Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, why is Congress approving yet another multibillion dollar spending bill when the previous 3 multibillion dollar spending bills have been misused, improperly managed, and, in some cases, downright stolen?

A report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq's reconstruction has stated that nearly $100 million for reconstruction projects in southern Iraq is missing and cannot be accounted for. These funds must be accounted for before allotting one more dollar for the war in Iraq.

And where is the congressional investigation into the $9 billion that mysteriously disappeared from the books at the Coalition Provisional Authority? Why are we voting on writing another check for a mission that has been so badly botched? Who is being held responsible for the misinformation that led us into the war in the first place? Who is being held responsible for the troops not being equipped and armed with the billions of dollars that we have allocated to Iraq? Where is our exit strategy?

This bill is nothing short of highway robbery, and the victims are the troops and the American people. No more blank checks, Mr. Speaker. No more wars without reason. I will vote against the supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday was the second anniversary of President Bush's now infamous ``Mission Accomplished'' speech in which he declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq under an arrogant banner declaring that the mission had been ``accomplished.'' I do not know the President's definition of the word ``accomplished,'' but I think just about anyone who is asked would say that the mission is very far from being accomplished in Iraq.

Let us consider the facts. To date, nearly 1,600 American soldiers have been killed in this war. Estimates of

Iraqi sources suggest that between 21,000 and 25,000, at least, Iraqi civilians have been killed as well, with hundreds more injured and dying weekly. And nearly 12,000 American troops have suffered severe injuries as a result of the continuing major combat operations. The vast majority of all these casualties occurred and continue to occur after the President delivered his ``Mission Accomplished'' speech.

We need to consider what is happening every single day on the ground in Iraq. The newspapers provide news daily of the latest disaster caused by vicious Iraqi militants. Every day dozens of innocent people are being killed. To my colleagues who claim that the newspapers are biased and do not present the positive news stories out of Iraq, I would say that it is pretty hard to be positive when they are surrounded by violence.

Iraq is currently embroiled in a dangerous cycle of daily car bombings, roadside hijackings, and murders of innocents. Just yesterday, for instance, 45 Iraqis were killed in a bomb attack in the northern city of Irbil. This latest attack brings the death toll in the past week alone to a staggering 190 innocent Iraqi civilians. What an utter shame. How could anyone possibly refer to what is happening in Iraq as ``mission accomplished''? The only thing that is accomplished is the utter collapse of order in Iraqi society.

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way than our current dangerous pattern of invading countries and leaving them in chaos. That is why I will reintroduce the SMART Security Resolution for the 21st Century next week. SMART stands for a Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. And it represents a better, smarter approach to diplomacy than our current failed foreign policies.

The SMART approach provides a more effective national strategy, a strategy focused on nonproliferation, conflict prevention, international diplomacy, and international involvement. Instead of advocating preemptive war, SMART utilizes military action only, and only, after all diplomatic alternatives have been attempted and exhausted and only when it is absolutely necessary.

SMART pursues diplomacy over hostile rhetoric; enhanced weapons inspections over half-cocked, misleading allegations; and support for nonproliferation initiatives here at home rather than the buildup of new nuclear weapons like the bunker-buster bomb. SMART security means creating a robust civil society to ensure that Iraq's economic and physical infrastructure become fully viable.

We need to consider the impact of the war in Iraq on the Iraqi people, the terrible death and destruction that it is causing every single day. And we need to think about the war in terms of how it hinders America's security for our future. Each day this war encourages a new generation of terrorists who are getting stronger and stronger. Their common bond is their hatred of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, of course the security of the American people is of the utmost importance, especially in the post-September 11 world. But as the world's largest democracy, we have a responsibility to interact with other nations in a smarter way, by utilizing all diplomatic possibilities before resorting to force. While it may be frustrating and time consuming to negotiate with other countries over disagreements, cooperating with the international community will make the world more peaceful and Americans far safer than aggressive unilateralism.

Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about this bill which I hoped would be addressed in the full House today and during conference with the Senate, because this bill is the result of a bipartisan process in our subcommittee and the committee as a whole.

I believe, however, that to continue that bipartisan process, the full House should have been able to consider this bill under an open rule. At the very minimum, I think the rule should have included all eight of the Democratic amendments that came before the Committee on Rules last evening.

The Miller amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) is our full committee ranking member, was submitted as an important amendment that is designated to halt the abuses that we saw in the Armstrong Williams contract with the Department of Education. It simply says you cannot hire journalists and media commentators to do agency propaganda. And it requires that any prepackaged news pieces prepared with Department of Education funds fully disclose that fact in their piece. His amendment was not allowed.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) submitted amendments to address drop-out rates and school construction, respectively. They were not allowed.

The Holt amendment to improve the skills of manufacturing workers was not allowed.

These are very important amendments, and once again the rule we are going to vote on today did not include them.

The amendment that I submitted would have authorized grants to school districts to help them increase girls' interest in studying for careers in science, math, engineering, and technology.

Mr. Speaker, girls and women continue to be underrepresented in these fields both in high school where my amendment is targeted and in college.

A recent GAO study found that men still outnumber women in nearly every field in the sciences. Women make up only 37 percent of scientists, 33 percent of mathematicians, and 14 percent of engineers. More important, this underrepresentation is tied to barriers that female students continue to face in school.

For example, in 2002 in testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, the National Women's Law Center cited a study that found that 70 percent of male teachers thought that boys were more interested in computers than girls. Not that they are more interested in computers than they are interested in girls. More interested in computers than girls are interested in computers.

That may be one reason why from 1984 to 2000 the percentage of women

awarded bachelor's degrees in computer science dropped from 37 percent to 28 percent. Another study showed that ineffective high school career counseling reduced women's entry into university science and engineering programs. My amendment would directly address that issue.

A 2001 investigation showed that none of New York City's vocational high schools that were predominantly female offered advanced placement courses in calculus, statistics, or computer science. And instead of focusing on high-tech careers, these schools tended to focus on careers like cosmetology and clerical support, not careers that pay a competitive wage with the technology careers.

My amendment would specifically address situations like that as well.

If we as a country do not address this issue, we will participate in the global 21st century economy with literally one hand tied behind our backs. It will be impossible for our country to have a highly qualified workforce as long as more than half of our population is steered away, intentionally or not, from studying and working in some of the most critical fields. This will have implications not only for our economic security as a Nation but for our national security as well because both depend on scientific innovation.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in this rule and I would ask my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note the passing of Cindy Marano.

Ms. Marano was a founder of the National Displaced Homemakers Network, now known as Women Work! For 12 years, Cindy was executive director of Wider Opportunities for Women, which we call WOW.

Her work to improve opportunities for women, including displaced homemakers, who are specifically helped by this bill, was invaluable, and we will miss her. We will miss her vision and we will miss her leadership greatly.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my committee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and our full ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and always my partner, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for working together in a bipartisan way the last Congress and this one to bring this bill to the floor.

As I have said, I have my concerns about this bill, even though it is the result of a bipartisan process. I am especially pleased that the majority has brought this bill forward, in light of the President's proposal to eliminate career and technical education. I hope that we will send a strong bipartisan signal today that we in the House believe that career and technical education is critical to our students and to our country's economic future.

But, Mr. Chairman, I do, as I said, have concerns regarding this bill. First, the bill rightly strengthens accountability for State and local programs, but at the same time it cuts by 60 percent the funds that States can use for that very purpose. I support these accountability measures, but if we do not enable the States to administer them, they will be an empty promise.

I also am concerned this bill merges the Tech-Prep program with the basic State grant. I appreciate that our Republican colleagues in the committee have maintained funding for Tech-Prep activities; but as we all know, not sending Tech-Prep funding separately to the States means that eventually States will lose their focus on those very activities we consider so crucial.

Finally, I am disappointed we are not being allowed to debate most of the amendments that my colleagues and I submitted to the Committee on Rules. I support the amendments that we are debating, but there are many critical issues that we are leaving undiscussed. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) all offered important amendments on government paying journalists to create propaganda, on dropout prevention, on school construction, and helping out-of-work manufacturing workers. But we are not debating any of those issues today, and I do not understand why.

Finally, we are not debating an issue that has long been important to me and I consider critical to our country's future, that is, the lack of women and girls in science, math, engineering, and technology. My amendment would have helped school districts increase girls' interest in studying in these careers and in these areas. A recent GAO study, Mr. Chairman, found that men still outnumber women in nearly every field in the sciences. In his recent article, ``It's a Flat World, After All,'' and new book, ``The World is Flat,'' The New York Times writer Thomas Friedman explained that America's historical economic advantages have disappeared now ``that the world is flat, and anyone with smarts, access to Google, and a cheap wireless laptop can join the innovation fray,'' no matter what continent they are living on.

Mr. Friedman's and others' remedy is to attract more young women and men to science and engineering. But it will be impossible for our country to continue to lead the world in innovation as long as more than half our population, women, are steered away, intentionally or not, from studying and working in the fields from where that innovation would come.

Consider this, from Dr. Susan Hockfield, the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who recently said that squandered talent, and I quote her, ``is one of the key issues of women in science and engineering.'' All of our children, not just girls, would have benefited if we had been able to debate this issue today, and I am sorry that we are not.

But, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this bill, and I look forward to improving it even more in conference.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), who is a valued member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a valued member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), superintendent of schools for 8 years in North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), our full committee ranking member and my leader on education and many other issues.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to say one more time how much I appreciate the bipartisan work that we accomplished on the subcommittee and on the full committee, and I thank both the full Chair, the subcommittee Chair, and my ranking member for making all that possible.

In closing, I want to reiterate my main concerns with the bill, which I hope will be addressed in conference.

First, the bill rightly strengthens accountability for State and local programs, but at the same time, it cuts 60 percent of the funds that the States can use for that very purpose. I support these accountability measures, but if we do not enable the States to administer them, we will be providing empty promises. I offered an amendment in the committee to restore this cut.

I am also concerned that this bill merges the tech prep program with the basic State grant, and I appreciate that our Republican colleagues on the committee have maintained funding for tech prep activities. But as we all know, not sending tech prep funding separately to the States means that eventually States will lose their focus on those activities.

Another area that I am concerned about and I want to reiterate is the issue that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has just discussed, which is his amendment offered to end abuses like the Department of Education's contract with Armstrong Williams. His amendment simply said that the government cannot hire journalists to create government propaganda and required that if the Department of Education continues to produce prepackaged news pieces, it has to fully disclose that fact in the piece. I am sorry that that language, which is really about government being honest with the people, is not in this bill.

Finally, we must ask ourselves, despite bipartisan support and despite the support of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), where will the appropriators find the funds to support this and other critical education programs that the President wants to eliminate or underfund? For example, this year alone, the President wants to provide our schoolchildren $12 billion less than he promised under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Mr. Chairman, one last comment: this is a good, bipartisan bill, and we must fix the little pieces that are missing in conference.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to clearly not oppose this amendment, and I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would echo what the gentleman on the other side of the aisle have said about our good and wonderful staffs. I do not know what we would do without them, and I thank them very much, our wonderful staff and the Republican staff.

I want to thank, again, the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for letting me work with him in a bipartisan way on this bill and for offering this amendment. As I noted in my opening statement, I do not think that merging Tech-Prep programs into the basic State grant is good policy, and I would prefer that this amendment allow proportional increases for Tech-Prep funding as overall funding increases, because as things get more expensive, it is pretty hard to flat fund. But I hope we will address this as the bill moves forward.

I need to say, though, that I appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) to hold Tech-Prep funding harmless at the fiscal year 2005 level, and I do agree with his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for offering this very important amendment. We hear a lot of talk, especially with every increasing gas prices of the need for alternative automotive fuel technologies.

And we need to do more, because we are not developing the technologies nor the talent to develop the technologies. In fact, several Congresses ago, then Secretary Reich encouraged us to take more interest in high-tech automotive job training, noting then of the severe shortage of workers for the industry, and because cars and trucks are not simply machines, simply machines at that, we have to have a workforce of technicians who understand what is needed, or else we will all be in really big trouble, not just personally, but economically as a country.

This amendment would ensure that regardless of changes in fuel technology, we will have the workforce we need; and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, over the last few months, the Iraqi people have been making strides toward democracy by holding elections, nominating ministers and working on a draft constitution. I congratulate the people of Iraq for their very brave efforts, efforts that I am certain were intended to take Iraq back for the people of Iraq.

Though admirable, none of Iraq's recent advances validate the false pretenses that caused the United States to fight a war in a country that never threatened us, never attacked us and never posed a threat to our way of life. But, sadly, despite the false pretenses under which this war was fought, President Bush and his administration have continued to insist that Iraq is close to becoming a stable and viable democracy. The President claims that the war in Iraq is going well and that our military is succeeding.

Madam Speaker, I do not know about you, but I do not consider the deaths of over 1,500 American soldiers and countless tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and no end in sight as a military success.

Yet, declaring success in the very face of chaos is nothing new for this President. May 2 is the second anniversary of his speech declaring ``an end to major combat operations'' under a banner declaring ``mission accomplished.'' Mission accomplished.

One year later, many experts have different opinions. In fact, earlier today I participated in an event with Daniel Ellsberg, the author of the Pentagon Papers, which revealed that President Richard Nixon was deceiving the American people about the role America played in the Vietnam War. From his past experience, Mr. Ellsberg believes that Iraq will not be safe for years to come and that the Bush administration seems eager to maintain high troop levels in the country for the foreseeable future. To what end, he and I both ask?

I question that if there are 150,000 fully-trained Iraqi soldiers, as the President claims, then why are America's 150,000 troops still in Iraq? Why do they remain there as sitting ducks for drive-by shootings and car bombings?

Unfortunately, I believe that the reason is the Bush administration is gearing up for a sustained military occupation of Iraq, with access to oil having more to do with that occupation than our government admits.

Evidence certainly points to an occupation that will not end any time soon. The Bush administration has specifically sought funds for 14 military bases in Iraq, claiming they are not permanent. The very idea of funding American military bases in Iraq more than suggests that President Bush is not serious about turning Iraq over to the Iraqis any time soon. In fact, Daniel Ellsberg believes that the U.S. occupation of Iraq could last longer than the U.S. occupation of Vietnam in the 1970s, which persisted for a total of 16 years. This should scare everyone who values peace, who values democracy and fiscal sanity.

The possibility that the United States could maintain a military presence in Iraq for years to come is dangerous; dangerous to our foreign policy and inconsistent with the values that most Americans hold dear.

Fortunately, however, the continued occupation of Iraq has the American people talking seriously about a withdrawal. That is why I introduced H. Con. Res. 35 in January of this year, legislation calling for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. By removing American troops, we will remove the main focus of the insurgents' rage. Bringing our troops home is the only way to keep them safe and out of harm's way.

Everyone likes to talk about supporting the troops. Well, it is time to truly support our troops, by bringing them home, and we should begin that effort today.

Mr. Chairman, in an ideal world, teens would talk to their parents if they found themselves pregnant. I guess some would even go so far as to say, in an ideal world, our teens would not be having sex at all; but let us face it, that is not the world we live in. Many teenagers would do anything not to tell their parents about an unintended pregnancy, even if it means putting their own life in jeopardy.

Make no mistake, I strongly support measures that will help foster healthy relationships between parents and their children; but those out there who believe this is a good, family-friendly bill are out of touch with reality.

This bill is not going to encourage teens to talk to their parents. It is not going to curb abortion. Rather, this bill will only encourage young girls to seek unsafe, illegal abortions.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment; vote against H.R. 748.

I thank the gentlewoman very much for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, those watching C-SPAN right now probably are wondering what they are watching. They probably think it is a circus. But they are pretty familiar with the 5-minute speeches that Members of Congress deliver each day after the House of Representatives wraps up its legislative session.

Some critics and political opponents may claim that these nightly speeches serve little purpose, and sometimes they do serve little purpose. It is hard to accomplish much in 5-minute increments, they say.

But because half of the American people are not being represented by the Bush administration's shameful and threatening foreign policy, and half the American people are not receiving the representation they deserve from the Republicans in Congress, those who cower to the President's every demand when it comes to funding the illegal, ill advised and dangerous war in Iraq, I come here nightly so that I can discuss that very issue, the issue of the war in Iraq. That issue says to me that we need to change the way we think about foreign policy if we hope our country will survive the threat of global terrorism from fanatical groups like al Qaeda.

That is why next week I will reintroduce the SMART Security Resolution for the 21st Century, legislation that provides a positive alternative to the Bush doctrine of unilateralism and preemptive war. SMART Security addresses the threat of terrorism and nuclear security by augmenting and encouraging diplomatic efforts with other nations.

We need to address the threats we face through international cooperation, not war, because the military option does not solve our problems.

Only by promoting an effective national security strategy that is based on conflict prevention, diplomacy, multilateralism, and nonproliferation can we truly secure America for the future, while at the same time holding on to the liberties and values that make this country so very great.

Many of my House colleagues have stood with me in urging a new and smarter American foreign policy. Fifty Members of Congress cosponsored the SMART Security resolution during the 108th Congress, and my staff and I will work to ensure that this number increases in the 109th Congress.

But Members of Congress are not alone in this effort. Many of my constituents get it too. I am incredibly privileged to serve as the voice in Congress for the people of Marin and Sonoma counties, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge, which comprises California's 6th Congressional District.

My constituents get democracy as well as anyone else in the country. In last November's election, for example, a record 89\1/2\ percent of registered voters turned out to vote in California's 6th district; 91.1 percent turned out in my hometown of Petaluma, California.

That is why I quote them, and I want to quote Marge Piaggio, who lives in Fairfax, California. She called my office earlier this month to say that what the world needs is, and I am quoting her pretty liberally here, but she said what the world needs is a ``peace tsunami.'' The tsunami analogy might sound like an odd idea at first, but I think Marge is on to something. It is about time, she said, and I agree with her, that we washed over the war machine and cleaned up our political system.

Of course Congress will need the help and the support of citizens of the United States in this effort. And another one of my constituents, Jean Walz of Santa Rosa, wrote because she realizes that there is an important role that she and others like herself can play in helping to end the war in Iraq.

In reference to my nightly 5-minute speeches, Jean wrote the following in an e-mail, and I quote her: ``If you can do this each night, so can I. I will send an evening missive each and every night to my local elected representatives to please stop this war in Iraq.''

Everyone in this country, Mr. Speaker, who opposes the Bush administration's dangerous current path can emulate Jean Walz's heroic efforts to influence her local representatives. Then we will have peace in the United States between ourselves and other countries.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents continue to contact me about the charges mounting over the actions of some Republicans in the House. In fact, one constituent referred to an ``embarrassing and growing mess.'' Over the past year, I have received letters revealing disgust, anger at the Republicans and their disregard for House rules.

Just this past week, a constituent wrote me from Mill Valley, California, saying, ``I am tired of all the useless finger pointing. I am particularly tired of hearing one Republican in particular go on about the `politics of personal destruction,' which he seems to practice

daily even as he blames it on his enemies.''

My constituents share the views of many citizens across the Nation. They want an unbiased investigation into these ethics matters. They want to know that politicians are listening to their hearts, not the lobbyists that are paying for their meals.

It is time for the Republicans to own up to abuses of the House rules. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, when Senator John Danforth stepped down as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations earlier this year, President Bush had an option. He could nominate a new Ambassador who would work with the nations of the world to address the growing threat of terrorism and resource scarcity, or he could nominate one of the usual suspects, someone who would maintain the administration's unilateral thinking. By nominating John Bolton, President Bush chose the latter.

As Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton demonstrated his poor leadership skills by bullying his colleagues. He demonstrated disdain for international diplomacy by refusing to meet with certain foreign leaders, and he openly criticized the very institution, the United Nations, to which he now has been nominated to represent the United States. This behavior is not going to win the United States many friends on the international stage.

Without a reelection campaign to worry about, President Bush could have utilized the U.N. ambassadorship as a means of helping America regain its lost credibility as the most important democratic Nation in the world. He could have helped America begin its recovery from the mistakes he made in the run-up to the Iraq war and the international alliances that were shattered as a result. But when it comes to addressing America's lost credibility around the world, it remains business as usual for the White House. It seems that the Bush administration has more important matters to take care of, like the shameful way it is working to end the decades-old tradition of the filibuster in the Senate.

The nomination of John Bolton epitomizes the Bush administration's not-so-subtle pattern of disregard for multilateral institutions. Whenever possible, President Bush and his administration continue to sway from the international consensus, not towards it.

But the fight against international terrorism does not belong to a single country, particularly in this era of globalization. When the Internet connects people thousands of miles apart at the mere click of a button, we need to recognize that we are all in it together, because acts of terrorism, abusive regimes, and resource scarcity affect everyone, everyone on the globe. That is why it is more important than ever to work with other nations and the multilateral institutions that guide them, like the United Nations and the international criminal court.

Mr. Speaker, next week, I will reintroduce the SMART Security resolution legislation that does take into consideration the need for international cooperation in the post-September 11 world. In order to effectively address the threat of terrorism, SMART Security works to strengthen international institutions and respect for the rule of law. We cannot possibly strengthen the United Nations if our own U.N. Ambassador has contempt for the institution he is trying to serve.

Instead of continuing to emphasize our differences with other nations, the United States needs to break its current cycle of shameful unilateralism. We need to court the institutions that used to celebrate America's participation, and our efforts must not stop there. If the U.S. expects other countries to relinquish pursuit of nuclear weapons, then we had better honor our international commitments to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to the Biological Weapons Convention, to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The United States is at its strongest when we lead the rest of the world towards peaceful resolution of conflicts by working with the rest of the world. This is the way we need to address the growing crisis in Iran and North Korea and the way to ensure that members of international terrorist groups like al Qaeda are caught and brought to justice. The ambassadors that serve the United States abroad reflect our values here at home. The nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations is not consistent with America's best values, our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. It is time the Bush administration started working with the nations of the world. That world needs to begin here at home.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6, which the House passed earlier today, is called the Energy Policy Act of 2005. But the only real policies to be found in this immoral legislation are tax breaks for polluters, swollen gasoline prices, and continued reliance on fossil fuels of the past. This legislation fails to even mention climate change or global warming which scientists of all stripes acknowledge is caused at least in part by high levels of carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.

It fails to correct the matter of MTBE, a gasoline additive that has leaked into the Earth and tarnished our drinking water, except, however, to waive liabilities for MTBE providers.

Most significant of all, Mr. Speaker, this legislation fails to truly address America's reliance on Middle East oil. Of the 21 million barrels consumed by the United States each day, 14 million barrels are imported, making Middle East oil the United States' main source of energy. Much of this oil is imported from countries that do not share America's commitment to democracy and our commitment to human rights, countries like Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Venezuela.

It is obvious in this energy bill that those who claim that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska will cure our Nation's energy policy do not know much about how oil is produced. Drilling in ANWR will do little to reduce our current dependence on foreign oil because it will take a full decade to process what little oil may be there in the first place. That does not sound like a comprehensive energy strategy to me.

By continuing to purchase Middle East oil by the boatload, we are failing to take advantage of life-changing renewable energy technologies while continuing to promote our national insecurity by providing billions of dollars each year to repressive regimes.

The oil dollars that go to oppressive Middle East regimes do not, of course, help the poor people in these countries. Instead, they line the already thick pockets of the fat-cat ruling elite. In this way, U.S. policies actually discourage democracy in the Middle East because we continue to help maintain the economic gap between the rich and the poor.

In truth, this failure to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil along with President Bush's supremely misguided invasion of Iraq have combined to make Americans less secure, not more secure.

The Bush administration has falsely labeled the war in Iraq, much like the latest energy bill, as the essence of protecting our national security, when in fact both contribute to our lack of security.

Already more than 1,500 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war, not to mention the more than 12,000 troops who have been gravely wounded. Hardly the stuff of a national security.

Let us never forget that the invasion of Iraq was a war of choice against a country that never posed a threat to the United States and never possessed relationships with international terrorist groups like al Qaeda.

President Bush claims that things are going well in Iraq, demonstrated by the fact that 150,000 Iraqi soldiers ``have been adequately trained.'' But if 150,000 Iraqi soldiers have been trained, then why do 150,000 American soldiers remain in the country? Why do our troops continue to die for a war that was a mistake from the very beginning?

If President Bush continues to support a misguided war that is draining our national resources, and if the Republicans will not work to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, how can they possibly claim to be securing America against the threat of terrorism? Clearly, much more needs to be done to make America secure.

Mr. Speaker, I will soon reintroduce the SMART Security resolution, legislation to secure America for the future by preventing the threat of terrorism; reducing nuclear stock piles; eliminating the possible use of nuclear weapons through diplomatic means; and establishing a new Apollo Project to secure America's energy independence.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in this effort to truly secure America for the future.

Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Science knows what is right. The energy bill before us today is bad for the consumer, bad for the environment, and it does not make us energy independent. In fact, it is the ultimate reason we are insecure as a Nation.

In fact, by promoting the interests of corporations over consumers and pollution over conservation, this bill makes the United States much less secure.

H.R. 6 will harm more than just our environment, however. America's continued reliance on Middle East oil for the majority of our energy needs is the single largest factor that contributes to our lack of national security. It is time we stopped all efforts to drill in ANWR because this is only a stop-gap measure. Instead, we need real energy independence, and that will only come when we start focusing our efforts as a Nation on clean, renewable sources of energy, conservation, and efficiency. It would be hypocritical for anyone who cares about our Nation's well-being to vote for this legislation. I urge my colleagues, join me, vote against it.

Madam Chairman, I want to commend my colleagues for offering this sensible amendment.

We should not even be having this discussion because drilling in ANWR will not make us energy independent and it will not end our Nation's reliance on Middle East oil. Drilling in ANWR will do little to reduce our current dependence on foreign oil because it will take more than 10 years, yes, more than 10 years to process what little oil may be there. In fact, if we spent half the time promoting legislation that encourages the use of renewable energy that we have discussing drilling in ANWR, we would be close to developing a sensible energy policy that would ensure real energy independence. We would invest in alternative renewable clean energy, conservation, and efficiency.

That is why I will support this sensible amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder how many Americans have bought a car and wondered why their gas mileage was not what had been advertised. Well, it is because the fuel economy numbers advertised by automobile manufacturers are based on 30-year-old fuel economy tests, tests that have not been adjusted for today's realities, and that leads Americans to be regularly misled by inaccurate labels.

The automobile industry has changed significantly over the last 3 decades, but the EPA standards are stuck in the past, overestimating fuel economy data.

I support this amendment. It will require the EPA to update its testing standards so that consumers will have accurate fuel economy information in the future.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. Speaker, later this week the House will vote on energy legislation that concerns every man and woman in America. This energy bill presents a terrific opportunity to reduce our Nation's continued dependence on petroleum by promoting clean and renewable energy sources. But instead of encouraging the use of renewable energy, this Neanderthal legislation promotes the interest of corporations through tax breaks that encourage air pollution, water contamination, and the general destruction of our environment.

This energy legislation will harm more than our environment. American's continued reliance on fossil fuels is the single largest factor that contributes to our national insecurity. That is because we obtain most of our fossil fuels from the Middle East, a region where democracy is about as common as desert oases. By spending billions of dollars annually on foreign fuels, the United States supports autocratic regimes in countries like Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Venezuela.

The citizens of oil-rich countries run by despots rarely, if ever, receive even a dime from these oil sales. More often than not, these riches line the pockets of fat-cat leaders and their cronies, instead of paying for projects that would help improve the lives of all the people in the country.

This drastic gap in wealth between the upper and lower classes, in turn breeds hostility and despair among the local populace. This hostility, combined with the militant form of Islam that is encouraged by the fat-cat leaders, creates the conditions in which terrorism runs rampant.

If the United States were to become fully energy independent, we would essentially pull the plug on the supply of money that flows to the Middle East much like oil through a pipeline. Therefore, the most effective measure we can take to address global terrorism

is to curb our dependence on foreign fuel. Unfortunately, this sham of an energy bill that we will vote on this week would do the very opposite, making Americans more beholden than ever to the whims and desires of big oil companies.

Sadly, 150,000 United States troops are currently embroiled in a war in Iraq that certainly is intended to ensure that the U.S. has access to Middle East oil.

President Bush and the Republican leaders in Congress claim they want democracy to take hold in Iraq. But if a democratic Iraq really is wanted, then we need to do two things right here at home.

First, we must craft a viable national energy policy that encourages the development and use of renewable sources of energy. Second, we must remove our troops from harm's way by withdrawing United States military forces from Iraq, giving Iraqis and Iraqi oil back to the people of Iraq.

I have introduced legislation to accomplish this: H.R. 737, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Act of 2005. It establishes a comprehensive energy strategy that will stimulate demand for more efficient energy processes and unlock the vast potential of renewable energy sources.

I have also introduced H. Con. Res. 35 with the support of 31 of my House colleagues. This legislation calls on President Bush to begin immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. If Iraq is as stable and secure as the Bush administration claims, then why does a third of our standing military remain there still fighting the Iraqi insurgency? Why do the men and women in our military continue to face gunfire and car bombs halfway around the world? For what cause have more than 1,500 American solders and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died, with another 12,000-plus American soldiers gravely wounded physically and mentally?

Mr. Speaker, our Nation's energy and foreign policies are interconnected. You cannot address one without addressing the other. That is why the energy legislation that will come before the House this week is so terribly wrong for America.

In promoting this misguided energy bill, the Republicans in Congress ensure the continuation of the deep disparities of wealth in the Middle East. These misguided policies will encourage future acts of terrorism which will encourage future warfare. Instead of relying on foreign oil for our energy needs, let us address the source of the problem by employing our Nation's innovative expertise by promoting the advancement of clean, renewable sources of energy. This will keep our air and water pure; but just as important, it will help purify our Nation's foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because this bill does not protect disabled veterans from creditors.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 18 months the House leadership has passed bills that are windfalls for the pharmaceutical industry, big oil, and they have given massive tax breaks to corporations while the deficit in this country continues to grow by records.

Now lining up for their share and licking their lips is the credit card industry who stands to make billions of dollars at the expense of American consumers.

With the hope of helping to protect veterans from these regulations, I offered an amendment to this bill to simply waive any fee charged for credit counseling for any servicemember returning from a combat area for a period of 2 years. Do my colleagues think that was allowed to come down here on the House floor for a vote? Absolutely not.

Many of these men and women have been away from their families, from their homes, their jobs for long periods of time because of unethical procedures that keep them overseas. Many of these individuals have lost their businesses, they have lost their homes and they have bills and are going to suffer. Our veterans, they will suffer because of this bankruptcy bill.

Mr. Speaker, over the last eighteen months, the House leadership has passed bills that are windfalls to the pharmaceutical industry and big oil and, have given massive tax breaks to corporations, while the deficit continues to break records.

Now lining up for their share and licking their lips is the credit card industry, that stand to make billions of dollars at the expense of the American consumer.

With the hope of helping to protect Veterans from these new regulations, I offered an Amendment to this bill to simply waive any fee charged for credit counseling for any service member returning from a combat area, for a period of two years. Unfortunately, the majority didn't allow any.

Many of these men and women have been away from their families, homes and jobs for long periods of time because of unethical procedures that keep them overseas. This is resulting in severe economic hardships, business closures, homes foreclosures and bills unpaid.

We must not penalize our troops for serving our country. It is appalling that any Veteran would face bankruptcy because of their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill to protect American families and maintain a core American value to allow people a fresh start.