Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for organizing today's effort. And I rise to support H. Res. 425 and to honor the memory of firefighter Steve Rucker, a resident of Novato, California, and to wish the speedy recovery of three other Novato firefighters, Captain Doug McDonald, Shawn Kreps, and Barrett Smith. These four men were among the dozens of firefighters from my district who sped to southern California to fight the recent fires, fires that burned hundreds of thousands of acres.

The day before yesterday, I stood alongside Steve's colleagues, firefighters, and police officers and watched the mile-long precession that carried his casket from the airport in Santa Rosa to his beloved city of Novato. My heart was filled with emotion as I watched the great sadness this community felt, the sadness and the grief that come with the death from within the family. But lingering in this grief, there was also pride, pride in recalling the time and heroism of one of their own, these four firefighters served the Novato Fire Protection District.

Novato is a prosperous place, a family town that touches San Francisco Bay and reaches into the golden coastal hills. But the warm sun of Indian summer never lulls Novato firefighters. They know that the days before the rains come are the most dangerous times of the year. They also know that firefighters throughout the State are members of a large community and when help is needed anywhere, they are honored to help.

So it was with that and without any contractual obligation but out of compassion and comradeship that Shawn Kreps drove Novato fire engine 6162 all night a week ago Monday to join the fire lines at the Cedar fire, more than 400 miles from Novato. And so it was that Steve Rucker, Doug McDonald, Shawn Kreps, and Barrett Smith found themselves Wednesday on a back road, 5 miles from the rural village of Julian, fighting to protect a scattering of homes.

Fire can be a fierce and swift enemy, and when flames suddenly threatened to engulf the men, all they could do is run for their lives. Steve Rucker did not make it. Apparently the intense heat of the fire seared his lungs. And when Captain McDonald went out to look for his friend, he was critically burned. Fortunately, Kreps and Smith suffered minor injuries, and I expect they will have many fires to fight in the future. Captain McDonald, however, remains hospitalized with serious burns, the wounds of a hero, and my prayers go out to him and his family.

It was too soon for 38-year-old Steve Rucker to leave this earth. He left behind a loving wife, Cathy, a 7-year-old daughter Kerstin, and a 3-year-old son Wesley, in a home he had just built. His friends in the department knew Steve as ``The Ruckster,'' a cheerful, enthusiastic man ready to joke, ready to laugh, a man they could counted on to be a calm and competent firefighter and paramedic. A man who loved his job. He was, according to his friends and colleagues, a firefighter's firefighter.

In fact, they told me just the other day that Steve was the ``go-to guy'' during times of tragedy like now, and that his loss was felt even greater because they really needed him to help them get through their pain. Twelve thousand firefighters battled the flames that threatened to burn from southern California to the Pacific Ocean. Steve Rucker was the only firefighter to die in this historical battle. In this, he receives a measure of immortality. He also stands for all of those brave men and women who unselfishly risked their lives to save others, whether facing a wall of flames on a rural back road or the billowing smoke of the World Trade Center.

Mr. Speaker, Steve Rucker was an irreplaceable man, but his family must go on without him. I wish them consolation in knowing that this man, son, husband, father, died giving the gift of himself.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2660 to fully fund the Federal commitment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. What an idea, taking the funding out of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, not funding this program from other deserving programs.

Whenever I talk to educators or school administrators in my district, the very first thing they bring up is IDEA, special education. The first thing they say about IDEA is that we need to have it funded. The Federal Government must meet its commitment for 40 percent of the cost. In fact, if the Federal Government fully funded its share of IDEA, schools in Sonoma County, in my congressional district, would have received almost $20 million to help educate students with disabilities, students with special education needs. Instead, Sonoma County schools received just under $6 million, or about 15 percent of their costs.

Every Member here could tell the same story about their school districts. If the Federal Government fully funded its share of IDEA, schools nationwide would receive almost $20 billion to help pay for the cost of educating students with special needs. H.R. 2660 falls far short of this needed funding; and when we do not fully fund IDEA, we do not just take needed resources from students with disabilities. We shortchange all students.

If school districts had their full share of IDEA funds, they would be able to use their own funds for improvements that benefit all students such as increasing teachers' salaries, reducing class size, building new schools, renovating old schools. When we underfund IDEA, we pit children with disabilities against other children, schools against parents, parents against parents. We must fully fund the Federal share of IDEA. Vote for the DeLauro motion to instruct conferees to include full funding in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill to cover the Federal share of IDEA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to honor the memory of firefighter Steve Rucker, a resident of Novato, California, and to wish the speedy recovery of three other Novato firefighters: Captain Doug McDonald, Shawn Kreps, and Barrett Smith.

These four men were among the dozens of firefighters from my district who sped to Southern California to fight the recent fires that burned hundreds of thousands of acres. Yesterday I stood alongside Officer Rucker's colleagues, firefighters and police officers, and watched the mile-long procession that carried his casket down Highway 101 from the airport in Santa Rosa to his beloved city of Novato. My heart was filled with emotion as I watched the great sadness this community felt, the sadness and grief that comes with the death of a family member. But lingering in this grief, there was also pride, pride in recalling the life and heroism of one of their own.

These four firefighters served the Novato fire protection district. Novato is a prosperous place, a family town that touches San Francisco and reaches into the golden coastal hills. But the warm sun of Indian summer never lulls Novato firefighters. They know that the days before the rains come are the most dangerous time of the year throughout all of California. They also know that firefighters throughout the State are members of one large community, and when help is needed anywhere, they respond. So it was that without any contractual obligation, but out of compassion and comradeship that Shawn Kreps drove Novato fire engine 6162 all night a week ago Monday to join the fire lines at the Cedar fire more than 400 miles away. And so it was that Steve Rucker, Doug McDonald, Shawn Kreps, and Barrett Smith found themselves Wednesday on a back road 5 miles from the rural village of Julian, fighting to protect a scattering of homes.

Fire can be a fierce and swift enemy, and when flames suddenly threatened to engulf the men, all they could do was run for their lives. Steve Rucker did not make it. Apparently the intense heat of the fire seared his lungs, and when Captain McDonald went out to look for his friend, he too was critically burned.

Fortunately, Kreps and Smith suffered minor injuries, and I expect they will have many fires to fight in the future. Captain McDonald, however, remains hospitalized with serious burns, the wounds of a hero. My prayers go out to him and to his family.

It was too soon for 38-year-old Steve Rucker to leave this earth. He left behind a loving wife, Cathy; a 7-year-old daughter, Kirsten, a 3- year-old son, Wesley, and a home he had just built. His friends in the department knew Steve as ``the Ruckster,'' a cheerful, enthusiastic man ready to joke and laugh, a man they could count on to be a calm and competent firefighter and paramedic, a man who loved his job. He

was, according to his friend and colleague Tom Gaulke, ``a firefighter's firefighter.'' And yesterday when I stood with Steve's firefighting companions, they told me that Steve was the go-to person when they needed somebody in times like this. They needed his counsel yesterday and his support during their sorrow, but he was gone, and that is why they have such sorrow.

Twelve thousand firefighters battled the armies of flames that once threatened to burn from Southern California's mountains to the Pacific ocean. Steve Rucker was the only firefighter to die in this historical battle. In this he receives a measure of immortality. He stands for all of the brave men and women who unselfishly risk their lives to save others, whether facing a wall of flames on a rural back road or the billowing smoke of the World Trade Center.

Mr. Speaker, Steve Rucker was an irreplaceable man, but his family must go on with life without him. I wish them consolation in knowing that this man, son, husband, and father, died giving the gift of himself.

Mr. Speaker, in the San Francisco Bay area, especially in Marin County in my congressional district, we have some of the highest rates of breast cancer in the Nation. While the toll on Bay area residents has been enormous and heart-breaking, community activists and local health officials are meeting this challenge, providing support to patients and survivors and working to find causes of this epidemic.

Women feel powerless when confronted with the increasing likelihood of contracting breast cancer; but as the Marin County breast cancer community has demonstrated through prevention and research, with hard work and dedication, we will beat this disease.

In memory of those who have died of breast cancer and in support of those fighting this terrible disease, and with hope that our daughters and granddaughters will not face this epidemic, I urge all women to acknowledge Breast Cancer Awareness Month by taking care of their own health and joining with others to win the war against breast cancer.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the 352nd and 353rd American servicemembers were killed since the start of the war in Iraq. That means almost twice as many soldiers have died since the President declared an end to major fighting operations than during the 2 months of actual war. Something is drastically wrong here.

We are not adequately showing our gratitude to those who have sacrificed for us. As a result, 353 of our soldiers have lost their lives, which speaks to the administration's haphazard planning for the postconflict phase in Iraq, costing those 353 Americans their lives and thousands who have been wounded.

We must support our brave men and women stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we must also make a commitment to support the widows and widowers of those soldiers who are killed halfway around the world. And we can do that by passing H.R. 3365, doubling the amount paid to survivors of service men and women killed on the battlefield from $6,000 to $12,000, at the same time making this benefit completely tax free. After all, taxing families of patriots does not seem very patriotic to me.

It appears this bill has strong bipartisan support, and yet we have not always been so dedicated to our soldiers. On October 20, here in this House, less than 2 weeks ago, this body voted on an amendment to the $87 billion supplemental bill that would have added $1,500 as a bonus for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, this amendment failed by a vote of 213 to 213, with most Democrats voting in favor of the bonus and most Republicans voting against the bonus.

The Republican administration thrust upon us this budget-busting $87 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, and then the House had the audacity to vote against the bonus for our troops; our troops who are in harm's way; our troops who have been wounded, and whose lives will be changed and altered forever; and our troops who have given up their lives for this country.

We must support our troops. We must compensate them for their service to this country should disaster strike. As any pundit would have predicted, and which has happened 353 times to date in Iraq in the last 7 months, we must support the families of those who make the ultimate sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, this is the very least we can do. To that end, I am proud to support H.R. 3365.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Mr. Obey's motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2660 to increase funding for the No Child Left Behind Act to the highest possible amount.

As we near the end of the second year since No Child Left Behind became law, schools all over America are crying out for more funding in order to meet the new accountability benchmarks.

When I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act almost 2 years ago, I did so with reservations about the new testing requirements. But, I and all of the Members, were assured that while we were going to be asking much more of our schools, we would also be giving our schools increased support. But that is not what happened.

H.R. 2660 underfunds the No Child Left behind Act by $8 billion.

It falls $244 million short of the $3.2 billion that was promised to the States to make sure that there would be a highly qualified teacher in every classroom.

It underfunds after school programs by $750 million, serving one million children less than was promised in No Child Left Behind.

It denies eligible children the title I supplemental education services that they need to succeed in school.

States and schools all across America are doing their part to raise test scores and improve teacher quality. Congress needs to do its part by providing the promised funding. We need to fund programs under the No Child Left Behind Act at the very highest level possible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for offering this Motion to Instruct Energy Bill Conferees.

Instead of working on an Energy Bill that will work to solve our nation's energy crisis, the Republicans are holding a conference without any Democrats and now they are trying to add in riders to weaken the Clean Air Act. What will they think of next?

This rider allows polluters to further delay establishing clean air controls--contributing to air pollution that bellows out of giant smokestacks and puffs out of tailpipes. This air pollution has led to a record number of people with asthma, particularly in our cities. By trying to attach this rider to the Energy Bill, the Republicans are showing once again that they do not value clean air or the health of Americans.

And the sad fact is that children are the most vulnerable to air pollution. They spend more time outdoors, they inhale more pollutant per body weight, and their bodies, lungs and immune systems are still developing. Children are particularly vulnerable to smog and soot-- continued exposure can scar and severely damage children's lungs.

Instead of weakening the Clean Air Act, the Republicans should be using this opportunity to develop and use new technologies and to cut our reliance on dirty energy fuels. Unfortunately, in the Energy Conference, the Republicans have chosen the interests of big business over the health of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this motion to instruct.

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

I am pleased to join the chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), in urging passage of H.R. 3232 to ensure that the authority for important child nutrition programs does not expire before the House leadership makes the time to debate these most important issues in the committee and on the floor.

I do hope, however, that when the time comes for the real reauthorization of child nutrition, we can work together in this same bipartisan way to make sure every eligible infant and child in this Nation has access to nutritious food: at home, through the WIC program; in child care, through the Child and Adult Food program; in school, through the School Breakfast and Lunch programs; during out-of-school time, through After-School and Summer programs; and in homeless and domestic violence shelters.

Even modest investments in the child nutrition programs will reduce hunger and improve children's health, their well-being, and their educational success.

Healthy children are the best investment we can make in this Nation's future. Unfortunately, too many children in America are hungry. The 2003 key national indicators of children's well-being reports that nearly 46 percent of American children who live in poverty were in food-insecure households, households that reported difficulty in obtaining enough food and increased use of emergency food sources resulting in reduced food intake and resulting in hunger.

At the same time, too many American children are at risk because they are obese. Childhood obesity rates in America have tripled over the past 20 years, resulting in children suffering from the early onset of such traditional adult diseases as hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease.

This week, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I, as well as other Democratic members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, will be introducing a bill that increases access to the child nutrition programs and sets the stage for improving the nutritional quality of the foods available to children during the school day. Our bill establishes a Federal policy of ``do no harm'' to ensure that no eligible children are pushed off school food programs. It also eliminates the reduced-price category and increases direct certification so that more children are eligible for free school meals.

The Democratic childs nutrition bill also makes it easier for new moms and their babies to participate in the WIC program.

By calling on experts from the Institute of Medicine to develop nutrition standards for the foods sold in competition with school meals, the Democratic

child nutrition meal will make it easier for schools to offer students healthy foods everywhere on school grounds.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have other ideas on child nutrition reauthorization as well. The money is there to fund all of these ideas if the administration and the Congress want to do it. If we can afford to reconstruct Iraq, if we can afford tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and tax breaks to offshore corporations, we can afford to feed hungry American children and help them eat healthy food.

I look forward to working with the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and all of my colleagues to expand and improve the child nutrition programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just as a final thought, children are about 25 percent of our population. They are 100 percent of the future of this Nation, and what they eat really will equate to what our future will be. We must make sure that we do the best job we can for every child in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the H.R. 2359, The Basic Pilot Extension Act, because this program has not demonstrated a record strong enough to be extended across the country. I know first hand that this pilot program has not lived up to its expectations because my home state of California is one of the test areas.

Madam Speaker, as you know, many employers in the counties I represent, Marin and Sonoma counties, just over the Golden Gate Bridge from S.F, depend on immigrant workers to staff their vineyards, dairies and businesses. I certainly support providing employers the tools they need to hire only those workers authorized to work in the United States. While the intent of this pilot program was a good one, it has not lived up to its promises. Now it is plagued with problems including new hires being denied by the program when they were actually authorized to work and employers abusing the program to engage in prohibited employment practices. These anti-worker practices include pre-employment screening, denying eligible workers jobs or the opportunity to contest inaccuracies in the database. Creating more loopholes for bad employers to conduct unfair labor practices was not the intent of this pilot project.

Madam Speaker, until these and other abuses are fixed, we should not be quick to expand the program. That's why I am asking my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, so that we can that the basic pilot program is friendly to workers as well as employers before expanding the program.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

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

I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees on the child tax credit bill. It is time that this Congress proves to working families that we care about them and that we care about their children. We can do that by providing immediate payment to those families left out of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.

Mr. Speaker, you may wonder who exactly was left out of that bill. How about military families with personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and other combat zones. What about more than half the children of janitors and maids, cooks and other kitchen workers; farmers and farm workers; child care workers; nurses and secretaries; sales workers; bus, truck and cab drivers. These are the very workers that need our support.

Now, let us look at those who this bill benefitted the most. The millionaires, the tax cut legislation enacted in May created an average child tax credit increase of $615 this year for those who are lucky enough to meet the income requirements. However, tax filers with incomes of more than $1 million will receive an average tax cut of $93,500 this year. That is $93,500 as compared to $615, or as compared to 12 million children who have been left behind because the Republican leadership failed to include them in the child tax credit, and they have yet to receive the $615 benefit.

Mr. Speaker, the families I am talking about are those with dedicated workers that have put in full-time hours at minimum pay, pay taxes and earn less than $26,000 a year.

It is unfortunate that Republicans believe these forgotten children and their families do not contribute enough to deserve a break. Actions like these leave me no doubt that the priorities are dead wrong on the other side of the aisle. We must correct this injustice.

While the House passed a child tax credit bill, we missed the chance to pass a clean bill that would immediately grant our Nation's hardworking families with an increased child tax credit. The Republican initiative was a squandered opportunity to invest in our children and their families.

This supposed party of compassionate conservatism has exploited the child tax credit issue to pass even more tax cuts for their wealthy friends. Instead of bringing up the other body's child tax credit bill, which would cost $3.5 billion with offsets to fully pay for it, they passed a bill that costs $80 billion with no offsets, at a time when America's Federal deficit will exceed $400 billion.

The other body has handed us a bill that would have increased tax credits for 6.5 million tax-paying families months ago, and I support their effort. That is why I have introduced this motion instructing the conferees to adopt the other body's language, to put money in the pockets of the working families that need it the most. Even the President has come out in strong support of this clean legislation.

Our priority should be putting money in the hands of working Americans. That is the way to create jobs and build a strong economy. If we do not help our children now, how can we expect to strengthen our Nation in the future?

Mr. Speaker, the House's Republican leadership failed our children and working families. I am disappointed that the leadership is refusing to address the real issue here. It is time to restore true compassion for our Nation's working families. Working families need to know that we have not forgotten them.

I urge my colleagues, support this motion so we can pass the child tax credit to those who need it most.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, one of my Republican colleagues favored arguments against extending the child tax credit to the families left out is that these families do not pay taxes and they should not receive a credit. They argue that Congress should not grant tax relief to families who are unemployed or who do not pay Federal income taxes. However, the truth is that all of these excluded hardworking families do pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes, State and local sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes; and we must ensure that they receive their fair share.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), a co-chair of the Children and Families Task Force.

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

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

I would like to reiterate again the families who did not receive child tax credit relief when checks were mailed out this summer:

More than three-quarters, 801,000, of the children of sales workers; more than half, 903,000, of the children of janitors and maids; more than half, 526,000, of the children of cooks and other kitchen workers; more than half, 290,000, of the children of farmers and farm workers; two out of five children, 376,000, of child care workers and their aides; one in four, 711,000, children of nurses and their aides; one in four, 483,000, children of secretaries and related office workers; one in five, 264,000, children of truck, bus and cab drivers; more than 260,000 of active duty armed forces personnel.

Mr. Speaker, how can we forget so many families who are the backbone of our Nation's safety, transportation, health, food supply and other children's care?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and in closing, I wish to repeat that the working families we are talking about pay taxes. They pay their employment taxes, their payroll taxes, they pay local sales taxes, they pay property taxes and franchise taxes, sometimes. They are taxpayers. They earn a living, and they are the backbone of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Citizens for Tax Justice, the child tax bill passed on June 12, 2003, by the House Republicans, would give almost two and a half times more to families with children under 17 that have incomes above $104,000 than it would give to families making less than $28,000 a year.

This is just bad policy, and this motion to instruct will correct that bad policy. And I ask that my colleagues vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1446, the California Missions Preservation Act. I would like to thank the gentleman for introducing this bill, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor.

The California Missions provide such an important part of California's past and their history can be traced to 1493, just after the discovery of America. The sixth district of California, north of San Francisco and just over the Golden Gate Bridge, which I am pleased to represent, is fortunate to have one of these missions and another just outside of the sixth district that my constituents visit.

The San Raphael mission was originally built in 1817 as an outpost chapel of the San Francisco mission. Named for Saint Raphael, the angel of bodily healing, it was thought that the sunny hillside on the north side of the bay would be a good place for the sick to convalesce. In fact, it is the first known sanitarium in California. In five years it was a healthy settlement and became an independent mission on October 19, 1822. After it was secularized, the mission fell into ruin and in 1854 the original mission was torn down. In 1947 a new mission was built, near the original site, based on a painting of the old mission.

The San Francisco Solano Mission, founded in 1823, was the last and most northerly of the 21 Franciscan missions of Alta California. Sonoma Mission, as it is popularly called, was the dedicated goal of the young and zealous Padre Jose Altimira. He headed into the northern wilderness to find a more healthy location for a mission than the crowded San Francisco de Asis Mission. In Sonoma Valley he found his ideal location, with fertile soil and mild, sunny climate.

Secularization of the mission in 1834 was followed by neglect and decay. In 1881 the church and padres' quarters were sold and used as a hay barn, winery and blacksmith shop. However, the mission was rescued from disintegration in 1903 when it was bought by the Historic Landmarks League and turned over to the State. Full restoration began in 1911.

There is still more to do to restore these historic treasures. It is important that we save these missions so that we can pass on their

history to future generations. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1308, Tax Relief, Simplification, and Equity Act of 2003.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Ms. Woolsey moves that the managers on the part of the

House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two

Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.

1308 be instructed as follows:

1. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in

the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment

(not included in the House amendment) that provides immediate

payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by

reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were

entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax

Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

2. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in

the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment

(not included in the House amendment) that provides families

of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other

combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the

individuals serving in the combat zone.

3. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in

the conference report all of the other provisions of the

Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference

report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by

other provisions.

4. To the maximum extent possible within the scope of

conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to

include in the conference report other tax benefits for

military personnel and the families of the astronauts who

died in the Columbia disaster.

5. The House conferees shall, as soon as practicable after

the adoption of this motion, meet in open session with the

Senate conferees and the House conferees shall file a

conference report consistent with the preceeding provisions

of this instruction, not later than the second legislative

day after adoption of this motion.

Mr. Chairman, for the past 2 days Members of Congress have spoken about sacrifice and responsibility, and about supporting our troops. The way to support our troops, many say, is to vote ``yes'' on the supplemental spending bill that is currently before the House. One part of the supplemental that nobody is talking about is the administration's $900 million request for the importation of gasoline and other fuel products into Iraq.

The average wholesale price of gasoline in the Persian Gulf is just 71 cents a gallon. According to independent oil experts, transporting the gasoline the 400 miles from Kuwait to Iraq could reasonably cost an additional 10 to 25 cents per gallon. So a logical price per gallon for gasoline delivered to Iraq would be about a dollar. But figures from the Army Corps of Engineers show that Halliburton is charging the U.S. taxpayer between $1.62 and $1.70 per gallon for this gasoline that is purchased at much cheaper rates--an outrageous markup of over a dollar per gallon that would be considered illegal price-gouging if it occurred in the United States. So U.S. taxpayers are now faced with a $900,000 bill that pays for cheap gas that is marked up to ridiculously not-so-cheap prices.

It seems that Bechtel and Halliburton aren't as motivated by the notions of sacrifice and responsibility as many Members of this House. Perhaps this is because the Halliburton Company has never before imported gasoline. Or perhaps all those no-bid contracts have gone to their heads.

Let's not forget on March 8, 2003, Halliburton was given a secret, sole-source contract for improvements to Iraq's oil infrastructure. Halliburton did not have to compete with any other company for this contract. And why is Halliburton getting this sweetheart deal? I think it has something to do with the fact that the Vice President of the United States is the former CEO of this very same company. But his connections are not former connections--they still exist to this day. Despite what he says to the press about having severed all ties to Halliburton, Dick Cheney received almost $400,000 in deferred salary from his former company in 2001 and 2002, and he still has 433,333 unexercised stock options. The facts speak for themselves: Dick Cheney is not fully divested of his connections to Halliburton, and yet this same company receives U.S. Government contracts worth billions of dollars for which they are not required to place a single bid. This is unfair to the American people, and this is downright wrong.

This is not about supporting the troops. This is about supporting companies with ties to the Bush-Cheney administration by giving them get-rich-quick deals at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. The amendment that Congressman Waxman has introduced is a reasonable way to bring some sense and some oversight into a bill that is otherwise no more than a bailout for President Bush's failed policies. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Waxman amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about the brave men and women who are fighting in Iraq at this very moment; the hundreds who lost their lives; and the thousands who have been wounded.

Despite the fact that Congress appropriated $310,000 in April for bulletproof vests, nearly one-third of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq still have not been issued these vests, which are strong enough to stop bullets from assault rifles. Nor have most of our troops been issued CamelBak hydration systems to protect them from the scorching desert heat. In fact,

many families have resorted to sending protective bulletproof vests and CamelBak hydration systems to their sons and daughters stationed in Iraq. No family should be paying extra to help keep their loved ones safe; the federal government has this responsibility. After all, who sent these young people to war in the first place? Certainly not their families.

In August of this year, I stayed in Bethesda Naval Hospital where I visited with wounded men and women and their families who will never again experience the world in the same way as a result of this war. We don't talk about the impact of this war. In fact, we don't talk about the impact of any war on the wounded and their loved ones. I met with individuals who had lost limbs, their sight, their hearing, parts of their beautiful faces, and we are still not providing our troops with the best equipment available!

Mr. Chairman, we must do the right thing for our troops and give them the support they deserve, in the way they deserve it. Now is the time to make permanent the increases to the Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance, which Congress approved for our soldiers only through next year. We must make the commitment to our troops, right now, that we will take care of them after this war is over. That means ensuring the permanent end to the Disabled Veterans Tax by providing full concurrent receipt for all veterans. And it means not denying, but treating, the illnesses they will face ten, twenty, and thirty years down the road.

It is pretty simple, really. If we are willing to spend another $65 billion to keep our troops in danger, then we must care enough to bring them home, bring them home safely, bring them home soon, and support them after the war. Since I see no real commitment to doing this from the Administration, and I see no real reason for being in Iraq in the first place, I will be voting no on the supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for offering this motion to instruct, and I would like to offer my strong support.

The fact that we are here today debating this motion shows just how offtrack the Energy Conference has gone. When the gentlewoman offered this same language as an amendment to the House Energy bill it passed by voice vote because it was so popular. Now, a conference being led by Republicans is not allowing Democratic conferees to participate. And now they are stripping some of the most important and popular provisions from the bill.

Let's call this what it really is. This ``Inventory'' that members from the other side of the aisle say is so necessary is a sham. In fact, the Minerals Management Service already conducts a survey every 5 years, and the latest assessment was done in 2000. Taking an inventory of what lies beneath the sea floor is not like taking an inventory of office supplies. It requires a careful process that takes into account the delicate ecosystem that the Outer Continental Shelf comprises.

The point of removing this important provision in conference is not to conduct an ``inventory,'' but instead it is to open up the Outer Continental Shelf for big oil companies to drill for oil. We all know where the oil is, and they can't wait to get in there and drill. Such drilling would put our coastal communities at needless risk.

My district is comprised of some of the most beautiful coastline in the world. From Gualala Point to the San Francisco Bay, my constituents depend on this beautiful coastline, and I do not want to see oil on our beaches or animals killed by irresponsible drilling.

Instead of expanding drilling, we should be exploring new ways to create clean and renewable energy sources. I urge conferees to add more funding for developing, implementing, and expanding renewable energy programs instead of senselessly opening up our Outer Continental Shelf to big oil companies.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct. Let's send a clear signal that the Energy conference should not take place in secret and disregard the wishes of the American people.