand the need to preserve our beautiful coastlines.

But, the people that I am so fortunate to represent in Marin and Sonoma counties do understand. They get it.

The coast of Marin and Sonoma County in my district is one of the most biologically productive regions in the world.

While it compromises only one percent of the ocean, it is home to 20 percent of the world's fish. The coastal estuaries are important passages for endangered salmon and steelhead, essential haulouts for seals and sea lions, and prolific nurseries for hundreds of aquatic species.

The coastal communities in my District rely on tourism and fishing-- industries that could be severely hurt if offshore drilling was permitted off of our coast. If you were to visit this

beautiful stretch of coast, you would understand why the people who live in my district don't and won't support offshore drilling. They realize that we need an energy policy that focuses on investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy source, not oilrigs and the endless depletion of our natural resources.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Peterson amendment.

Mr. Chairman, those who support this amendment should really look at solving the current energy crisis. If they wanted to, they would invest in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency and conservation. For example, providing tax incentives for the construction of energy efficient buildings and manufacturing energy efficient heating and water heating equipment could save 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over 50 years. This is more than 12 times the Department of Interior's mean estimate of economically recoverable gas outside the central and western Gulf of Mexico.

So why are we here today discussing offshore oil drilling instead of promoting efficient and renewable energy sources? It could be that we are pandering to big oil companies.

We not only have to worry about oil spills from offshore oil rigs, we also have to worry about the damaging way that they drill for oil and natural gas. An average of 180,000 gallons per well of drilling muds that are used to lubricate drill bits and maintain downhole pressure are dumped untreated back into the surrounding waters. Water brought up from a well along with oil and gas typically contains a variety of toxic pollutants.

I will vote against this amendment. I consider it dangerous and it is absolutely no solution to our gas and energy shortage.

Mr. Chairman, how much farther are we going to have to roll back the clock before we realize the harm that we are doing to our environment? Do we have to get to the point of rivers catching on fire again?

The EPA, the agency that is supposed to be protecting our environment, is attempting to turn back the clock by releasing a new policy that will increase waterborne diseases and deaths.

This latest EPA policy to allow sewage treatment plants to routinely divert untreated sewage into our rivers and oceans, where we get our water and where we swim is not something that appeals to me.

Instead of turning back the clock and allowing sewage to flow freely in our rivers, we must increase our investment in upgrading

wastewater treatment plants. Ironically, this bill actually decreases the amount of federal funding for upgrading wastewater treatment plants.

It is time that we started moving forward and not backward on protecting our rivers and our oceans. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to abuse this body with their blatant disregard for the rules. They are clearly manufacturing a crisis about the judicial nomination process, saying it is in trouble. They would have us believe that none of Bush's nominees were being confirmed.

But that just is not true. Let us remember that 95 percent of the Bush nominees have been approved, in contrast to 35 percent of the Clinton nominations. So instead of following history, they figure altering the Senate rules in their favor is the ultimate solution so that they can force ten nominees through the system.

Republican leaders in Washington are absolutely out of control. They are so afraid of our democracy failing their interests that they must continue to bully in order to get their way. The American people do not want a Congress controlled by bullies. Bullies who are willing to sacrifice a 200-year-old democratic process that has withstood such debates as the 24-hour filibusters of the Civil Rights Act in 1960s.

This abuse of power must end.