Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know that my district is one of the most affluent districts in this Nation? In fact, they are the people who benefit the most from the Republican tax cuts. But do my colleagues know what they are asking me, Mr. Speaker? They are saying, why in the world are the 12 million children that belong to the hardest-working families and the most struggling families in this Nation not benefiting from the child tax credit? They do not understand how these low-income families, those who work hard to make ends meet, why they cannot get a little bit so they can buy something extra for

their children, so they can possibly take a vacation, so that they can have enough money to buy shoes when the school year begins.

Mr. Speaker, I was a single mom on welfare 35 years ago, and I had three very small children, 1, 3, and 5 years old. I was working. When my kids would outgrow their shoes, two boys and a girl, and those boys grew like weeds, I am telling you, my heart would stop, because I was scared to death I might not have the money to buy them decent shoes. The people I work for who elected me, women who had been on welfare and who have walked my walk, they know, they know the difference between having it all and having enough and making sure that other people have what they need to survive also.

My constituents support the child tax credit. They want to hear just why the Republicans refuse to bring it to the floor, and they want it debated; and so do I, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor, once again tonight, to discuss the groundswell of support for an independent commission to discuss the administration's plans regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. After hearing the administration's case for war, many Americans felt they were led to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready to use against America and were on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, we may yet find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but it is now clear to many Americans that the administration overstated and misrepresented the threat that Iraq posed to the United States. Those Americans can say it better than I can.

Fred, from Ventura, California writes, ``I recently read an article that summarized the comments made by the President and members of his administration. I am deeply troubled by how incongruent these statements are with the realities after President Bush declared an end to hostilities.''

Susan from Solana Beach, California, compares the administration's untruths with recent corporate scandals, ``Enough is enough. Whatever deceptions corporate America perpetrated in the last few years, no one died and we continue to investigate. Washington must be held to a far higher standard because American lives were risked and lost on the word of the Bush administration. Without an investigation to answer these important questions about potential distortion of intelligence reports, all the tax cuts in the world will not buy my vote in future elections.''

Steve from Bakersfield was more understanding: ``If we launch a preemptive war by mistake, God help America.''

This is not God's responsibility, Mr. Speaker. It is the Congress's responsibility.

Beatrice from Redondo Beach is upset with those of us here in Congress: ``I am angry at the lack of action by our representatives against this Bush administration on their manipulation of facts in order to take our country to war.''

J. Lawrence of California seconds that and I will quote him: ``Of all things that a government does, the decision to go to war must be made openly and without manipulations. I urge you to support an independent commission to investigate the circumstances surrounding what we, the public, were told about the justification for our recent incursion into Iraq. We spent millions on a sexual dalliance but appear to have been ignoring what may have been a mass deception and manipulation of truth that in the end put U.S. citizens and soldiers in harm's way.''

Stan and Sue from Sierra Madre support an investigation also. They say: ``Never should we harm another country nor put our own sons and daughters in harm's way under false pretenses. An inquiry is one of the tools to make sure this does not happen in the future.''

Mr. Speaker, other Americans want to remind us, in the Congress, that they do not care about partisanship. They only care about getting to the truth.

Steve from Moorpark writes: ``In the interest of preserving the freedoms and liberties inherent to our Constitution, I ask you to support an independent investigation of the Bush administration's distortion of evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. No matter which political party affiliation any American favors, it is detrimental to our country, our Constitution, and our democracy to have our leaders mislead all Americans for reasons yet unknown.''

It is time to get the facts. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2625, the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) bill to create an independent commission to uncover all of the facts about the administration's claims and Iraq's weapons. It is time for Congress to stop beating around the bush and take action. Support fact finding. Support an independent commission.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman from New York's (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from Connecticut's (Mr. Shays) NEA amendment. Once again, the House of Representatives is considering an interior appropriations bill that does not include such funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts was cut drastically in 1995 by more than 40 percent, and it has never returned to adequate levels. This year the NEA and the NEH need our support more than ever before. Private funding for the arts and the humanities has diminished with the economic downturn, leaving valuable programs in jeopardy. We know that the funding we invest in the NEA and the NEH provide a huge economic return on our Federal investment both in dollars and in jobs.

The nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in economic activity every year. It creates more than 4 million jobs and $10.5 billion in Federal tax revenue. Let me say that again: $10.5 billion in Federal tax revenues. However, monetary reasons are not the only argument for increasing NEA and NEH funding. In a recent study by the Arts Education Partnership, a direct correlation was found between art education, cognitive capacity, and the motivation to learn.

Participation in the arts and humanities can also be a source of pride and positive self-esteem. I have been a witness to this during my district's congressional art competition. Students of all ages were present and proudly displayed the objects of their hard work.

These young people gained more than praise. They gained self-respect, a feeling they will carry in all of their endeavors.

In addition, NEA programs such as Challenge America are using art as a means to bring communities together. Along with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and the National Guild of Community Schools, Challenge America has started a program that offers arts instruction to children living in public housing.

When we deprive the NEA and NEH of the funds it needs, we deprive this entire Nation of an active cultural community. We live in the richest nation in the world, Mr. Chairman. We must not be the most culturally impoverished.

The arts teach us to think. They encourage us to feel, to see in a new way and to speak. They help us to grow.

The Slaughter-Shays amendment to increase funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities is a very small investment. It is an investment with a return as vast as the imagination.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my time out of order.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Marin and Sonoma counties in California are as deeply concerned as the gentlewoman from Illinois' (Ms. Schakowsky) constituents are about their sons and their daughters dying in Iraq and the rationale the Republican administration has used to put them there.

Americans are willing to sacrifice, Mr. Speaker, but only when those sacrifices are clearly justified. The lack of confidence my constituents show in our current White House results in the American people being unsure that their sacrifice in Iraq is justified.

One of my constituents, Nina, from Sausalito writes, ``I believe the majority of Americans are good-hearted people who would not have supported the war on Iraq had they understood the true motivations for it. I believe that the administration knew this, and actively distorted information it gave the people in order to gain public support. We are supposed to live in a democracy, but how can we truly be a nation run by the people and for the people if our government is not open and honest in its communications with us?''

Some people think that Nina's suspicions, Mr. Speaker, are ridiculous. They cannot imagine how anyone could mistrust their leadership.

I understand that. After 9-11 we all wanted to trust our Nation's leaders completely, but now our complacency is being shaken. A Walter Pincus article in today's Washington Post reads: ``Between October 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and January 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors.''

The issue, Mr. Speaker, is that people like Nina believe that when you are talking about war, it is not morally acceptable to send soldiers to early graves unless the evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

People who supported war in Iraq argue that the evidence was overwhelming, but that begs the question. If the evidence was so overwhelming, why was the indisputable evidence kept secret while citing disputed evidence over and over again?

My constituents do not think that adds up.

Paul from Mill Valley says it very simply: ``We, the people, deserve to know if the principal justification that was used to commit this country to war in Iraq was true or a fabrication to manipulate public opinion.''

And James from Greenbrae writes that the disgust is bipartisan: ``As a registered Republican, I too have had it.'' That is a very serious statement, and that is why we need a thorough bipartisan investigation into Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Stephanie from Sonoma had some instructions for me also: ``Support an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's distortion of evidence. The facts that have begun to come out are so alarming it would be a travesty to let this go without investigation.''

Graham from Santa Rosa also had some advice about an investigation: ``If there was no wrong doing, then the Bush administration should have nothing to worry about.''

Mr. Speaker, it is time to get the facts. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Waxman bill, H.R. 2625, for an independent bipartisan commission to investigate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. We should not be afraid of the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about something that is truly scary, the President's credibility gap. The fact that Members of Congress, the American people, and our international allies can no longer trust the evidence President Bush uses to justify war is a terrible threat to his credibility and, therefore, to America's security.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Do not take my word for it. Listen to one of my constituents, Roy, from San Rafael. He writes:

I was one of those who, traumatized by 9/11, trusted our

government to lead us down the right path based on

indisputable evidence and sound judgment. I supported their

decision to go to war. I deserve to know if I was duped.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that many people in this country are faced with a similar and terrible dilemma. Are they to believe whether or not the administration lied to them? Are they to believe that the White House is inept, that they based a decision to send young Americans to die on faulty information?

Another constituent of mine, William, from Sebastopol, wrote about what President Bush's untruths meant to him:

I love my country but I am not very proud of it right

now. This administration must answer for their deception.

Business as usual is not acceptable.

And Reede from Forest Knolls, California, sums up exactly why the White House must talk about these untruths and their unwillingness to come clean about them:

There is nothing more essential to democracy than

information. The administration's calculated disinformation

campaign about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is a direct

attack upon our most cherished democratic values. Such

flagrant contempt for the right of the people to control

their government is unacceptable.

After September 11, Mr. Speaker, we all wanted to trust. We wanted to give our administration the benefit of the doubt. However, it is increasingly obvious that it is either not worthy of that trust, or it is simply not trustworthy. Either way, the administration must be held accountable for the untruths that came out of their mouths.

Don and Pam, two of my constituents from Santa Rosa, write,

One of the Bush administration's favorite words is

accountability. But because of their obsession with secrecy

and control, they have successfully avoided making themselves

accountable. Reasons for going to war in Iraq and, beyond

that, the Bush foreign policy, including preemptive strikes

and unilateral action, demands accountability, accountability

through thorough investigation.

Mr. Speaker, Americans want answers. They want answers from their administration, and they are getting the runaround.

My constituent, Patrick from Sebastopol, writes,

The administration's repeated use of the phrase, ``attempts

to rewrite history'' is unbelievable. They are the ones

attempting to rewrite history.

The simple fact is that the American people demand answers, and it is now up to Congress to get them.

Landis, from my own hometown, Petaluma, says it perfectly:

It is very important to be able to trust one's government.

We don't always need to agree, but we do need to believe that

our government is working in our best interests. Even if the

current administration is able to fool many Americans, it is

not fooling the world. Until an independent commission

investigates possible manipulations of intelligence data, the

world and, indeed, many Americans, will not be able to trust

that the Bush administration is working in America's best

interest.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for a meaningful investigation into the administration's statements. The people I work for in Marin and Sonoma Counties and Americans across the country are demanding an investigation, and Congress must carry it out. I am pleased to add my voice to those of my constituents and join the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) in his call for a bipartisan investigation into weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey/Miller Amendment, which would protect millions of workers from losing their overtime pay.

If the Bush Administration's proposed changes take effect, 79 percent of the workers in this country will lose their guaranteed right to overtime pay, 79% (8 out of every 10 workers). This is not just bad policy, it's piracy. It is a slap in the face to any effort for economic recovery. Mr. Speaker, how many CEO's do you know who would work without their pay?

Under the Bush Administration's proposal, workers will be working the same long hours they now work--in fact, probably longer hours, without overtime compensation. That's why the Obey/Miller Amendment ensures that ``no'' public funds can be used to take away the overtime rights of workers.

It is tough enough on families that are forced to spend long hours away from their families to earn a living, and commute long distances, now under this bill they won't even be compensated for their extra time. Join me in voting for this amendment to make certain that workers and families are not shortchanged by the Bush policies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee for a good bill.

H.R. 438 is a good bill as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. One thing it does not do is provide loan forgiveness for Head Start teachers, and this is a big mistake. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, which is the committee working on the Head Start reauthorization, our committee has heard witness after witness, and both Republican and Democrat agree on the importance of having teachers with 4-year degrees in the Head Start programs. In fact, one of the provisions in the Head Start reauthorization bill that has strong bipartisan support is a goal to have 50 percent of Head Start teachers with a BA degree by the year 2008.

This is another of the Republicans' classic case of not putting their money where their mouth is. We can talk all we want about a good goal and how much this goal will help our kids, but if the teachers cannot get their BA degrees and at the same time afford to teach in Head Start, then what does that goal mean?

Salaries for Head Start teachers are much lower than the salaries for other similar teaching positions. Currently, the average salary for teaching in a public school prekindergarten program is close to double the average salary of a Head Start teacher with the exact same education. I think that anyone who becomes a preschool teacher is a pretty selfless, devoted person, but let us get real. Very few people, no matter how devoted they are, can afford to choose a job that pays half of what another job pays for almost the exact same work.

If we would offer Head Start teachers help with paying their Federal student loans, that could make up for some of the salary difference. Student loan forgiveness would allow more teachers with 4-year degrees to teach in a Head Start program, and current Head Start teachers at the same time could go on and get their BA degrees while continuing to work at Head Start.

I worry that 5 years from now, unless we invest in these teachers, when we are again reviewing Head Start, Members are going to say, see, it does not do any good to try to get teachers with BA degrees into Head Start and use that as a mark against a Head Start program.

Democrats offered amendments to include Head Start teachers in H.R. 438 every step along the way when we were considering the Head Start bill; but regretfully, the majority defeated these inclusions on a party line vote over and over again. Including Head Start teachers in H.R. 438 would make it a much better bill.

Mr. Speaker, including Head Start teachers in the bill would help millions of low-income children get the head start that they need in life.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Thompson of California and I rise today, to recognize Bill Barrett who is retiring this month after twenty-six and a half years with the United States Postal Service.

Mr. Barrett began his career as a letter carrier in Milpitas, California in 1976. In 1978 he worked briefly in his hometown of Yakima, Washington before returning to Milpitas, where he worked until 1985. He spent the last eighteen years of his career in Santa Rosa, California.

During this time Mr. Barrett also served his co-workers as a Trustee of the National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 183 from 1987 to 2002, and as Legislative Liaison from 1994 to 1998. He has also been a District Officer with the California State Association of Letter Carriers from 1998 to the present.

Prior to his career with the USPS, Mr. Barrett was a Staff Sergeant in the United States Air Force and served a tour of duty in Vietnam from 1968 to 1970. He is also active with his military service group, Blind Bat.

Mr. Barrett and his wife, Fran, are very proud of their two daughters, Amy, 26 and Missy, 22.

In his retirement, Mr. Barrett plans to continue his work with persons with special needs and to travel on his new motorcycle, with its special license plate that reads: XMAILMN.

His other hobbies are reading and researching genealogy on his computer.

Mr. Speaker, Bill Barrett has been a dedicated public servant all of his adult life, both in service to his country in the U.S. military and as an employee with the United States Postal Service. It is appropriate that we honor him today for his many contributions.

Mr. Speaker, this sham Republican bill fails to provide women with the real prescription drug coverage they need and they deserve.

Here we are, again, discussing ways to help seniors afford the prescription drugs that they need. And once again, the majority insists on a sham proposal that gives seniors nothing more than a false sense of security.

My female colleagues and I would like to remind everyone that as we debate proposals to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, the decisions we make will overwhelmingly impact our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and aunts. Women are living longer than ever, and longer than men--this is good news. However, the poverty that many women experience during their final years is certainly not good news.

There are several reasons women's ``golden years'' are not so golden. While most women have worked their entire lives, a good portion of this work was not in the paid workforce. You don't earn a pension for time spent caring for children or elderly parents.

When many of our mothers and grandmothers were in the workforce, they were denied equal pay for equal work. Some worked only part time, trying to balance the responsibilities of their jobs and their families. As a result, they've made less over their lifetimes--and now their monthly Social Security benefit is smaller. These women deserve financial stability, and still, the Republican prescription drug proposal denies them the security that comes with knowing that can afford to pay for their medical care.

No one needs a drug benefit more than elderly women. But instead of a real prescription drug benefit, all they are getting from the majority are empty promises, a ``donut hole'' coverage gap, and increased premiums for the services they already enjoy. Our mothers and grandmothers deserve better. We can and we must do better. Oppose this sham Republican plan, and support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is a question of priorities, and it's a question of values. Under the Republican plan, after seniors have incurred $2,000 in prescription drug benefits, they will still pay a premium, but they better not expect anything in return. And why is that?

It's because just last week, the Republican leadership decided that they would rather eliminate estate taxes for millionaires than help seniors afford prescription drugs. They insisted on spending a total of $820 billion to help 8,000 millionaires. For almost the same cost, we could give millions of seniors a real prescription drug benefit.

Millionaires or millions of seniors? The Republicans give new meaning to the phrase ``better off dead.'' If you're rich and dead, Republicans don't want you to lose a dime. But if you're alive and can't afford the high cost of prescription drugs--well, good luck.

You might want to be dead. I dare my Republican colleagues to tell their mothers what they're doing to Medicare.

My priority is giving every American senior a real prescription drug benefit, like the one in the Democratic alternative. Oppose the Republican bill, support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on H. Res. 294, a measure expressing solidarity with the people of Israel and condemning the terrorist attacks inflicted on them since the Aqaba Summit. The timing could not be any more ironic. Today as we consider this one- sided resolution on the Mideast, there are reports of a ceasefire taking hold that underlines the need for America to find a way to condemn violence in a way that does not favor one set of innocent victims over another. Unfortunately, this resolution does not meet this standard. Instead, this resolution, in its present form, will do more to take us away from peace than to bring us closer to an agreement that serves the needs and desires of all people in the Middle East.

That is not to say that I disagree with the text of this resolution: I condemn, in the strongest terms, all terrorist attacks against Israelis and remain committed to Israel's security and the well-being of Israeli citizens. Brutal attacks against civilians are always unacceptable and as a sovereign nation, Israel has the right to defend itself from these kinds of attacks. But, this resolution, which does not address the losses on both sides, sends the wrong message to Israelis, Palestinians, and the world community.

My concern is also that this resolution does not endorse the ``roadmap'' for peace, nor does it recognize the commitments and obligations that Israel must implement for the peace process to move forward. Furthermore,, it does not recognize the terrible pain and suffering that Israeli occupation and crackdown has caused in the disputed territories. We need to condemn Palestinian terrorists, but acknowledge the honorable goals of peace-loving Palestinians that want nothing more than a better life. This Congress should recognize the pain of every mother that has lost an innocent child because of violence in the Mideast, not only Israeli mothers.

Mr. Speaker I share the anger and sadness of my colleagues who have brought this resolution regarding the Mideast to the floor. But, I am convinced that this resolution will not advance the prospects for the lasting peace that we all want, which, is why I will vote against it.

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

I rise to support the Lee amendment. I thank the ranking member for her support. As this House, our Nation and

the world debate the quality of the intelligence that the war in Iraq was fought over, it is too easy to forget that our troops were not the first to search the Iraqi desert for weapons of mass destruction. United Nations inspectors spent a decade searching for and destroying illegal Iraqi weapons facilities, but in the days and months leading up to the war, they were scorned for their failure to find weapons of mass destruction.

This resolution calls on the GAO to investigate how much cooperation the United States intelligence agencies gave United Nations inspectors. Understanding about that cooperation with the United Nations, or lack thereof, will give us a better picture of the efforts this Nation took to avoid war with Iraq. If America did not fully share its intelligence with U.N. inspectors, Congress needs to find out why.

The fact is that the rhetoric leading up to the war in Iraq led many Americans to believe that finding weapons of mass destruction would be absolutely easy, that the U.N. inspectors must have been grossly incompetent. But I do not believe that to be true and I think that our inability to find weapons of mass destruction now requires the United States to reexamine the rhetoric and the events that led up to the war. We need to find out beyond reports from USA Today if our U.S. intelligence agencies were cooperating fully with the U.N. inspectors. And we need to find out if the prewar rhetoric reflected the intelligence we shared with the United Nations.

This amendment is about getting answers to questions that we are all asking in this country. I urge my colleagues to support the Lee amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) said, this is deja vu all over again. Here we are, once again, discussing ways to help seniors afford the prescription drugs that they need and must have and, once again, the majority insists on a sham proposal that gives seniors nothing more than a false sense of security.

I am here tonight with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) to remind everyone that as we debate proposals to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, the decisions we make

will overwhelmingly impact the mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and aunts across this country. Women are living longer than ever, and they are living longer than men. That is good news. However, the poverty that many women experience during their final years is certainly not good news.

There are several reasons women's golden years are not so golden. While most women have worked their entire lives, a good portion of this work was not in the paid workforce. You do not earn a pension for the time spent caring for children or elderly parents. When many of our mothers and grandmothers were in the workforce, they were denied equal pay for equal work, therefore earning less. Some worked only part-time, trying to balance the responsibilities of their jobs and their families. As a result, they have made less over their lifetimes, and now their monthly Social Security benefit is considerably smaller than their male counterparts.

These women deserve financial stability and still, the Republican prescription drug proposal denies them the security that comes with knowing that they can afford to pay for their medical care. Not only will the majority's plan not help senior women, it will push Medicare beneficiaries into HMOs, creating more instability. I am not speculating; I have watched it happen in my district.

Just a few years ago, the Health Plan of the Redwoods, a good, small HMO that served my constituents in Sonoma and Marin Counties, went bankrupt. After first limiting services and physician payments, they had to close their doors. This bankruptcy interrupted care for a number of my constituents, a great number of them senior women.

We should not force Medicare beneficiaries to accept the same kind of instability in exchange for a prescription drug benefit. The Republican plan ignores the proverbial 800-pound elephant in the room: the astronomically high prices of prescription drugs.

Take a minute and think about the reason our senior women cannot afford prescription drugs. It is because prescription drugs are too expensive. To me, it is good, old-fashioned, common sense that we should take steps that address the root of the problem and find ways to reduce these prices. But the majority apparently does not enjoy the same common sense that my democratic colleagues and I do.

Their plan specifically forbids the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower prescription drug prices. Can my colleagues imagine that? The Republican plan prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from trying to make the cost of prescription drugs lower.

Private insurance companies then must on their own negotiate with far less bargaining power. The Veterans Administration has proven that negotiating can result in lower prices, but the Republicans have once again proven that they care more about the profits of the pharmaceutical companies than the bottom lines or about senior women.

Many older women have little or no financial security. But there is one thing even more dangerous than that, and that is a false sense of security. Millions of women will read the newspapers; they will be delighted to learn that there is now a Medicare prescription drug benefit. But imagine their surprise, imagine the surprise of the typical elderly woman when she learns that her so-called benefit will require her to pay $4,000 of the first $5,000 in annual drug expenses. And that is on top of a monthly premium that is yet to be determined.

Frankly, I find it shameful that the majority claims that they are delivering a drug benefit to seniors when in reality the plan will cover only a small portion of their expenses. And it will actually outlaw practical steps to reduce these expenses in the first place. I dare my Republican colleagues to tell their mothers what they are doing to Medicare.

After a lifetime of hard work, both in and out of the home, our mothers and grandmothers deserve better than this fraudulent plan the republicans are pushing. We can do better and we must.