Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, on June 25, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record by vote for rollcall No. 456. Had I been present I would have voted: ``No''--Akin of Missouri Amendment No. 15.

Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Holt

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I thank the chairman for allowing me to take this space.

Madam Chairwoman, I frankly have to say that I am absolutely shocked to come to the floor to defend the Angel Island Immigration Station. I can only assume that the gentleman from California simply does not realize the cultural and historic significance of Angel Island Immigration Station and how very important it is to millions of Americans. Actually, Angel Island is known as the ``Ellis Island of the West'' because over a 30-year period between 1910 and 1940, the Angel Island Immigration Station processed more than 1 million immigrants from around the world with the majority coming from Asia.

Today the Angel Island Immigration Station contributes greatly to our understanding of our Nation's rich and complex immigration history by hosting more than 50,000 people including 30,000 school children every single year. But because of severe deterioration, many of the historic buildings are in danger of collapsing and in desperate need of repair. That's why I, along with Speaker Pelosi, requested $1 million to rehabilitate the old Angel Island Immigration Station Hospital so that it can be used, among other things, as a museum to tell the story of immigration from Asia to the United States.

Now, I doubt very much that anyone would come to this floor to strike funding for Ellis Island and argue that its preservation was ``wasteful government spending.'' But at the heart of the matter, Angel Island is just as important to those who cross through its gates as Ellis Island was for so many European immigrants. For those people whose ancestors first stepped on American soil were taken on Angel Island in the middle of the San Francisco Bay, this amendment works to deny their history and their struggle.

It's also important for me to point out, and Congressman Campbell said this, that Congress is already on record for supporting funding for Angel Island. In the 109th Congress I sponsored H.R. 606, the Angel Island Immigration Station Restoration and Preservation Act, which did authorize funding to protect and preserve this historic landmark. H.R. 606 was passed out of the House by voice vote, the Senate by unanimous consent, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 1, 2005. The sponsor of this amendment had no objection then when his party controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chair, Angel Island is a national historic landmark that is in absolute desperate need of repair and rehabilitation. I urge my colleagues, and I thank the chairman for supporting this, to vote against this amendment. This project is not a bridge to nowhere; it's a bridge to our past.

I yield.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like to respond to borrowed, and, yes, indeed, we do not want to heap debt on our children and our grandchildren. But there are some things we have to preserve for them, and that's their history. And that is exactly what this project is about. They need to have their history preserved. They need to be able to visit from their classroom. They need to go with their families to Angel Island and see what came before them, not just the Asian children in our community but all children, and they are all gaining a new respect for what San Francisco and the Bay Area is all about because Angel Island is where their ancestors came before they went out into the communities.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on June 18, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall Nos. 364, No. 384, No. 406.

Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 364--``no''-- Price of Georgia Amendment No. 96; rollcall No. 384--``yes''--Mollohan of West Virginia Amendment No. 11; and rollcall No. 406--``yes''--Obey of Wisconsin Amendment.

Madam Speaker, on June 19, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall Nos. 410, 418.

Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 410--``yes''-- Providing for consideration of H.R. 2918, making appropriations for the Legislative Branch FY 2010 and rollcall No. 418--``yes''--Impeaching Samuel B. Kent, judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, for high crimes and misdemeanors

Madam Speaker, on June 23, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 419-423.

Had I been present I would have voted:

Rollcall No. 419--``yea''--Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2009.

Rollcall No. 420--``yea''--Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009.

Rollcall No. 421--``yea''--Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act.

Rollcall No. 422--``yea''--To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the Internet website of the Department of Veterans Affairs a list of organizations that provide scholarships to veterans and their survivors.

Rollcall No. 423--``yea''--To make technical corrections to the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

I rise today to support my colleague, Chairman Barney Frank. I am equally or even more disappointed than he is that his amendment on the F-22 funding was not made in order for the defense authorization debate.

There is absolutely no need for additional funding for this flawed program. The Cold War is over. The existing 187 F-22 planes have already cost the United States a total of $65.1 billion; and while this bill only includes $369 million for advanced procurement, the total amount for 12 additional F-22s will run $2 billion.

Think of what we could do with $2 billion in the United States of America. We have schools that are in need. We have a health care system that's broken. We have to move on with our global warming program. Mr. Speaker, $2 billion would help any one of those issues. The F-22 has never been used in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is absolutely not necessary or useful in counterinsurgency operations. The existing 187 that we have right now are actually adequate for any single contingency that could happen in the United States of America. Both civilian and military leadership of the Pentagon support ending production at 187, including the President of the United States. The idea that this House will not have a chance to have a full debate on Chairman Frank's amendment is unacceptable, and this rule is truly flawed.

Madam Speaker, on June 16, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 350.

Had I been present I would have voted:

Rollcall No. 350--YES--On Motion that the Committee Rise. Making Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, the supplemental appropriations bill to continue our military operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan will soon return to the House for another vote. I voted against it in the first place, and I am going to vote against it again. I cannot support it because it will prolong our military involvement in Iraq and it will increase our military buildup in Afghanistan.

I would gladly vote to fund the safe withdrawal of our troops and contractors out of Iraq. But the supplemental gives me a feeling of deja vu. Haven't we been there before, voting to include billions of dollars for the occupation of Iraq?

Congress has voted to increase funding for Iraq many times, even though the American people want the occupation to end, and it seems the Iraqi people want us out of their country as well.

The supplemental also calls for sending more troops to a foreign land, this time Afghanistan, with no exit strategy. Talk about repeating past mistakes. Talk about deja vu. Afghanistan feels exactly the same as Iraq did to me.

President Obama has said that a campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets and bombs alone. He is absolutely correct about that. But the money in the supplemental is overwhelmingly devoted to military operations. It includes very little for the economic development, humanitarian aid, and diplomatic efforts that we really need to stop extremists in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

The ratio is 90-10, 90 percent to the Department of Defense, 10 percent to the smart alternatives. I believe the supplemental also violates the spirit of President Obama's historic speech in Cairo where he offered the Muslim world the hand of friendship. In that speech he said that we must leave Iraq to the Iraqis. But the supplemental will only delay the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

And then there is the little matter of the recession, Madam Speaker. When the American people are feeling such great pain and need so much help right here at home, we can't afford to squander another $100 billion on foreign military adventures that will not make our country safe.

Instead of approving the supplemental bill, the House should be urging the administration to fundamentally change our mission in Iraq, and our mission in Afghanistan. We can do this in several ways.

First, we should support the bill offered by Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, which calls upon the administration to submit an exit strategy for Afghanistan.

Second, I urge my colleagues to consider the plan that I have offered in House Resolution 363. It's called the Smart Security Platform For the 21st Century. Smart Security attacks the root causes of violence by fighting poverty and giving people hope for a better future. It controls the spread of nuclear and conventional weapons of mass destruction, and it strengthens our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

And finally, we should insist that at least 80 percent of all future funding for Afghanistan be devoted to the Smart Security I just described. Right now, the supplemental, as I told you, devotes more than 90 percent of its dollars to purely military efforts, efforts that are getting us nowhere.

Madam Speaker, we must not repeat the mistakes of the past. We've got to stop writing more blank checks for open-ended occupations. This is what the American people want, and Congress must listen.

Madam Speaker, on June 10, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 317.

Had I been present I would have voted:

Rollcall No. 317--``yes''--Providing for consideration of H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring

Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement (PEACE) Act; and providing for consideration of H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FYs 2010 and 2011.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee, I thank our chairman for all he has done to make sure that this is a Foreign Relations Authorization Act that we can be truly proud of.

I'm pleased that this bill moves our foreign policy away from intimidation and preemption to a policy based on smart security. This bill invests in our dedicated Foreign Service officers, increases funding for international student exchanges, doubles the number of Peace Corps volunteers.

We must send a clear message to the world community that we are rededicating ourselves as a Nation to diplomacy, and H.R. 2410 actually absolutely helps. With it, military might will no longer be our sole representative overseas.

So I urge my colleagues to support smart security, which is supporting education, infrastructure, diplomacy, agriculture, and we can do that by voting in favor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today along with my colleague, Representative Mike Thompson, to honor and recognize Lynn Morton-Weil, who is retiring after more than 21 years of service to the people of Sonoma County.

During her tenure as a county employee, Ms. Morton-Weil worked in six departments as well as serving as personal assistant to three county supervisors, Tim Smith, Mike Cale and currently, Valerie Brown. As such, she embodies much of the Board's institutional memory.

In addition to her official duties, she helped establish the Sonoma County Regional Park Foundation and served as its first Executive Director. She also administered the first Community Partnerships for Youth grant, which included developing the application process, contract and monitoring criteria and served as Project Director of the Sonoma County Juvenile Prevention Commission.

Recognizing the importance of public service and involvement, she has dedicated countless hours to both candidates and causes.

She takes pride in living in a television-free household, so her retirement hours will be filled with her passions: gardening, hiking, cycling, music, theatre, dance and most especially, her friends, family and her eagerly anticipated English springer spaniel puppy.

Madam Speaker, Lynn Morton-Weil has served her community and her county well for much of her adult life. It is therefore appropriate that we honor her for her public service and wish her well on her retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise to praise President Obama for his historic speech in Cairo last Thursday. By speaking with respect and honesty to the Muslim world, the President built new bridges, bridges of understanding and peace.

The speech contrasted sharply with the approach taken by the previous administration. There was no arrogance or fear-mongering in President Obama's speech. He made no threats. He did not talk about an endless war on terrorism.

Instead, the President called for a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim people. He renewed his pledge that America ``is not--and never will be--at war with Islam.''

He called for cooperation instead of conflict. He courageously acknowledged the mistakes of the past and called for an end to mistrust.

The President marginalized violent extremists by saying, and I quote him, ``The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few.''

He defended Israel's right to live in peace while recognizing the Palestinian people's right to a state of their own.

On Iran, President Obama urged diplomacy and reiterated his call for a nuclear-free world. And he advocated for democracy, for religious freedom, economic opportunity and the rights of women and girls.

Madam Speaker, everyone listening to the speech had to be inspired by the President's eloquence and good will. But the President also acknowledged that the speech was just a start. Now we face the hard work, the work of making peace a reality, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On this issue, I've urged the President to move in a bold new direction. I've called upon him to speed up the timetable for the withdrawal of our troops and military contractors from Iraq, and to leave no residual forces behind, because I believe the sooner we return full sovereignty to Iraq, the better.

I voted against the supplemental appropriations action because it will prolong our occupation of Iraq and sink us deeper into the quagmire of Afghanistan.

We must develop a plan to redeploy our troops out of Afghanistan. Otherwise, we'll face another endless occupation, one that will fuel anti-Americanism and promote instability, which actually is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan today.

We need a whole new approach to the region. Instead of sending in more troops and investing in military solutions that won't work, we should be investing in smart, peaceful power that will work. Smart power means helping the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan to build roads, schools, hospitals, and better agricultural systems. It means helping to create jobs and assisting those who have been displaced by the war. This is what the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan really want from the United States. If we provide smart assistance to them, Madam Speaker, we will defeat the violent extremists. We will bring peace to the region, and we will make America safer. This strategy is at the core of my SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. This is legislation that is described in House Resolution 363.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to consider House Resolution 363 and to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise with sadness today in honor of my friend Lotte Schiller who passed away on May 4, 2009, just before her 89th birthday. Lotte was well-known in Marin County, California, where she actively promoted the causes she believed in--from art and the public school system to progressive politics and voter education.

Born in Germany in 1920, Lotte was forced to flee to Palestine 14 years later with her Jewish family. She attended the Hebrew Teachers College for Women and then taught school and owned a nursery school in Jerusalem. She married architect Hans Schiller in 1940 and moved to Mill Valley in 1947 when Hans' practice with famed architect Erich Mendelsohn relocated to San Francisco.

With her strong background in education, it is no surprise that Lotte served four terms as a trustee for the Tamalpais Union High School District, including 12 years as President, as well as playing a part on education boards and commissions at the local, state, and national levels. Other affiliations included Family Service Agency of Marin, KQED Community Advisory Committee, National Women's Political Caucus, and the New Voter Education Research Foundation (of which she was a founding member).

Lotte and Hans were both active in the Democratic party, where we shared a commitment to achieving progressive goals. Hans was an architectural activist, who believed in public access to parks and open spaces.

Hans predeceased Lotte in 1998, and she is survived by her children Peter and Anita as well as three grandchildren and two great grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I will miss Lotte Schiller's activism and commitment. Her example inspire many of us and I will carry on, as she would have wished, to promote the causes we shared.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with sadness to honor Mr. John Gilbert Strong of Petaluma, who passed away on April 25, 2009, at the age of 67. John spent much of his life dedicating his time and resources to addressing humanitarian issues at home and around the world.

As a member of the Petaluma Valley Rotary, John presided as Club President and District Governor. His altruistic endeavors included a number of Rotary projects, which included supporting the Cool Kids Camp for Abused Children, providing furniture to schools in Guatemala and facilitating Rotary Youth Leadership Activities.

His passion for helping others took him on adventures around the world. He promoted economic self-sufficiency in Thailand and Vietnam and built a library in a Central American village.

He had limitless compassion and supported projects benefitting people in his local community. He provided emergency food relief to firefighters during the Oakland Hills fire, supported the Petaluma Library, and volunteered for the Committee on the Shelterless and the STRIVE program for at-risk youth.

John's generous spirit and engaging leadership led to an impressive list of accolades, including the Rotary Club's Lifetime Achievement Award and the Citizen of the Year Award from the Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce.

John Strong, who battled Parkinson's later in life, was also a champion for continued research to find a cure for the disease.

In addition to being a role model of civic responsibility, John was a skilled coppersmith. A native of England, he acquired coppersmith skills from working in the shipyards and attending the Liverpool College of Technology. After immigrating to the United States in 1963, he purchased Acme Sheet Metal and later started Copperworks, where he exhibited his talented craftsmanship by creating range hoods and other custom items.

John is survived by his wife, Mamie Strong, his son, Karl Strong, his step-sons Curtis and Bradley Boomhower, as well as grandchildren, nieces and nephews. He was predeceased by his step-daughter, Lolita Lynn Boomhower Courts.

Madam Speaker, Mr. John Strong's passion for helping others will live on through those people around the world that he has positively influenced. His legacy will continue to serve as a shining example of the power one person holds to make a positive difference in our world.

Madam Chairman, America should be a world leader in

helping parents balance their work and family responsibilities.

As the chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, I find it totally unacceptable that the country I live in--the United States of America--is one of only four countries not providing paid leave to new mothers and fathers. Today in the United States, 51 percent of new parents don't have paid leave. So, as a result, some take unpaid leave if they can afford it; some quit; and some are fired for taking too much time off.

That's why I strongly support H.R. 626, so we can ensure that Federal employees won't be forced to choose between their paychecks and their families at one of the most important times of their lives--the birth or the adoption of a child. Investing in our working families is the best way to strengthen our workforce. It is the best way to stimulate our economy, and it is the best way to strengthen our country.

So I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation authored by Congresswoman Maloney. Support working families. Don't force them to choose between putting food on the table and having dinner with their children and getting to bond with their new babies. Vote for this legislation because the United States of America needs to stand proud among other countries in this world.

Right. I said: for taking too much time off beyond the family medical leave.

Yes.

Thank you very much, and I thank you again for your progressive hour. Every week, the progressive hour is a gift to every person that watches us and wants to know what we stand for.

And we have two new women with us tonight. So we've all heard from me a lot, and I'm going to stand here and be part of the dialogue, but I think Mazie Hirono and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky bring something that is new and fresh tonight.

For me to yield? I will yield to Congresswoman Hirono from Hawaii.

It is an embarrassment.

Well, you're actually telling my story. I think we all remember that. I've said it so many times to all of you.

It was 40 years ago and my children were 1, 3, and 5 years old, and their father was emotionally ill and just abandoned us. I went to work. And I was like the 45 million people that are uninsured in this country right now; 85 percent of them are working. I mean, imagine that. So we can't depend on employers to provide all of the health care.

Well, I was working, too, and it was going to be months before I was eligible for health care. And certainly my husband's health care didn't cover us anymore.

And I want to tell you, I would wake up in the middle of the night and sit straight up and think what if one of my children got sick, what would I do. I mean, it would just overwhelm me.

Now, they were too young to worry about what would happen if I got sick, but I never thought I would, so I didn't even worry about that. But I had two boys and a little girl, and the boys were always breaking something, their arms. They played ball and they were rough and tough. They didn't dare do any of that while we were uninsured because I had no way to pay for it.

I was working. I was on welfare. But because of getting public assistance, then we were eligible for Medicaid, Medi-Cal in California. Then I stopped waking up in the middle of the night, frightened, so that I would have no breath because what if one of my children got sick, what was I going to do.

So if you wonder why--first of all, I would really support a single- payer system, and I will support nothing less than a good, robust public plan and a choice for every single American, even if they're covered by their employer. I want them to have that choice of no, I'd really rather go on this public plan because it's going to be good.

When we say ``robust''--I mean, we have talked about what does ``robust'' mean. Of course, it's quality care and it's accessible and it has benefits, comprehensive benefits, from prevention all the way through long-term care, so there's a way of meeting the needs of every single American.

Now, somebody who chooses their private plan, that's perfectly all right, but they get to have that choice. If they don't want their private plan, they have the choice of the public plan, and we're working on that.

We are really appreciative of this letter from the President today. And Senator Kennedy is putting a lot of spirit behind a good, robust public plan.

But the Progressives are defining what that means. We're not going to leave it up to somebody else to decide for us that this is robust enough because we think--there's 80 of us in the Progressive Caucus and we have a big voice and this is very important to every single American.

If the gentlelady will yield.

Well, do you remember Harry and Louise in 1994 when the Clintons were proposing a national health care plan? The insurance companies got behind this ad about a couple, an ad that cost millions of dollars. It was talking about how bad this health care plan would be for America. Well, the insurance companies had enough industry and had enough funds to play that ad over and over and over. Also, the Clinton plan was much too complicated. Nobody could explain it to anybody. It never got all the way to being finished in the first place. Do you know what? People would not be bullied by that kind of ad now.

They absolutely have gone through enough fear of losing their own insurance, if they have it and if they're employed. They pay more and get less every year for what is offered, and they never know if it's going to be there the next year.

Those are the people who were saying: No, don't fool around with my insurance coverage. It's good. I've got mine.

Then there were the seniors, retired folks: Well, I have my retirement. It's good. I'm really worried.

Then Harry and Louise scared them to death that we were going to take it away from them.

Well, they're lies.

I truly believe that they are not going to pull the wool over the eyes of the majority of Americans. Doctors come to me or call me or stop me, and they say: Look, I was really against the Clinton plan because I was afraid of what I might lose.

One of my favorite doctor friends tells me that he would much rather deal with Medicare than with the insurance companies, point blank.

He said that they're not perfect, but that they're way better to deal with.

So I think that there is going to be a whole different set of supporters for this when we get it down and out and when we let people know exactly what it is.

I think the Federal Government is responsible.

I think they say the Federal Government is responsible.

Sure.

Well, Keith, when one in every three Americans under the age of 65 was uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008--imagine, every one of those people knows that they weren't being taken care of, that they needed something that was not available to them.

One of the things we are going to hear, and we're already

hearing is, Well, we can't make the insurance companies compete with a public plan. It won't be fair to the insurance companies. Well, excuse me. The insurance companies have a huge marketing budget. They have an overhead that's so much more than the public Medicare program.

Oh, and their CEOs get paid so much. If they can't compete with a public plan, oh, too bad. They'll either, you know, plus up and get better and only pay their CEOs so much or more people will go on the public plan. And if we have a good public plan, over the years--and I don't know how long it will be--it can lead to a single universal coverage.

If the gentleman will yield to me, in 1993 I was actually a freshman, my first month, just sworn in to this House of Representatives. I was the first freshman to sign on to the single payer bill. Jim McDermott was then the author. I have been a single payer supporter. I would be so happy if we could move into single payer. The arguments I hear make some sense that by disrupting everything right now at once would be more harmful than putting together a plan that can get to the single payer. But I can tell you in my district--and I represent Marin and Sonoma Counties, probably as progressive a district as anyplace in this country--when I say what I just said, that we're not pushing for single payer, although the great majority, 90 percent of the Progressive Caucus would vote for a single payer right now today; but that's not 90 percent of the Congress, House and Senate. But when I tell my constituents that, I will tell you, they look like they could cry. They are so disappointed in me. I mean, it's like, What, you?

I will make a stab at it. They are organized. They have associations. They have a lot of money, and they will spend that money on advertising. They will spend that money on helping Members of Congress get elected. And I am not saying that every Member of Congress that takes donations from anybody or any industry votes with them, but I'm saying--

This particular industry has wielded a lot of money and a lot of power around this Congress, but it is mostly that they have been able to choke off the information that the grassroots was not able to receive the first time around. That is not going to happen again. We are not going to let that happen.

All the money in the world is not going to be able to close down our voices, the thousands of people that are e-mailing us on our congress.org, and they know where we are with them and we are going to keep this. And the Democrats are with them for the most part. We are going to make it happen. The President is with them.

I echo Congresswoman Schakowsky, so I don't have to take up your time. So you can ask another question.

Because for senior care, when HMOs took on senior care, Medicare Advantage, et cetera, I went to one of my providers in my district, and they were telling me about this wonderful plan that was very good. And I said, Well, what are you going to do when people start using it? And they looked at me like I was just a nut on Earth. And guess what? In 2\1/2\ years, when seniors started using the plan that they had purchased, this group went out of business, and those seniors had to find someplace else in the district because people were using the plan.

And if the gentlewoman will yield. Insurers have increased premiums 87 percent over the last 6 years. And the premiums have doubled in the last 9 years, increasing four times faster than wages. So, what for? To pay the high salaries of the CEOs and to hire more bean counters.