Floor Statements

Thank you very much. And thank you so much, Congressman Ellison, for doing this every single week for the Progressive Caucus because we do have a progressive message, and by the end of the day, we sometimes think that we are too tired to come down here and talk about our message.

We are in the middle of a health care debate right here in the House of Representatives. And as Congressman Rangel told us, two of the committees have marked up, written, and are ready to present their health care bills. One of the committees is Ways and Means, the other one is Education and Labor. The Energy and Commerce Committee is working on it right now. And we're going to leave before the end of the week, and we're going to go off while our leadership and the heads of those three committees put the bill together out of these three committees.

One of the committees, what's happening in Energy and Commerce, the progressives disagree with very, very severely. So we have written a letter to our leadership, to the Speaker and the three chairmen of these committees who will be writing this, pulling these bills together, laying out what the progressives in this Congress stand for, once again, regarding health care.

I'm going to read this letter because I think it's very important. We have 57 Members of the House of Representatives who have signed this letter just today.

I'm reading it to make sure it is in the Record.

It says: ``Dear Madam Speaker, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rangel, and Chairman Miller, we write to voice our opposition to the negotiated health care reform agreement under consideration in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

``We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman with several Blue Dog members of the committee as fundamentally unacceptable. This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill but a large step backwards.

``Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates, not negotiated rates, is unacceptable. It would ensure higher costs for the public plan and would do nothing to achieve the goal of keeping insurance companies honest and their rates down.

``To offset the increased costs incurred by adopting the provisions advocated by the Blue Dog members of the committee, the agreement would reduce subsidies to low- and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, and would impose an unfunded mandate on the States to pay for what were to have been Federal costs.

``In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying even higher rates to insurance companies. We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.''

That is what this letter is all about. We just want the Chairs of all three committees, when they moosh the three bills together, to know that the Ways and Means Committee and the Education and Labor Committee have bills that we can support. Do not weaken those bills with what is being proposed in the Energy and Commerce Committee this week. That is our goal. And it was not only Progressive Caucus members. It was also the TriCaucus that signed onto this, which is the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Asian American Caucus.

So this is our letter. This is what we stand for, and this is what we're hoping we will have when we are voting for real health care reform later this fall.

Mr. Speaker, at least 46 million Americans are uninsured. By

the end of the day, 14,000 more Americans will lose their coverage. Over the past decade, health care costs have risen on average four times faster than workers' earnings. We cannot wait. We must act now with reform that guarantees that everyone has access to high quality care, regardless of income, employment or preexisting conditions. We also must bring down the cost of care to make health insurance affordable for everyone.

That's why we must pass a bill with a robust public plan, a plan without a trigger. A robust public plan will increase competition. It will bring down costs. The public plan must be tied to the current Medicare provider network infrastructure and rates so that it will be able to start immediately. This connection will also increase the savings provided by a public plan. We must pass a health bill with a robust public plan, and we must pass it now. The American people cannot go any longer without high quality, affordable coverage.

Mr. Speaker, one of President Obama's greatest challenges has been to restore America's moral leadership and reputation in the world because it sunk to new lows under the previous administration.

To achieve this goal, the President has taken several important steps. He has renounced the use of torture. He has called for a nuclear-free world. He has reached out to the Muslim world, and he has promised to emphasize diplomacy and international cooperation.

We are now seeing the results of these changes. Last week, the Pew Global Attitudes Project reported the results of its latest survey of opinions about the United States. It found that the image of the United States has improved significantly under President Obama. People in Western Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia now have a much more positive opinion of the United States. America's reputation has even improved, Mr. Speaker, in some countries which are predominantly Muslim.

The survey also compared attitudes about President Obama and Osama bin Laden in the Muslim world. For the first time in the survey's history, people in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria, and Indonesia have a better opinion of the American President than bin Laden.

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged that the people of the world have more trust and respect for America these days. It means our moral authority is being restored, and moral authority matters. When America is trusted, we have a much greater capacity for global leadership.

But even though our country's good name is being restored throughout the world, there is much more to be done. Most importantly, we need a foreign policy based on the principles of ``smart power.''

Smart power emphasizes preventing war instead of preemptive war. It relies on diplomacy and international cooperation instead of military occupation, and it gives the people of the world the hope and the opportunity they need to reject a life of violence and hatred.

The principles of smart power are included in my ``Smart Security Platform for the 21st Century,'' which I have proposed in House Resolution 363. The Smart Platform calls for America to work with multilateral organizations to cut off funding and support for extremist networks. It strengthens international intelligence and law enforcement operations to track down extremists while respecting civil liberties. It helps eliminate the root causes of instability by promoting economic development, Third World debt relief, conflict resolution, global health programs, and universal education. It increases support for civil society, which plays a key role in stopping violence. It reduces our dependence on foreign oil by investing in renewable alternatives.

Smart calls for diplomatic efforts enhanced by inspection regimes and regional security arrangements to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. It calls for the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by the Senate, and it provides adequate funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure nuclear materials in Russia and other countries.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for America to start relying on smart power to protect our country because the smarter we are, the safer we are going to be.

Madam Speaker, on July 23, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 625.

Had I been present I would have voted:

Rollcall No. 625--``no''--Neugebauer of Texas Part A Amendment No. 11

I thank the chairman for all of your hard work on this bill.

As the chairman knows, there is a project in my district named the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit project. We call it SMART. When fully up and running, SMART will be a 70-mile passenger rail system that connects 14 stations and runs right through the heart of my district.

This project is vital because it eases congestion on the major transportation artery, Highway 101, by providing an alternative mode of transportation. This is a very popular project, and actually, last November, voters in my district passed a quarter-cent sales tax measure by over two-thirds majority to raise money for SMART. So it has the support of the community when a simple majority votes on a tax measure like that.

Not only is SMART a train, but the project also includes 70 miles of bike and pedestrian paths to run alongside the tracks, which revolutionizes transportation in my district.

Unfortunately, while SMART received nearly $2 million in last year's Transportation-HUD bill, there are no funds in this bill this year, and it is my hope that as SMART moves into the New Starts process that the chairman will work with me to support this important transportation project.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, five American soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan so far this week. That brings the death toll in July to 31, making this the deadliest month for our troops since the conflict in Afghanistan began.

We also passed another tragic milestone this week. According to official Department of Defense statistics, over 5,000 American troops have now died in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined.

Of course, the human tragedy is even greater than that, because the 5,000 figure doesn't include the number of wounded American troops or the casualties suffered by the troops of other nations. It also doesn't include Iraqi civilian casualties or the military family members whose lives have been devastated. The human tragedy is so great, you can't really calculate it. And of course you must add in the Afghanistan civilian casualties as well.

What has been the reaction of this, in this Congress to the catastrophe? Well, we have passed yet another supplemental funding bill to keep the fighting going. But the situation in Afghanistan is becoming more and more dangerous. The U.S. Command expects that roadside or suicide bombings against our troops will be 50 percent higher this year than last year. In the first week of June, alone, there were more than 400 attacks, the highest level since 2001. And the Pentagon has admitted that we are losing troops at an alarming rate.

I voted against the supplemental funding bill because 90 percent of it pays for the military-only approach that has been such a failure in Afghanistan. Less than 10 percent of the supplemental goes to pay for the nonmilitary activities that can actually prevent extremism in Afghanistan. These include economic development, reconstruction, humanitarian aid, civil affairs, and diplomacy. Even National Security Advisor James Jones has said that nonmilitary approaches are vital and that they have always been lagging.

Well, it's time for them to stop lagging, Mr. Speaker. It's time to put those ideas front and center. We must also launch a new regional diplomatic surge that engages Afghanistan's neighbors in efforts to help the Afghan people and strengthen the central government's ability to deliver services and protect the citizens.

In addition to Afghanistan, we must also pay attention to other parts of the world where extremists take advantage of poverty and lack of opportunity to recruit new members. In these areas, America must invest in basic human needs like jobs, like health, education, education especially for girls and women who are often completely shut out of the classroom.

This is what the people want. This is what they need from America, not more innovations, not more occupations. This is what will bring real hope for the people's future, and this is what will help to avoid adding extremists in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, by changing and by supporting smart power over other priorities and goals, we can give the people of Afghanistan help. We can help them build a stable and functioning state. We can save the lives of our troops, and we can go a long way toward defeating extremism and stopping those who threaten our security--oh, and it would save billions of dollars as well.

Madam Speaker, the administration is currently reviewing our military strategy in Afghanistan. General McChrystal, the leader of U.S. and NATO forces, is expected to give his report to the President in just a few weeks.

But the President isn't the only one who should be reviewing our policy. Every Member of this House should be reviewing our policy too, because we are once again relying on the military

option, just like we did in Iraq. And that's just not the best way to stop the violent extremists who threaten us.

If you need proof of that, just remember that al Qaeda has launched more attacks since 9/11 than before 9/11. And our National Intelligence Estimates have warned us that al Qaeda is getting stronger--stronger-- not weaker. And if you need even more proof, Madam Speaker, that military force doesn't work, I urge you to read the RAND Corporation report entitled ``How Terrorist Groups End.''

RAND studied 648 extremists groups that existed between 1968 and 2006. It found that military force was effective against these groups only 7 percent of the time. In its analysis, RAND discovered two strategies that actually worked better. The first was negotiated political settlements; the second was the use of intelligence and police agencies to penetrate and disrupt extremist organizations. Combined, these two strategies were effective 83 percent of the time.

RAND applied its analysis to al Qaeda and concluded that ``policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts.'' And they believe this to be true in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. This is because ``al Qaeda consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested,'' which requires the cooperation of U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies.

RAND also said that America ``should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase'' the recruitment of violent extremists.

Madam Speaker, instead of using military force, we must change our mission in Afghanistan. We must use the far more effective tools of SMART power. SMART power can do a much better job of ending violent extremism than bombs, bullets, invasions, and occupations.

In this session of Congress, I have introduced House Resolution 363, the SMART Security Platform For the 21st century. It calls for strengthening intelligence and law enforcement agencies to track and arrest those involved in violent acts, while still respecting the rule of law.

SMART security also calls for improvements in civilian policing. A well-trained police force is a highly effective counterinsurgency tool because it is located where the extremists actually lurk. My SMART security platform also includes many other initiatives to provide for stopping extremism in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. SMART security addresses the root causes of violence and it encourages diplomatic and multilateral action. It promotes nuclear nonproliferation, and it ends our dependence on foreign oil.

Madam Speaker, the death toll in Afghanistan is on the rise. A summer of heavy fighting is ahead of us. Let's stop this bloodshed before we have another Iraq on our hands. Let's do the smart thing. Let's change our strategy before it's too late.

Madam Speaker, President Obama has said that our Nation's policy in Afghanistan rests on a three-legged stool. The three legs are: One, security, which means more troops; two, economic development; and three, helping the Afghan Government to do a better job of serving the needs of the Afghan people.

Last week, National Security Adviser James L. Jones gave a frank assessment about the strategy. He made it clear that the most important leg of the strategy is economic development. This is what he said, and I quote him: ``This war will not be won by the military alone. We tried that for years. The piece of our strategy that has to work in the next year is economic development. If that is not done right, there are not enough troops in the world to succeed.''

Madam Speaker, I welcome Jones' comments and agree with him completely about the importance of economic development. The administration must commit more to the economic strategy.

Look at the supplemental funding bill for Afghanistan which Congress passed last month and which I voted against and you will see that we have our priorities wrong. Ninety percent of the bill's funding goes toward purely military operations, while only 10 percent goes to support smart power, which includes economic development, humanitarian aid, and diplomacy. Madam Speaker, a 90/10 split favoring a military option is a doomed strategy that has virtually no chance of succeeding.

To win the battle for Afghanistan, we must show the Afghan people that the United States is helping build better lives for themselves. But after 7 years of occupation, the Afghan people don't see enough evidence that their lives are better now than they were before we arrived. In fact, in some ways, their lives have worsened. That's because we relied almost exclusively on the military leg of the stool and ignored economic development and the other elements of smart power. As a result, some Afghans now join the Taliban out of a sense of resentment and frustration. Some support the Taliban simply because they are poor and the Taliban will pay them.

Mariam Nawabi, a former senior adviser to the Afghan American Chamber of Commerce and an activist for Afghan women, recently was asked what advice she would give President Obama, and here's what she said: ``I would tell him to direct more money into economic development and the creation of jobs. To end the violence, the money needs to reach the villages. If the money doesn't get to the village itself, there is no change and the young men are left without support and become fodder for the Taliban.''

Madam Speaker, we must redirect our mission in Afghanistan. We must shift our resources towards a civilian surge, a surge of experts and workers who can help the Afghan people to develop their economy, and our military forces actually could be redirected to support these efforts. We must also have a diplomatic surge, a surge that engages all of Afghanistan's neighbors in an effort to assist the Afghan people and shore up the central government.

In addition, we must develop a series of rigorous metrics to evaluate the progress of these efforts and report the results to the Congress of the United States and to the American people which will then send the message that our involvement in Afghanistan is not open-ended. We can also use this process to develop a timeline for the full redeployment of our troops and military contractors out of Afghanistan.

And finally, Madam Speaker, the government of Kabul must eliminate corruption. They must respect the rule of law and show that it is working on behalf of the Afghan people.

Madam Speaker, the previous administration failed in Afghanistan because it did not understand the importance of smart power. President Obama does. That's an important step forward. But our next step is to put smart power to work, which will bring peace to Afghanistan, and it will strengthen America's national security.

Madam Speaker, on July 9, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 506 and No. 511.

Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 506--no--Flake of Arizona Part D Amendment No. 4; rollcall No. 511--yes--Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, on July 8, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 495-496.

Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 495--``yes''-- Supporting National Men's Health Week; rollcall No. 496--``no''--On Motion to Adjourn.

I thank the chairwoman and applaud her leadership on behalf of women's health. No one in Congress has done more to prioritize the needs of women and children in our foreign assistance spending.

As you well know, Madam Chairwoman, every minute somewhere in the world a woman dies during pregnancy or childbirth. In the poorest regions, one out of 22 women will die from these causes compared to one in 4,800 in the United States. In the developing world, mothers routinely face death or injury as a result of uncontrolled bleeding, infection, seizures, hypertensive disorders, birth obstruction, or other complications.

A pregnancy should be a joyful time in a woman's life, not a death threat.

The good news is that practical interventions exist. We just need to leverage the necessary resources and sufficiently focus our assistance on maternal health.

I thank the chairwoman. I look forward to working with her on this issue to ensure that not one more mother has to replace a birth announcement with a death notice.

Madam Speaker, after more than 6 years of foreign occupation, occupation that never should have happened in the first place, American combat troops have been withdrawn from Iraqi cities. This has led some people to believe that the conflict is over. But our troops remain in danger so long as they continue to stay in Iraq. And the suffering of the Iraqi people, especially the refugees, hasn't ended either.

A report issued last month by the International Rescue Committee described the bleak lives of the Iraqi refugees who have come to the United States to escape the violence in their home country. We admitted over 13,800 Iraqi refugees in the year 2008. Many of them had to come here because they worked for the United States military or the United States Government in Iraq and they became targets for retaliation as a result.

A large number of the refugees are war widows with young children. They are grieving over the loss of their loved ones, and many are suffering war-related emotional distress or injuries. While the refugees are grateful to be in America, most are frustrated and even in despair. The International Rescue Committee says, A flawed U.S. refugee admissions program is resettling Iraqi refugees into poverty rather than helping them rebuild their lives.

The committee says that the Federal program designed to help the refugees doesn't meet their basic needs. The resettlement program is badly underfunded and newly arriving refugees get a mere pittance. The United States State Department provides $900 to each refugee. The refugees are also eligible for State assistance, which varies from State to State, but which averages about $575 a month.

In addition, the refugees are eligible for Medicaid or a Federal medical assistance program, but the program runs out after 8 months. With this tiny amount of assistance, the refugees are supposed to pay rent, utilities, food, clothes, transportation and all the other expenses of daily life.

Put yourself in their shoes. If you were a refugee, already suffering from trauma and injury, could you and your family make it in a country that is as high cost as the United States of America with so little help?

The refugees are searching for jobs to help pay the bills, but we know how hard that is. And in Atlanta, for example, only 25 percent of the Iraqi refugees have been able to find jobs when they were here for over 6 months. Resettlement agencies, which received State Department funding, are struggling to do as much as they can, and they are providing a number of very important services, but their resources are dwindling because of the recession.

As a result of all these problems, Madam Speaker, many of the refugees are destitute and facing eviction from their homes. Some are wondering if they should have stayed in Iraq, even though their lives would have been in danger.

Madam Speaker, the Iraqi refugee in our country deserves better. The International Rescue Committee has called for an increase in Federal assistance to help alleviate the situation. We must support them by doing more.

We had a hand in their upheaval. Now we must give them a hand in their new country. We have a moral obligation to act.

Mr. Chair, while I cannot support H.R. 2647, this legislation does contain important provisions regarding family and medical leave for military families.

Last session, Congress passed--also in a Defense Authorization bill-- legislation to provide military families with up to 26 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for injured servicemembers. I had introduced this bill in the House, and its provisions implement one of the recommendations of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors, chaired by Secretary Donna Shalala and Senator Bob Dole.

Also included in the final legislation was an amendment introduced by Representative Altmire (with then Representative Udall) to provide up to 12 weeks of leave for military families who need this leave to deal with qualifying exigencies arising out of the deployment of a servicemember to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Once this legislation became law, and the Bush Department of Labor issued regulations, we realized that corrections needed to be made to these FMLA provisions to truly effectuate their purpose to assist military families when these families need time off from work. Section 585 of H.R. 2647 does just that; and clarifies:

That family members of certain seriously ill and injured veterans are entitled to the 26 weeks of leave; and

That the family members of regular active servicemembers (and not just reservists and members of the national guard) are entitled to 12 weeks of leave for ``exigencies'' when they are deployed away from home.

Finally, Section 585 provides that exigency leave will be available when a servicemember is to be deployed anywhere overseas and not just overseas in support of a contingency operation (e.g. Iraq or Afghanistan).

The FMLA is intended to help individuals balance their family and work obligations. Millions of working people are now eligible for unpaid job protected leave. When the Act was passed in 1993, it was a giant step and is of great importance to working families.

Since a majority of military spouses work, they too must balance work and family. They work to put food on the table and support their families. But they face additional challenges because their lives are disrupted by multiple deployments, involving not only reservists and members in the National Guard, but those servicemembers in regular active duty as well.

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in over 34,000 casualties with many servicemembers being seriously wounded. These injured warriors need substantial support and care from their families, often for long periods of time, and some permanently. In addition, a recent Pentagon study found that 11 percent of Iraq veterans and 20 percent of Afghanistan veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome, an often disabling condition.

The expansion of the FMLA to include leave for military families was much needed. The provisions of Section 585 in H.R. 2647 help clarify the original intent of the law.

Madam Speaker, on June 26, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 465.

Had I been present I would have voted:

Rollcall No. 465--``yea''--On Ordering the Previous Question.

So the previous question was ordered.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Madam Speaker, as a mother and grandmother, the health of our earth is at the top of my list of concerns so that my kids and grandkids aren't left with the messes we've created. For too long, we have ignored the warning signs that human activity is having a negative impact on our environment. It's up to us to change our ways, use our brains, and stop our bad behavior.

The facts are clear. The time for debate on whether or not global climate change exists is over. What we need to do now, is address the problem before it's too late. We need to listen to the world scientific community, and act immediately to curb our carbon emissions. That's why I support H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

The single most important part of this bill is that it puts in place the federal structure to, for the first time, seriously regulate carbon emissions that are adversely affecting our climate. And with proper oversight and science--with the right people in charge--this bill will do what we need to do.

Now, it's never easy to change the status quo. There's a lot of money out there for people who would continue the practices that we know are harmful to all of us. And we all know how that money can be used to muddy the issues and derail the will of the people.

The plain fact of the matter is this: Without this bill, without a strict regime for controlling carbon emissions, Big Oil and Big Coal Win. And the environment, endangered species, our kids, our grandkids, you, and I will be the losers.

Now, people point to China and India, and all the carbon they emit as a big problem too, and they're right. But the United States leads the world in carbon emissions and, as the world leader, it's our responsibility to lead the world in a new direction. The burden falls on America to set the tone. By instituting a cap and trade system, we are showing the rest of the world that we're serious about addressing the issue, and proving to them that it can be done.

Madam Speaker, I'm not willing to risk our future by doing nothing. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, take a stand, and lead the world in addressing the issue of global climate change.