Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, had I been present yesterday during rollcall No. 232, I would have voted ``aye.'' During rollcall No. 233, I would have voted ``aye.'' During rollcall No. 234, I would have voted ``no.'' And, on rollcall No. 235, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the people watching the floor today are feeling like they are having deja vu all over again; and, yes, they are right. We did do this before; and, no, there is nothing new here.

What we should be talking about is renewable energy. We should be talking about decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. We should be talking about ensuring that catastrophes like Enron's cheating the west coast out of billions of dollars never happen again. We should be talking about improving our electrical transmission lines so that the blackouts we experienced last summer do not happen again this summer.

We should be talking about how to make our buildings more energy efficient, and we should be talking about the high price of gas and how to bring relief to the American people.

Instead, we are talking about the same flawed energy bill that has already passed the House. That bill was not good the first time, and it is not good this time. This is the exact same energy bill that allows companies to pollute our air and contaminate our water while giving huge tax incentives to big oil and gas companies, the same companies that are today gouging the American people with high gas prices at the pumps.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule and these bills and to get on with the work of a real energy policy, one that will bring us independence from foreign fuels; one that will protect our environment and ensure that we are no longer depending on fossil fuels.

Mr. Speaker, no one disagrees that to keep our country secure, we must become independent of foreign fuels, while at the same time we must control the rising energy costs here in our country. Where the disagreement arises is how this should be done.

Today, the House leadership brought up four energy bills in an attempt to look like they are addressing our energy needs. From rehashing a bill that already passed the House not once but twice, that focuses on huge giveaways to big oil and gas companies to a bill that would open up drilling in the arctic refuge, this is nothing more than a sham. None of these bills do anything to promote an energy policy that will keep us secure from terrorism and ensure that our energy needs are met. In fact, opening up the arctic refuge to drilling would increase global oil reserves by only .31 percent. That is right, only 31/100ths of 1 percent. That is less oil than the United States consumes in 6 months.

There has to be a better way, a more intelligent way, a way not rooted in ruthless expediency, but in the values that we hold dear. And there is. I have introduced legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. One of the components of SMART is a real strategy for energy independence, especially support for the development of renewable energy sources. Nothing threatens national security more than reliance on Middle Eastern oil.

This reliance cannot be met with drilling in the arctic refuge or with giveaways to big oil and gas companies. We must invest in renewable energy and in conservation. We must increase energy efficiency. Only through decreased dependence on oil will we make ourselves more secure.

Along with decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, we must stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Keeping the American people safe must be our highest priority. On that point the President and I agree, but we must avoid equating our security with aggression and military force. Just because one has a hammer, not every problem is a nail. The United States possesses the world's largest hammer in the form of its mighty military, but some situations require a more delicate touch. SMART security calls for aggressive diplomacy, a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes. The United States must set an example for the rest of the world by renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons and the development of new nuclear weapons.

We must maintain our commitment to existing international treaties like the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention. We must support and adequately fund programs like the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which works with the Russian Federation and the states of the former Soviet Union to dismantle nuclear warheads, reduce nuclear stockpiles, and secure nuclear weapons in Russia. And we must replicate these programs in other troubled regions like North Korea and Iran.

Not every country will proactively choose to give up its nuclear program, and we can provide the incentives if we choose. In the long run, negotiating with other countries will keep us much safer than thinking that we can scare them into submission.

The Bush doctrine has been tried. It has failed. It is time for a new national security strategy. SMART security defends America by relying on the very best of America, our commitment to peace, our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. SMART security is tough, it is pragmatic, and it is patriotic. SMART security is smart, and it will keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor 3 teachers who are retiring from Two Rock Union School in a rural community near Petaluma, CA. Cathy Giovando, Celeste Hall, and Carol Siebe are special teachers who have worked together at the school for many years. But beyond that, they will always be remembered for their successful efforts to preserve the Two Rock Coast Guard Training Facility.

Now the West Coast training center for the Coast Guard's new role in the Department of Homeland Security, the Two Rock facility has 10 schools offering 50 courses to 4,000 students a year. It is hard to believe that this center was on the chopping block in cost-cutting efforts in the 1990s--and not just once, but twice. And twice, Giovando, Hall, Siebe, and others on the Save the Base Committee rallied elected officials and the local community as well as children and parents from the small Two Rock School, to preserve a facility that was originally established by the War Department in 1942.

As their representative in Congress during the 1990s, I knew how important this base was to the fabric of this small community and to the security of our Nation. However, without the passion of these teachers, it would have been difficult for me to convince the Coast Guard and the entire California Congressional Delegation of this. It is for sure that Clinton administration officials were especially impressed with the art work and stories sent to them by children from the school. In the world of politics, these children proved that the personal can make a difference.

And, as teachers, these women were instrumental in Two Rock School's recognition as a California Distinguished School. Their legacies include one of the first school gardens in the area and, with the entire staff, creation of an assessment program that enables teachers to work with each child's strengths and weaknesses.

Retirement will include everything from travel to real estate classes. Coincidentally, the families of all three are from the same area in Northern Italy which will figure prominently in their travel plans.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to honor Cathy Giovando, Celeste Hall, and Carol Siebe whose warmth and dedication exemplify the best that teachers can offer to our Nation's children. Their commitment extends beyond the classroom to an appreciation of the significance of all the key elements--including the Coast Guard Training Facility--that are essential to a community's well-being. These women will be missed at their school and by their students, but we all know they will bring the same energy and heart to all their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents write each week telling me about jobs that are being outsourced, asking me what is Congress doing about it. They are amazed and they are outraged that our President can support this policy, when over 1 million Californians are out of work.

I understand their concerns, especially when the Bush administration recently awarded a massive $10 billion government contract to Accenture, a company incorporated in Bermuda, when two American-based companies actually bid for the contract. They also know that the President used outsourced workers in India to make phone calls for his Presidential campaign. All of this, Mr. Speaker, when 8.4 million people are out of work nationwide.

Outsourcing is bad economic policy, and I urge the House leadership to address this issue immediately.

Mr. Speaker, it is about time we address unemployment. Unfortunately, H.R. 444 is not the legislation that will truly put Americans back to work. It offers only a temporary solution for a limited pool of unemployed workers and is a poor solution to the ongoing unemployment problem of this Nation.

Rather than PRAs, personal reemployment accounts, we need across-the- board investments in the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, and the Unemployment Insurance, UI, programs. These are the existing programs that need help so a broader number of workers stabilize their lives and develop the necessary skills to secure new jobs. Proper funding of these programs would make the difference. Finding ways to give unemployed workers real jobs is the real solution to the national unemployment problem, not a bill that puts additional burdens on the States, threatening to undo the Federal unemployment system in the first place.

Let me also remind my colleagues that $1 billion invested in highways and transit creates 47,500 new jobs. If we really want to create jobs, we should be moving forward with the transportation bill. These jobs pay a living wage, give workers the opportunity to better their communities, while at the same time supporting their families.

H.R. 444 is not a real solution. The real solution would grant unemployment extensions when finding work takes longer than the length of the initial benefits, not a bill that forces workers to choose between receiving

WIA benefits or PRA benefits with no flexibility to go back to one when the other is exhausted.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 444 is false security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the motion to recommit H.R. 444. We must support the workers who are desperately trying to find work before their benefits run out. Their families are the reason we must absolutely extend unemployment benefits, not pass legislation that will fundamentally change the Federal unemployment benefits system, like H.R. 444.

We need a real solution like extending unemployment benefits so families have the means to be healthy and safe when their jobs are no longer secure. How else will these families pay their heating bill, clothe their children, and feed their family?

These workers want work and seek work, and we must help them as they get back on their feet again. There is still too little job creation to write off the Federal Extended Benefits Program.

Mr. Speaker, today, 8.4 million people are out of work, 2.6 million private sector jobs have been lost since the beginning of the Bush Administration. Even worse, long-term unemployment is at the highest level in 10 years. As of April 2004, over 1 million people, in my home State of California, were unemployed.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe they are helping unemployed workers by creating these personal reemployment accounts. But my constituents are not writing me on a weekly basis asking for a brand new unemployment system. They simply want their unemployment benefits to continue until they find a job.

H.R. 444 is not the fix they are seeking. If my colleagues really listened to what the unemployed workers wanted they would grant families the security of benefits while they continue to seek work. That's why I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit H.R. 444 so we can address what workers really want.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present yesterday during rollcall No. 210, I would have voted ``aye.'' During rollcall No. 211, I would have voted ``aye.'' And, on rollcall No. 212, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely important that we improve our current unemployment system, but not this way, not taking away from it, not with this legislation that falls far short of what we need in this country. We can do better. Why are we not? Because we refuse to bring the subject to the House Floor to discuss it. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this closed rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is about time we address unemployment, and the Back to Work Incentive Act does not do anything but offer a temporary solution for a limited pool of unemployed workers, and it is a very poor solution to an ongoing problem. Personal reemployment accounts will not substitute for the lack of across-the-board investments in the Workforce Investment Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. Improving the resources in these programs could help a broader number of workers stabilize their lives, could help develop the necessary skills that they need to secure new jobs. And I want to remind all of my colleagues that if we would invest in our Nation's transportation infrastructure, we would be providing jobs that pay a livable wage and we would be leaving with our communities infrastructure projects that they desperately need.

Actually, I am also concerned that this bill is an effort to make unemployment benefits the sole responsibility of the States and that it will eventually lead to the end of Federal unemployment programs. The cap on funds through the PRA system also alarms me. While it sounds great to give unemployed workers up to $3,000, ``up to,'' those are the operative words, this cap is far less than most workers already receive with unemployment extensions, leaving them without the funds they need when they are in the most desperate situation.

Vote no on this rule and no on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, you do not have to be a baseball fan to be familiar with those famous words of Yogi Berra, ``It is like deja vu all over again.''

Why are we back here on the House floor for a second time to consider bills to reauthorize teacher education and graduate education in the Higher Education Act?

The House has already passed these bills. It is time to move forward. It is time to address the real needs of students. Those real needs are to make higher education more accessible and more affordable. College tuition and college tuition fees have increased by almost 30 percent over the last 3 years. At State schools last year, 49 of the 50 States increased tuition. The average student debt is now almost $19,000, up 66 percent since 1997. Nearly half of all working postsecondary students work more than 25 hours a week in order to afford to stay in school.

What solutions do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have for American students? They bring back for the second time two perfectly fine bills that the House has already passed and that do nothing to make college more affordable.

What they do not bring to this House floor is H.R. 4283, which would reauthorize the student loan programs. Well, it is not hard to understand why my colleagues do not want a public debate on that bill. H.R. 4283 freezes through the year 2011 the maximum Pell grant, the greatest source of postsecondary funding for low-income students. It would eliminate the current fixed rate on consolidated loans which will force most student borrowers to pay $5,500 more on their student loans.

It raises interest rates on all student loans, and it does nothing to address the problem of rapidly rising tuition.

Mr. Speaker, certainly, many in the Chamber should be talking about higher education, how to help more students go to college, how to help more students pay for college, not a tired replay of the debate on these two bills. So do not vote for it. Insist that we do something more.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in recognizing the enormous contributions

made by American women on the home front during World War II. Embodied by Rosie the Riveter and the empowering slogan ``We Can Do It,'' women from around the Nation filled industrial jobs left empty by their husbands, their brothers and neighbors fighting abroad during World War

Mr. Speaker, in their public speeches about the war in Iraq, President Bush and Vice President Cheney often invoke the notion of sacrifice and responsibility. They insist that every American support their war in Iraq, and those that do not are labeled un- American, traitors, even treasonous.

According to this model, then, it follows that the White House would encourage patriotic, trustworthy companies to carry out the reconstruction of Iraq's war-torn infrastructure, their schools and hospitals, public buildings, roads and more. But that is just not happening.

Halliburton, which has been awarded reconstruction contracts left and right, does not seem terribly motivated by Bush and Cheney's notion of sacrifice and responsibility. Perhaps all those no-bid contracts have gone to their heads, or perhaps Halliburton is still reeling from the fumes of the millions of gallons of gasoline it has been contracted to import into Iraq, one of many hefty contracts specifically coordinated by Dick Cheney's office.

You may recall that Vice President Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton. The problem is that, once again, the Vice President has lied to the American people about his involvement with his old employer, an employer that still pays him nearly $200,000 each year in deferred salary and with whom he holds nearly 500,000 company shares.

On September 4 of last year, Vice President Cheney said on ``Meet the Press,'' ``As Vice President, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts let by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government.''

But that statement deeply contradicts an internal Pentagon e-mail obtained by Time Magazine, sent by an Army Corps of Engineers official on March 5, 2003, stating that the Vice President's office specifically coordinated a recent multibillion dollar contract in Iraq with Halliburton. That is the Vice President's office.

The e-mail specifies that Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith had appallingly ``coordinated'' the contract with the Vice President's office.

I wonder if Vice President Cheney's coordination of lucrative contracts for his former employer appeals to the same high patriotic standards that he regularly invokes for the rest of us in his speeches. Or perhaps there is a double standard at work, a policy of patriotism when it is convenient, and another policy of sheer greed and selfishness when Halliburton comes knocking on the door with its $200,000 in annual deferred salary for the Vice President.

There has to be a better way, because the Bush doctrine of cronyism has been tried; and it has failed utterly. It is time for a new security strategy, one that emphasizes brains instead of brawn, depends on quality and sincerity in all business negotiations, and one that is consistent with the best American values.

I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. SMART treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships that control the spread of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation; and it aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations, with an emphasis on women's health and education.

The United States can no longer afford foreign presidents watching as our national leaders reward their buddies with contracts worth billions of dollars and then turn around and call dissenters unpatriotic and un- American.

Instead, let us rely on the very best of America, our commitment to peace, our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership.

Let us be smart about our future. SMART security is tough, SMART security is pragmatic and patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, here we are again. For the fourth week in a row, Republicans have put us between a rock and a hard spot, forcing a choice between short-term relief for hard-working families and the long-term interest of future generations. It breaks my heart.

Each one of these votes has broken my heart because I have four adult children. They are families, they each have a spouse, and I have three grandchildren. They would like this short-term relief; but guess what, they know better. They know better than my colleagues do on the other side of the aisle.

It broke my heart to oppose the 10 percent tax bracket, to oppose relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the end of the marriage penalty; and it will break my heart to oppose the child tax credit extension today. But I will oppose it because I know we could do better for our children.

I wanted to vote for tax relief because these bills would help my kids, and it would help the people in my district, but short term. These bills would help short term the four families that I have talked about. Members talk about hard-working families. These kids work around the clock, week in and week out; yet the Republicans are squandering the future of these children and their children. They are providing tax relief for the very wealthiest, and they are providing tax relief in the short term, and I think we can do it better. We will do it without mortgaging the future of our grandchildren with this substitute.

Here are two of my grandchildren. Let me introduce Members to Teddy and his baby sister, Julia. Teddy is 4 and Julia is 9 months old. They have a 16-year-old cousin named Sean, and they have two cousins on the way by year end. I will not ask my grandchildren to pay for their parents' tax relief, nor should you. It is not in their best interest to grow up in a country that cannot afford to properly fund its public schools. It is not in their best interests to work in a Nation crippled by debt. My grandchildren and yours deserve better than that.

The Democratic substitute we are considering today will give both my children and my grandchildren a little extra money, and it will not mortgage the future of the next generation. At first blush, it is troubling to oppose this bill, a bill that would seemingly benefit my own hard-working family. But I am lucky, my constituents and my children understand the hidden price of these tax bills. We understand that tax relief for my children should not come at the expense of Teddy, Julia, Sean, and their cousins we are expecting to be born before the end of year.

Mr. Speaker, amidst all the debate about the defense bill, we seem to have forgotten one very, very important thing, which should be the driving force behind every decision we make with regard to Iraq. Mr. Speaker, nearly 800 young men and women have lost their lives as a result of the conflict. Eight hundred.

We must never forget that people are dying as a result of the decisions of this House. Many of our brave soldiers will never again walk this Earth because of the choices we have made. Many more will be lame for life. Clearly, something is wrong with our Nation's policies when 800 of our soldiers have died in Iraq, most of them after our flight-clad President declared an end to major combat operations.

Something is most certainly wrong when events occur such as the abuses in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, or even events like the deaths of five Iraqi prisoners in war-torn detention camps, as the Denver Post recently reported. The fact that these actions occurred in separate places, under the command of different interrogators, demonstrates that this is a systemic problem.

The Pentagon's response has been to court-martial the young soldiers directly responsible for these instances of torture, calling them bad apples. And what has been the response by the leaders of this country? Two weeks ago, President Bush appeared on Arab television condemning the abuses by American servicemembers and private American contractors. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Senate and House Committee on Armed Services for the same purpose. Both men in their respective addresses tried to distance themselves from the crimes.

Mr. Speaker, President Harry Truman made famous the quote ``The buck stops here.'' President Bush would be well served to take notice of this quotation, which President Truman thought was so important that he kept it as a sign on his desk in the Oval Office.

In fact, it is becoming more apparent every day that all along both President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld may have known more than they were letting on and that the crimes committed at the prisons could have originated in the Pentagon and passed through the Oval Office.

An investigation by Newsweek magazine provides evidence that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General John Ashcroft, may have personally agreed to a secret system of detention interrogation designed to circumnavigate the Geneva Conventions. This information was substantiated by a New Yorker magazine article, which similarly detailed a Pentagon operation known inside the intelligence community as Copper Green, which encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an attempt to produce intelligence about the post-war insurgency in Iraq.

Are we really to believe that the Secretary of Defense had no knowledge of the actions being taken by the soldiers under his command? And if the Secretary of Defense had absolutely no knowledge of this abuse, is that not a gigantic problem in and of itself? And if Secretary Rumsfeld did know of Copper Green, are we really to believe that nobody shared this information with the President? And if not, why not?

The buck stops with the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. The buck does not stop with the young soldiers interrogating Iraqi prisoners. The buck does not stop with Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, the U.S. general in charge of running the prisons in Iraq. The buck does not even stop with Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense. The buck stops with the President and only with the President.

There has to be a better way, because the Bush doctrine of passing the buck has been tried and it has failed. It is time for a new national security strategy, one that emphasizes brains instead of brawn, one that is consistent with the best American values.

I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation. And it aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations with an emphasis on women's health and education.

The buck stops with the President of the United States. No more denials, no more passing the buck.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the nearly 800 American soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one has sacrificed more than these brave men and women and their families. The debt we owe them all is tremendous.

As we approach Memorial Day, we must never forget that people are dying as a result of the decisions of this House. Many of our brave soldiers will never again walk on this earth because of the choices we make.

Late last year I spent a week in Bethesda Naval Hospital recuperating from back surgery. During my stay there, I visited with wounded soldiers who had come home forever changed by the war in Iraq. Meeting with these soldiers and seeing their injuries gave me a firsthand look at the true reality of war, and made me more committed than ever before that our government cover all the expenses of any injury that results from war. But that's just not happening.

Congress must work to equip every soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan with the best equipment and supplies available, including state-of-the- art bulletproof vests, and Camelbak water bottles so they can rehydrate in the hot desert air. And the vehicles our soldiers use need to be equipped with the best and strongest armor available. Dozens of un- armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and rocket propelled grenades. This year's Defense Authorization bill paid for some of these things. It's about time.

We must make every attempt to provide for our service men and women when they come home from the war, too. That's why Congress needs to provide better health coverage to our veterans, and why we need to end the Disabled Veterans Tax immediately to ensure that anyone who has served in the military receives both health benefits and retirement benefits. This outdated tax from 1891 needs to go.

Our lives wouldn't be the same without the selflessness of thousands of courageous Americans. I am humbled by their courage and the sacrifices they have made for their country.

Mr. Chairman, I just hope that none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ever are faced with a daughter or a granddaughter or a daughter-in-law or a niece serving overseas or as a military wife that needs an abortion and finds themselves in a hospital in Turkey.

Over the last 2 years, we have all stood here and voiced our support for our troops over and over again. We cast resolutions of support. We are demanding that our troops have adequate training and equipment, and there is no better way to show them how we support them than finally giving women in our Armed Forces and the wives and daughters of the men in our military the ability to exercise their constitutional right to obtain a free, no, not a free, a paid-for by-the-person out-of-their- own-pocket safe abortion using the money that they have, but in a military hospital.

We routinely ask our servicewomen to put their lives on the line in defense of our country and our country's ideals. That is why we must continue to require that this country provide them with what could save their lives, and that would be an abortion in a military hospital.