Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight 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 million in April, nearly one- third of the troops in Iraq have not been issued vests that are strong enough to stop bullets from assault rifles, nor have they been issued hydration systems to protect them from the searing heat of the desert.

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 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, Mr. Chairman, I stayed in Bethesda Naval Hospital where I visited with wounded men and women and their families who have never in their lives expected to be harmed the way they were and who will never again experience the world in the same way as a result of this war.

We do not talk about the impact of this war. In fact, we do not 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 not providing the best equipment available.

It is pretty simple: 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, here we are at the end of the fiscal year with important unfinished work for the House of Representatives. Our fiscal year budget is not complete, our seniors do not have a prescription drug benefit, and our local communities still need support in the war against terror, to list only a few of the unfinished pieces of business that we have before us.

Yet, what does the majority decide to bring to the floor? A bill that everyone knows will not pass the muster of the Supreme Court. Because there is no exemption to protect a woman's health, this bill not only fails to meet moral requirements, it fails to meet constitutional requirements.

We have a moral obligation to protect and promote women's health, not endanger it. In fact, our debate should be about measures to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and ensuring that all pregnant women have affordable access to the care they need so they can deliver healthy babies.

The Supreme Court has been clear. Our laws cannot take away a woman's right to a safe and accepted medical procedure when her health is in danger; and yet the antichoice lobby chooses to once again waste our valuable time pushing legislation that politicizes women's health and chips away at a woman's constitutional right to choose an appropriate lifesaving medical procedure.

As we know, a pregnancy can go tragically wrong in the final stages; and in these unimaginable circumstances, a woman must not be required to risk her health and future fertility by continuing a dangerous pregnancy. I am not a doctor, so I am not going to stand here and pretend that I have the necessary expertise to make medical decisions for my constituents, nor should any Member of the House, nor any Federal agency. Instead, I want every woman in my district and in this Nation to have access to the procedure she and her physician feel are the safest and most appropriate for her particular situation.

Let us be honest. The debate today is not about aborting viable, healthy children. Few late-term abortions occur, and those that do are tragically necessary to save the life or health of the mother. This debate is really about limiting a woman's right to privacy and restricting access to constitutionally protected medical procedures. The American people must know that while the necessary work of the House of Representatives remains undone, we are here debating a bill that makes an unconstitutional attempt to chip away at a woman's right to access for a particular medical procedure.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose this conference report.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for calling this special order together because it is a very important subject.

Today in Iraq, our Nation is creating more than 130,000 veterans. These future veterans are fulfilling their duty to America in a time of war. We must commit to fulfill our own responsibilities to them in times of peace.

Three hundred and seventy Members of the House of Representatives are on record supporting a concurrent receipt bill to provide full health and retirement benefits for our Nation's veterans, but when the time came to actually bring this important legislation before the House of Representatives for a vote, 201 Democrats and only two Republicans signed their names to bring the bill to the floor of the House. It takes 218 names and signatures in order to force the majority party to bring this issue before us.

Concurrent receipt should not be a Democrat issue, and it should not be a Republican issue. Instead, this is an issue of fulfilling our commitment to those who have proven their commitment to us, to our Nation's veterans. The White House has estimated the health and retirement benefits for our veterans will cost $58 billion over the next 10 years. That is $6 billion a year to support the troops who have sacrificed for this country.

This is the same President that recently came to the Congress requesting $87 billion to pay for our war in Iraq that he announced many months ago had ended. The President's $87 billion supplemental request includes money for museums and memorials in Iraq, radios and phones for Iraqi businesses, and computer training and graduate school for Iraqi citizens. Certainly, we must invest in restoring the stability in a war-torn country, but these programs are not more important than health care for America's veterans.

What kind of message does this sent to our veterans and our troops currently in the field when the President tells them that paying for Iraqis to go to graduate school is more important than paying for veteran's health care? We are talking about men and women who fought for America, who were wounded for America, who have lost friends who have died for America. But when the time comes to pay their health bills, America's purse is shot. This is worse than irresponsible. It is downright dishonorable.

President Bush said last year that every country around the world, and I quote him, ``is either with us or against us,'' unquote. Our veterans deserve to ask the same question. ``Mr. President, are you with America's veterans or against them? Will you fight for them the way they are fighting for you?''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my disappointment that the Republican leadership must resort to this resolution to ensure the continuity of our Nation's vital programs. Instead of staying here and finishing the work that needs to be done, the Republican leadership continues to schedule short workweeks. Everyday that they drag their feet is another day our Nation's working families continue to struggle.

Our priorities should be passing a child tax credit that extends to low-income families denied a break in the Republican tax package, and, approving welfare reform that will not only reduce welfare rolls but also reduce poverty.

No person should go a day longer forced to choose between paying their rent and paying for their prescription drugs while a prescription drug plan awaits a final vote by Congress. Sensible and popular initiatives such as education reform, homeland security and affordable housing continue to be either inadequately addressed or drastically underfunded by this leadership.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Republican leadership to wake up and put America's priorities first. Our country's working families are working hard everyday to strengthen this nation and we should be working just as hard to support them.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall No. 492, I would have voted ``aye''. I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 493, and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 494. I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 495. I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 496, and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 497. On rollcall No. 498, I would have voted ``no''. On rollcall No. 499, I would have voted ``no''. On rollcall No. 500, I would have voted ``aye''. On rollcall No. 501, I would have voted ``aye''. On rollcall No. 502, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall No. 481, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 482, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 483, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 484, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 485, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 486, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 487, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 488, I would have voted ``yes.'' on rollcall No. 489, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 490, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 491, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 478. In fact, I am in strong opposition to the Davis amendment.

A sound public school system is the only way we can prepare all our children for the high skill, high wage jobs that will ensure America's leadership in the world marketplace, and will prevent dependency on welfare at home.

Public education is the backbone of our country, including here in the District of Columbia. It is why we are a great Nation. Public education is available to all. It does not discriminate, and, it must be strengthened, not weakened. Yet, there is no doubt that this amendment will profoundly harm DC public education. This amendment takes precious education dollars out of DC's public schools, and gives them to private and religious schools.

The supporters of this amendment act as if vouchers are a magic bullet for DC education. But this amendment doesn't help teachers, or give them more opportunities for professional development. This amendment doesn't build new schools or repair old ones.

That is why I oppose this amendment. Instead, we should all work with parents and educators at home, and work with each other here, to make the DC public schools the best in the world and to make sure that every child in DC gets a first class public education.

In addition, had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 479. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 480.

Had I been present during rollcall No. 463, I would have voted ``aye''. During rollcall No. 464, I would have voted ``no''. On rollcall No. 469, I would have voted ``aye''. During rollcall No. 470, I would have voted ``no''. During rollcall No. 471, I would have voted ``aye''. During rollcall No. 472, I would have voted ``aye''. During rollcall No. 473, I would have voted ``no''. During rollcall No. 474, I would have voted ``aye''. During rollcall No. 475, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor William Straus, rancher, environmentalist, and father of the family whose Straus Family Creamery has set a new standard for organic dairy products. Mr. Straus, who lived in Marshall, CA, died on July 6, 2003, at the age of 88.

Born in Hamburg, Germany, in 1914, Bill, whose father was the first German Jew to earn a doctorate in agriculture, also studied agriculture before fleeing to British-controlled Palestine in 1936. Although he planned to settle there, relatives lured him to California where they were expecting to find oil near San Luis Obispo.

No oil was found, but Bill fell in love with the land. He earned a degree in agriculture from UC Berkeley and purchased a ranch in Marshall. In 1949, fearing he would not find a Jewish girl to marry in West Marin, he traveled to New York twice to meet Amsterdam-born Ellen Prins. The couple married soon after, and Ellen moved to the ranch where she too fell in love with the rolling hills and beautiful landscape.

The Strauses soon became leaders in efforts to protect the land and to develop environmentally sound farming practices. The couple understood that ranchers and conservationists needed to work together to preserve open spaces. Bill was the first rancher to join the Marin Conservation League, and in 1980 Ellen co-founded Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT). In 1994, son Albert Straus established the first organic dairy west of the Mississippi.

Bill and Ellen created a warm, hospitable household based on their Jewish roots and were welcoming to friends, family, and a parade of visitors. Ellen Straus died last November. Bill is survived by four children and four grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, Bill Straus left a legacy based on stewardship of the land, close personal relationships, commitment to agriculture and love of the landscape. His spirit lives on in the beautiful hills of West Marin.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) for organizing this morning's discussion, because here we go. Is it not ironic that while the Nation is facing one of the biggest budget deficits in history, at least $450 billion, and I quote from the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), ``Enron happens.'' Yes, it does. And we need to be doing something about it.

Republicans can find the money to provide tax cuts for the very richest Americans and not enough for the children of America's working families. Ha. The gentleman from Kentucky said Republicans are trying their hardest. Well, I am telling my colleague, Republicans have to try harder.

This supposed party of compassionate conservatism has exploited the child tax credit issue to pass even more tax cuts for their wealthy friends. Rather than bringing up the other body's child tax credit which would have cost $3.5 billion, they passed a bill that costs $80 billion to benefit the wealthiest in this Nation.

Earlier this week, I joined my Democratic colleagues in writing a letter to President Bush requesting that he lead the Republicans in Congress to do the

right thing, to provide a tax cut that will benefit over 12 million children of working families. One million of them, I remind my colleagues, one million of them are children of military families.

Congress must not recess today without giving American workers and their families the same consideration it gives the rich.

Why did Republicans in the United States House of Representatives not follow the other body and bring a clean child tax credit bill before us? According to a colleague from the other side of the aisle, and I quote: ``If we are going to do it, we should get something in exchange. If we give people that do not pay taxes a tax break, it is welfare.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, these families do pay taxes and they are not seeking welfare. They are seeking the same acknowledgment for their hard work as the rich receive in the Republican tax package. It is unfortunate that the Republicans believe these forgotten children and families do not contribute enough to deserve a break. Their actions leave no doubt that their priorities are dead wrong.

Mr. Speaker, we want to pass this tax break and we want to do it today before we go home to enjoy our tax breaks that we have passed in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start and rob single moms of the very best childhood education for their children.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.

This Head Start bill is outrageous. It turns a program that is a proven success at improving the lives and futures of low-income children into a Federal experiment. And for the first time in this Nation's history, it repeals the law that protects employees against religious discrimination.

Head Start does a better job than any other program to narrow the school readiness gap between low-income children and their more advantaged peers. These are our Nation's most disadvantaged children, Mr. Chairman, children who face multiple barriers to learning. One year in Head Start can erase all of these barriers.

We have absolute proof that children who have been in Head Start enter kindergarten ahead of their peers from similar backgrounds but without Head Start. These children make substantial gains in specific academics during kindergarten. They end up close to all national academic norms by the end of the kindergarten year.

We know that children who complete Head Start are less likely to become delinquent and more likely to graduate from high school. Yet not only does this bill hand Head Start over to the States to do what they would do with it as a block grant, it would also lead to tens of thousands of Head Start children losing their beloved teachers for no other reason than religious prejudice. The base bill allows faith-based Head Start providers to fire thousands of dedicated Head Start teachers because of their religious beliefs or practices.

Today, Members will have the opportunity to vote for the Miller amendment, which will stop the dismantling of Head Start, and for my amendment against religious discrimination. Voting for these amendments will ensure that low-income children can continue to get the head start they need to succeed in school and to succeed in life. Without these amendments, this bill must be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It strikes the provision in the bill which would allow faith-based providers of Head Start services to discriminate based on religion against employees who are paid with public funds.

Faith-based providers are already participating in Head Start, Mr. Chairman, and they abide by current law which says they cannot discriminate based on religion when they use taxpayers' dollars to hire employees. H.R. 2210 changes that.

If H.R. 2210 becomes law with this employment discrimination exception in it, it will be the first time, the first time Congress has ever repealed a law that prohibits religious discrimination. And contrary to what my colleagues on the other side have been saying, H.R. 2210 is not consistent with title VII of the civil rights law.

Title VII allows faith-based organizations to discriminate using their own money. H.R. 2210 will allow public taxpayers' money to be used for religious discrimination.

Faith-based organizations do not want this, Mr. Chairman. That is why the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination sent a letter signed by 30 faith-based organizations asking Members to vote for the Woolsey- Edwards-Frank-Scott-Van Hollen amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise me, please, who has the right to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, can the Chair advise me how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. Chairman, the people in this country will not believe what they are hearing tonight, that this amendment will allow thousands of dedicated Head Start teachers to be fired for no other reason than religious prejudice.

Our amendment will reinstate the fundamental American protections against religious discrimination in employment. It will protect the jobs of thousands of Head Start teachers and the stability of children and families in Head Start programs.

Voting for this amendment means that my colleagues are voting against religious discrimination.

Why would anyone do otherwise?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for introducing this necessary substitute. This Head Start bill is an outrage!

H.R. 2210 it turns a program that is a proven success at improving the lives and futures of low-income children into some kind of Federal experiment. And, for the first time in this

Nation's history, it repeals a law which protects employees against religious discrimination, and Mr. Miller's substitute fixes both of these issues.

We know that children who complete Head Start are less likely to become delinquents and are more likely to graduate from high school than their peers from similar economic backgrounds. We know this and we know that voting for these amendments will ensure that low-income children can continue to get the Head Start they need to succeed in school and in life.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I hosted a townhall forum with my constituents to discuss the Republicans' prescription drug plan and how it will harm America's seniors.

As a result, I missed rollcall votes 398-400. Had I been present, I would have voted: No. 398--``yea'' No. 399--``yea'' and No. 400-- ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to protect the voices of the American people, to make sure that their voices, their opinions, and their concerns are represented on the Nation's airwaves by supporting the Hinchey-Price amendment, and add this amendment to the good amendment that the committee passed earlier.

How ironic that the United States went to war against a foreign regime whose oppression was based largely on control of information. And now, the FCC majority establishes a Saddam-style information system here in the United States. Have we learned nothing?

On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission approved a new set of media ownership rules that allow large conglomerates to devour more independent media outlets and impose the laws of the jungle on the marketplace of ideas. I support the Hinchey-Price amendment because it would essentially suspend the FCC's decision to weaken media ownership rules dealing with the cross-ownership and local TV ownership.

The Hinchey-Price amendment would preserve localism. It would preserve diversity and competition over our airwaves.

Information is not just any commodity like steel and textiles, Mr. Chairman. A vibrant democracy depends on rich intellectual exchange on the free flow of ideas from a variety of sources. This is a principle. It is a principle embedded in the first amendment on free press and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

But media consolidation stifles dissent and drowns out alternative voices, giving Americans a stale, uniform product that barely accounts for individual community values. The recent FCC rules will enrich moguls, discourage entrepreneurship, and diminish quality. Niche content like children's programming will suffer. Minority populations will go underserved. Music and entertainment would become homogenized, with large media interests also acting as the idealogical sensors. If you do not believe me, ask the Dixie Chicks.

The rules will further sever the critical bond between media outlets and their local consumers, as more journalists would answer to corporate bosses making news judgments from thousands of miles away.

If the day comes, and it had better not, that one corporation owns several radio and TV stations, the cable network, and the single newspaper in one town, we may not only have lost the freedom to speak, but the opportunity to be heard.

The airwaves belong not to the Rupert Murdochs of the world, but to the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to protect the voices of the American people by supporting the Hinchey-Price amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I believe we should respect the State authority in regards to medical marijuana, and I remind my colleagues that we are not talking about illegal drugs, we are talking about medicinal marijuana, legally supported by 10 States.

As my colleagues know, in my home State of California, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 215, allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Like my constituents, I believe that doctors should be permitted to prescribe marijuana for patients suffering from cancer, or AIDS, or glaucoma, spastic disorders, and other debilitating diseases.

The people that I represent from Marin and Sonoma Counties, Mr. Chairman, just over the Golden Gate Bridge, and my colleagues will not be surprised, it is a very progressive area in our country, but they want their doctors to be permitted to prescribe marijuana for their patients suffering from debilitating diseases; and they believe that the Federal Government should get out of the way. They should not butt in. And that is why I support this amendment, because it would stop the Justice Department from punishing those who are abiding by their State's laws.

Please join me in supporting this important amendment so that those who suffer from debilitating diseases can get relief without the fear of Federal interference.

Mr. Chairman, I call on all Members of this Congress, particularly those who believe in States' rights, to let States represent their voters. It is not okay to pick and choose where States can butt in and where they have the ultimate responsibility based on ideologies.