Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we are all celebrating Iraq's election, and I certainly join in the celebration. But I hope we realize that the great slogan that was almost universal, every candidate, every party says, Vote and the Americans will go home soon; the more you vote, the faster we will get the occupying troops out. I think we should understand that.

We have a problem here with the trust of the Iraqi people. The problem is, who will gain the trust of the Iraqi people. Will we be able to gain that trust by behaving in a certain way, not just speaking and talking about guaranteeing liberty and freedom, but also justice?

Will we be able to gain the trust before the outside forces of bin Laden?

Time is on bin Laden's side. The longer we wait, the longer we hesitate, the longer we occupy Iraq and stay there, the more he will gather in new forces and recruit new people to come in. So we don't have an infinite amount of time.

We should prepare an exit strategy and move on that exit strategy immediately. The problem is, how do you gain the trust of the people of Iraq in order to guarantee that the insurgents will have no support among the people. The less support the insurgents have among the people, the more secure Iraq will become.

Step one in any successful departure from Iraq, and I think we can have a successful end to this occupation, step one in that successful end to the occupation would be to put a discussion of oil on the table. An open and truthful discussion of the oil revenues of Iraq should be on the world table.

Oil is part of the problem. Oil can be a part of the solution. In fact, oil is possibly the major problem, and oil can be the major solution. Let us have an honest discussion of what is going to happen to the revenue earned by the oil of Iraq.

Iraq is quite fortunate. Despite all of its great troubles, it does have beneath the soil enough oil to keep the country prosperous for many decades to come. It does have enough oil to rebuild the country and to do things that resources can provide.

Within the next 90 days, if you want a successful exit strategy, within the next 90 days a conference should be called. An international conference should be called on the distribution of the oil revenue of Iraq.

What will the distribution of that revenue be?

I think the conference should guarantee that the great majority of the revenue, most of the revenue will go to the Iraqi people. Whether that is paid directly to the Iraqi Government or whether it is through some taxing arrangement on privately produced oil from private companies does not matter. Some way, we should guarantee that the benefits of the oil, the revenue, most of it, goes to the people of Iraq.

There are other problems, because people have invested in the oil wells of Iraq. There are problems, because a great deal of money has to be poured in the provision of technical assistance. Technical assistance, and the cost of that, is part of the problem with respect to France and Russia's and Germany's involvement in Iraq before the war. France, Russia, all must be invited to the table. Germany, China, everybody should come to the table. We need the sanctioning of whatever agreement is reached by the entire international community. If the Iraqis will trust what happens and believe it is true, it must have all the people at the table who can guarantee it will be carried out appropriately.

Step two would be to say, once we have dealt with the problem of oil, and there is so little discussion of the problem of oil, of what exactly is the role of oil in this whole conflict, it is frightening. It is dishonest, of course, not to discuss oil and how oil brought us there and how oil is being handled right now.

When we moved our troops into Iraq, most people don't know it, but we immediately secured the oil wells. Before they dealt with the museums or the city halls, the hospitals or any other facility, the Marines and the invading forces secured the oil wells.

There are some written agreements already, I understand, that the oil industry in the future in Iraq must be privatized. I do not know how such agreements can be enforced. I do not know how they could be generated, but I hear rumors that privatization of the oil is a condition that is written somehow into the agreement with the Iraqi interim government, and it has to be a part of the constitution, et cetera.

Oil is a problem. Let us guarantee that the greater benefits of that oil go to the Iraqi people. Once you have done that, in the next 90 days, that can be done, once you have done that, then steps can be taken to move forward toward a constitutional government.

The people elected now were elected primarily to write a constitution. They should be given an incentive by being told that after this constitutional process, a certain number of days after that process, we are leaving. They should be given that incentive.

I understand the scheduling probably is a year away. I do not know exactly what the timetable is at that point. But if they have to delay, then they delay the occupation. If they move it faster, there will be some incentive there so that they will see the occupying troops leave that much sooner. It does not take rocket science to resolve this problem if there is going to be real honesty.

The great fear of the Iraqi people is that they will get no justice. And if they fear they will get no justice, they will turn more and more to outsiders. Bin Laden and his insurgents will become stronger and stronger, and more and more Americans will lose their lives, and more and more dollars from American taxpayers will be pumped into this situation needlessly.

I say that we should understand that. Oil was the problem and oil can be the final solution.

Mr. Speaker, the President has presented his budget to the Congress. We have begun a process which is the most moral process our government undertakes each year.

The budget of the United States is a moral statement. The President begins that budget process by making his own moral statement. The process goes forward with the Congress deliberating; and when we come out at the end of the year with the appropriations based on this budget, we are making a statement to the Nation and to the world of what our moral values are, stating what are our moral values.

This budget shows our moral values are really in serious trouble, because I think this is a budget of war against peace. You could call this a war-against-peace budget. It is not exaggerating to say it is kind of a barbarity-against-civilization budget. Because what we are doing is saving money. We are going to save money in all the areas which would carry forward our civilization and benefit peace and benefit a productive society; we are going to save that money in order to put it into the military. That is what this budget is all about.

It is a very dishonest budget to begin with, because the largest items of expenditure for this coming year are not even put in the budget. We are going to be asked in a few weeks to vote on a budget which includes $80 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is not included in this budget. We ought to be honest about that.

We ought to be honest about the fact that Social Security proposals are being made which will require tremendous amounts of money to be drained from the budget also. So it is not an honest budget to begin with. It is not a moral budget, or it is a moral budget is that reflects bad morals.

The morality that we must undertake here is understanding what the Congressional Black Caucus always has understood, which is that this is the most important item on the agenda of the Congress; and we must deal with items like education, like health care, housing, et cetera. We have disparities which exist and impact upon the black community, and those disparities really impact on the total working-family community, and the majority of Americans are impacted.

So as we pursue the closing of the gap between those disparities, we are also pursuing that for the rest of America, as well as for the African American community.

The chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus will elaborate on that more in a few minutes. I just want to say that this omission that we are dealing with here tonight is the beginning of the process. We are going to have debates, negotiation, and legislation. I hope that those of us who debate and discuss and negotiate will show greater moral fiber than has been displayed so far, and that at the end of

this process in the fall, when we begin to vote on the appropriations bills, there will be a different moral manifesto of the Nation emerging, unlike the one in the statement made by this budget.

The way a nation spends its money, as I said before, provides the whole world with indisputable evidence of what its real moral values are. Our true beliefs are reflected in the way we allocate our resources; and here I will just give one example. They have cut $4 billion worth of education programs. The President and the White House propose to cut $4 billion worth of education programs. At the same time, we have a program called the Missile Defense Systems program, and it is adding, it is increasing that budget. It will now be $8 billion. Twice as much as is being cut for education is going to be spent this coming year on the Missile Defense program, which does not work. And they say that they are cutting the education programs because they do not work.

This defense program has been around for some time. It used to be called Star Wars. All kinds of different labels have been placed upon it, but we read occasionally about them testing it and rockets going off in the sky and misfiring; and every time that happens it is $75 million or $100 million. The failed test costs us millions of dollars, yet we go on, we continue. It does not work, it costs millions of dollars, but we do not eliminate it.

Security, they say, is the number one issue, and I agree, security is the number one issue. The definition of security is what we have to discuss. Security is not throwing dollars at the military. Security is not throwing dollars at missile systems that do not work and missile systems which are almost irrelevant at this point. That is not security. Security means more than just guns, missiles, bombers.

I do want to applaud the President for increasing slightly the Millennium Fund, which is supposed to help nations across the world improve their own governments and deliver better education and health care to their own people. Education, in particular, is a concern of the Millennium Fund. The Millennium Fund got started as a result of an analysis. The Millennium Fund understood what happened with Osama bin Laden and the gathering of forces in Afghanistan. They came out of the madrassas, Pakistan primarily. Large numbers came out.

What is a madrassa? A madrassa is a name for a school, a religious school, and they were teaching there reading, writing, and the military, how to shoot, and how to hate. They recognized that there was an unlimited supply of such youth. They cannot get a decent meal at home; their parents are happy to have them go off to the madrassa and give them over to the madrassa for whatever they want them to do, including military training, which later leads to them being a part of al Qaeda. The analysts understood this, so they began to be concerned about fighting terror by improving the conditions of the people abroad, starting with the funding for education.

Education at home, however, is going to be neglected. Education at home is as much a matter of national security as education anywhere in the world. Education is the least expensive way for us to guarantee our security. We can guarantee our security far cheaper with education being spread, beginning at home, than we can by throwing more money at the military and starving health care programs, housing programs, and education programs here at home in order to improve the military.

Among the programs that are being eliminated is a program that relates to foreign languages. If ever it was clear that foreign languages are important, it is right now when our own ability to fight the terrorists has been shown to be inadequate because we cannot translate the language, we cannot understand enough. There are not enough people around who can translate Arabic, let alone the more difficult languages of Urdu and Pashtu, and the languages that have seldom been before studied in our schools. We should be appropriating billions of dollars in order to train more young people in languages.

I can go on and on, and I intend later to come back and discuss in great detail some of these programs, especially in education, that are being eliminated and what their impact is on our society as a whole.

We have a steady increase in the population of our prisons, a steady increase of African American males in our population of the prisons. There is a relationship between the tremendous number of cuts over the last 10 years in social programs and the steady increase of African American males in our prisons. They cost much more to maintain in our prisons, of course, than the cost is to provide a decent education, either in elementary and secondary education, or in college.

But I will pause here and call upon the President of the Congressional Black Caucus to enunciate the Caucus's emphasis and position as we go into this process of deliberating on this budget to make this budget a more moral document, reflecting a more civilized approach to guarantee the security of the American people and people all over the world.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, the following is a statement by the CBC chairman on the Bush budget and the Congressional Black Caucus' core agenda.

CBC Chair Calls Bush Budget Proposal Extremely Disappointing

Bush Budget Blueprint Offers No Solutions to End Disparities that Exist

in Our Society

Today, Congressman Mel Watt (D-NC), Chairman of the

Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), issued the following

statement in response to President George Bush's fiscal year

2006 budget proposal:

``On first review of President Bush's budget proposal, I

find it extremely disappointing. Mr. Bush's proposal

recommends severe cuts in education, food and nutrition

programs, and literacy initiatives for youth and young

adults.

``The proposed budget neglects suggestions offered by the

Congressional Black Caucus for ending disparities that exist

between African Americans and White Americans in every aspect

of life. The CBC gave the President three distinct

opportunities to respond favorably to our Agenda: (1) during

a meeting with the President on January 26th when the CBC

delivered our Agenda which outlined these disparities and

offered ways to eliminate the gap; (2) during the State of

the Union address; and (3) in his budget proposal.

Unfortunately, the President missed all three opportunities.

This budget appears to offer no real solutions for change and

falls short of what the CBC hoped would be included in the

document.

``In summary, Members of the CBC are extremely disappointed

with the President's budget proposal and will work with our

colleagues on the Hill for a budge that reflects the values

and concerns of all Americans: education, health care,

economic opportunity, justice for all, retirement security

and foreign policy.''

Would the gentleman mind explaining the fact that every penny of the deficit costs us additional money because we pay interest on what we borrow and that is another expenditure that is added to the budget?

I want to congratulate the gentleman on his observation there, because I have thumbed through the budget documents, the introductions, and the administration is applauding itself for reducing the budget in half in 5 to 10 years.

The deficit in half. Great applause is being showered upon them when we should not have a deficit to begin with.

Do those figures apply to black males?

I thank the gentleman for his excellent presentation.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement, and I might want to consider also, and all of us should consider, the fact that in this area of Community Development Block Grants, it is one of the areas where great promises are being made to faith-based organizations; and I wonder if the movement of this program from HUD into the Commerce Department is partially to facilitate a movement of grants into faith-based organizations, without scrutiny, without any peer review process and with the maximum amount of favoritism. It is something we should bear in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is sort of an expert in this area.

What does my colleague think of the fact that repeatedly the Republican message has begun to bang away at the fact they are going to provide more money for Community Health Centers? I have several good Community Health Centers in my district, but they are offered as a substitute for any of the real health care benefits financed by the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, they are robbing Peter but not giving it all to Paul.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I would like to go back to my introduction where I said that the budget is a statement of the morality of America. What our moral position is is stated in the budget. The beautiful rhetoric of the inaugural address, the beautiful rhetoric of the State of the Union address, they must be followed up with concrete statements of how we spend our money. That is not the case. We spend our money quite differently from the high standard that was set in the President's inaugural address and in his State of the Union address.

Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentlewoman that it is more than 60 years old. And if I had a glass of wine here, I would drink a toast to it. Let us drink a toast to an aging lady in her 60s. That is really the prime these days. The most beautiful program that ever was developed, Social Security. It does not need an extreme makeover. It may need a few repairs here and there, but it does not need the kind of demolition that the President is planning for Social Security, the greatest program we have ever had. And we should all work and fight together to keep it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that among the programs eliminated, and I will submit a list of programs proposed for elimination in the education area, but among those programs are the Arts in Education program; Community Technology Centers, designed to close the digital gap between the poorer communities and the middle- class communities; the Javitz Gifted and Talented Education program, a tiny program, but many people complain there is nothing for the gifted, and so we need that. Regional Education Laboratories, which have existed for a long time, are going to be phased out. Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants, a program popular all across the Nation, which is proposed for elimination. TRIO Talent Search; TRIO Upward Bound program. The Vocational Education State Grants.

Drastic reductions are proposed in order to save money, as I said before. In order to save money to give more to the military, we are going to guarantee the security of the Nation by wiping out the programs that are the most beneficial for the development of our own population. The greatest resource that any nation can have is its own people, the people's development, the people's talent, the people's education. And we are turning our backs on that in this budget, which is a bad moral statement in comparison with what the President has said in his rhetoric in the inaugural address and in the State of the Union address.

The budget is a concrete statement. It is evidence of just how moral we are, and this budget falls short in many ways.

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

Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith the list of programs slated for elimination, which I referred to earlier:

III. Programs Proposed for Elimination

The 2006 request continues the practice of the Bush

Administration--also consistent with previous administrations

over the past 25 years--of proposing to eliminate or

consolidate funding for programs that have achieved their

original purpose, that duplicate other programs, that may be

carried out with flexible State formula grant funds, or that

involve activities that are better or more appropriately

supported through State, local, or private resources. In

addition. the government-wide Program Assessment Rating Tool,

or PART, helps focus funding of Department of Education

programs that generate positive results for students and that

meet strong accountability standards. For 2006, PART findings

were used to redirect funds from ineffective programs to more

effective activities, as well as to identify reforms to help

address programs weaknesses.

The following table shows the programs proposed for

elimination in the President's 2006 budget request.

Termination of these 48 programs frees up almost $4.3

billion--based on 2005 levels--for reallocation to more

effective, higher-priority activities. Following the table is

a brief summary of each program and the rationale for its

elimination.

Program Terminations

[2005 BA in millions]

Alcohol Abuse Reduction...........................................$32.7 Arts in Education..................................................35.6 B.J. Stupa Olympic Scholarships.....................................1.0 Byrd Honors Scholarship............................................40.7 Civic Education....................................................29.4 Close Up Fellowships................................................1.5 Community Technology Centers........................................5.0 Comprehensive School Reform.......................................205.3 Demonstration Projects for Students with Disabilities...............6.9 Educational Technology State Grants...............................496.0 Elementary and Secondary School Counseling.........................34.7 Even Start........................................................225.1 Excellence in Economic Education....................................1.5 Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners................8.6 Federal Perkins Loan Cancellations.................................66.1 Foreign Language Assistance........................................17.9 Foundations for Learning............................................1.0 Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs..306.5 Interest Subsidy Grants.............................................1.5 Javits Gifted and Talented Education...............................11.0 Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships.....................65.6 Literacy Programs for Prisoners.....................................5.0 Menal Health Integration in School..................................5.0 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers....................................2.3 National Writing Project...........................................20.3 Occupational and Employment Information.............................9.3 Parental Informational and Resources Centers.......................41.9 Projects with Industry.............................................21.6 Ready to Teach.....................................................14.3 Recreational Programs...............................................2.5 Regional Educational Laboratories..................................66.1 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grant............437.4 Schooll Dropout Prevention..........................................4.9 School Leadership..................................................14.9 Smaller Learning Communities.......................................94.5 Star Schools.......................................................20.8 State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders......................21.8 Support Employment State Grants....................................37.4 Teacher Quality Enhancement........................................68.3 Tech-Prep Demonstration.............................................4.9 Tech-Prep Education State Grants..................................105.8 Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program.............3.0 TRIO Talent Search................................................144.9 TRIO Upward Bound.................................................312.6 Underground Railroad Program........................................2.2 Vocational Education National Programs.............................11.8 Vocational Education State Grants...............................1,194.3 Women's Educational Equity..........................................3.0

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for this Special Order, and I rise to make a fervent appeal.

Social Security should be a nonnegotiable part of a democratic society in America. I must appeal and beg the White House and the Republican majority in the House and the Senate to end the torture of millions of Americans. Right now they are going through torture.

Torture is a correct word. A cruel psychological torture is being executed every day when we launch these overt attacks, assaults on Social Security. People are fearful. I feel the pain and fear of the millions who are now trembling under this barrage of Republican propaganda which attacks Social Security, uses trick words and booby trap concepts that frighten people a great deal.

It is not reform. It is the destruction of Social Security as we know it which is being attempted. Social Security must be made as permanent as the United States Constitution. Social Security represents a high expression of compassion. It is a massive and systematic application of collective compassion. It works. It is not a perfectly administrated program. Nothing is perfect. But it has made possible a helping hand in a systematic way to more people than any other program ever conceived by any government.

Social Security is a Democratic Party creation. Fortunately, we heard our colleague previously talk about how Social Security evolved out of State programs. It is a Democratic Party creation because it was greatly resisted by the Republican Party from the very beginning.

It is important to note this fact and have people understand in this generation at this particular time that Social Security was not created by magic. There was a certain kind of moral dedication and political determination that was necessary in order to create Social Security. Moral dedication. Morality in the truest sense of the word. Morality: Caring for the lives of people. Morality: Wanting to make that part of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence which talks about the pursuit of happiness, wanting to make it a reality for the poorest people.

So it is probably the greatest act of morality of our government, the one that impacts on the most lives over history, over time, than any other. So when we speak of moral values, let us remember it was the Democrats who created Social Security, the Franklin Roosevelt administration.

It was the Democrats who later created Medicare and Medicaid. The great disciple of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson clearly understood that government is not on people's back when government takes steps to organize systems which allow people to pursue happiness, allows the elderly to be part of the process of pursuing happiness, allowing all people to have reasonable health care, no matter how poor they are. Medicaid and Medicare are under attack also as well as Social Security.

America today must appreciate that maybe there were miracles involved, but they were not from heaven, I assure you. There were miracles that took place in this city, in Washington. There were miracles that took place on the floor of the House and the Senate. There were miracles that took place in the White House to make Social Security a reality.

We do not want to lose this reality. We want it to continue to be an expression of our moral values at the very highest.

I feel the fear of millions of people, but I also first feel the fear of individuals that I know. The senior citizens whose faces I look into, they are frantic. Because the way in which we have approached this problem is to first stampede people into the feeling it is doomed, it is about to go over the cliff, that any day now that they will cut off Social Security checks.

We did not mean to make it quite that dramatic, but for a poor person, a

senior who has no other income, no other income, and there are millions who have no other income except Social Security, for them to face a situation where they hear on the radio, they see on television the talking heads talking about the need to privatize Social Security, privatize to them means the government is not running it, and they do not trust private individuals.

There are all sorts of scenarios running through the heads of people who are dependent upon Social Security. So I feel the fear directly. I feel the fear because I know people who cannot make it any other way without Social Security, and they think that any day now they are going to be without it.

This stampede is a kind of terror. It is unnecessary terror. It is setting the stage politically to force us to act faster and with a kind of frantic fear that makes people, Members of Congress, do what they know is wrong. The stampede should stop.

The stampede is made more fearful by the insulting language and the distorted arguments that are already being used, as we have heard my colleagues talk already. I heard my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I heard him on television. I could not believe my ears when I heard the discussion about women live longer and, therefore, women should probably have reduced benefits. That would be the fair thing to do. I just cannot comprehend in this day and age a statement like that could be made. Women should be penalized for living longer.

Along with that statement, Mr. Speaker, came the statement that blacks, particularly black males, would be the beneficiary of a privatization program because they would have greater control over the money they put in. They could take it out earlier, because, after all, black males are dying earlier.

The actuarial statistics show clearly that black males are swindled out of their Social Security payments at a greater rate than anybody else. They die earlier and so do not get their benefits. So, therefore, instead of trying to have a health care system and a set of working conditions in America which allow people to live longer in general, and certainly black males to live longer, instead of creating a program for jobs so that the kind of economic tyranny that black males live under, where they cannot make it, they cannot live a healthy life because they do not have the income, instead of addressing those problems, we are implying they should just live shorter lives and be grateful that we will give them their money back through a privatization system in Social Security.

I just could not believe it. I cannot reconcile that with living in America and having a responsible official making that kind of statement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make the case for the millions also who do hard, back-breaking work every day. They get up early every morning, and they are in motion all day. Most of us do not know what hard work is. We do not understand what it means to be in motion all day and what back-breaking work means.

I understand a little bit because I came from the City of Memphis, Tennessee, which is located in the corner of Tennessee, just between two agricultural States, Mississippi and Arkansas. And the poor children in my neighborhood, we went to Mississippi or Arkansas in the summer to chop cotton. You made $3 a day sweating under the hot sun all day chopping cotton. That was before the invention of the machines. Or in the fall you went to pick cotton, which was much worse than chopping because you had to bend over all day, and you came home sore all over.

So I had a taste of what it meant to do hard work. But I see men and women all the time who are lifting and moving about doing hard work greater than that all the time. So those are the people who need the retirement earlier, not later. Do not move it back from 65 to 67, and they are now talking about moving it to 70.

I think my father was fortunate. He did hard work all the time. He worked in a furniture factory in the mill, the place where you have the raw boards and raw lumber that has to be ground down and refined, and he was moving all the time. He was pretty tired when he came home, and he is fortunate he lived to be 68. He lived to be 68. So he had 3 years where he did collect Social Security. A very happy man because he could retire and receive Social Security. That is what he looked forward to, retiring, stopping the process of getting up every morning and going to work in that mill with the sawdust and the other things. He died of a disease which is caused by an overexposure to sawdust. It was at the age of 68. So he at least got 3 years of his Social Security.

All he would have had, all he would have had was that Social Security payment if he had not had children who could pay his bills, and later on one of my brothers built a house for him. But for 3 years he was able to benefit from what he paid in Social Security. And many of his colleagues, in fact, most of them, never lived to 65 and were able to realize that.

So I rise to speak for all those millions out there who have seen Social Security as an outstretched hand from their government, which is deserved by working families, which is a compassionate act, and which is one of the most efficient programs that ever the government has invented. We want to maintain Social Security.

We hope that the torture that is going on right now will end. We hope there will be a retreat from this effort to destroy Social Security, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

It was almost a proposal to die early. Please die early.

Madam Speaker, this 60th anniversary observance of the liberation of Auschwitz presents the people of all civilized nations with an opportunity to focus a searing light of exposure on one of the deadliest landmark events of human history. More than 1 million human beings died in this hellish extermination factory which was part of a system that murdered more than 6 million Jews.

As often as possible, in every way conceivable, the leaders of the present

must be forced to gaze with thorough and undivided attention upon the horror of the Holocaust. The observance of this 60th anniversary is an empty, useless ceremony if it does not arouse massive, worldwide anger, pity, and fear. The anger must be directed not only at Hitler and the SS; but also the anger should be focused on the millions who helped to maintain the poison fog of racism, anti-Semitism, and religious hatred. The pity levels must be raised high to envelop all of the more than 6 million individual souls whose opportunities to breathe and live, to develop their potential and to pursue happiness were so brutally snuffed out. The fear must be shared by us all as we contemplate our unforgivable impotence in the face of other epidemics of genocide that have been allowed since the landmark lesson of the Holocaust.

Stalin and his gulags; Pol Pot and his killing fields; the Hutu intelligentsia and their exhortation to ``cut the tall trees'' with machete executions. All of this competition with Hitler has occurred within the last 60 years. We applaud the civilized governments of the world for drawing a line at Kosovo. But we are burdened with a great fear that more mass slaughters are coming because we still have not learned this most profound lesson of modern history.

On the occasion of this 60th anniversary, we must remember that the lesson of history is that perpetrators of genocide must have us come down on them with an uncompromising, righteous wrath; and we must trumpet their punishment throughout the Earth. The message for future mass murderers with their convoluted rationale and twisted theories is that there will be swift and universally supported punishment. The message for the populations that support them is that there will be no acceptance of sentimental schemes for truth and reconciliation. For ignoring Auschwitz, there can be no pardons, no acceptance of sentimental schemes for truth and reconciliation. For permitting their leaders to violate the most important principles of human society, the citizens of any nation must be collectively judged and their nation must be forced to pay a special debt to civilization.

Madam Speaker, this sixieth anniversary observance of the liberation of Auschwitz presents the people of all civilized nations with an opportunity to focus a searing light of exposure on one of the deadliest landmark events of human history. More than one million human beings died in this hellish extermination factory which was part of a system that murdered more than six million Jews.

As often as possible, in every way conceivable, the leaders of the present must be forced to gaze with thorough and undivided attention upon the horror of the holocaust. Auschwitz and all of the similar death camps document the levels to which civilized men can descend. No savage and primitive tribe could ever have engaged in such monumental and systematic slaughter. That these crimes were committed by one of the most scientifically advanced, well educated, culturally sophisticated, thoroughly organized nations that the world has ever seen is a fact that magnifies the need to forever study this bloody man-made tsunami.

The observance of this sixieth anniversary is an empty, useless ceremony if it does not arouse massive worldwide anger, pity and fear. The anger must be directed not only at Hitler and the SS; but also the anger should be focused on the millions who help to maintain the poison fog racism, anti-Semitism and religious hatred. The pity levels must be raised high to envelope all of the more than six million individual souls whose opportunities to breathe and live, to develop their potential and to pursue happiness were so brutally snuffed out. The fear must be shared by us all as we contemplate our unforgivable impotence in the face of other epidemics of genocide that have been allowed since the landmark lesson the holocaust.

Stalin and his gulags; Pol Pot and his killing fields; the Hutu intelligentsia and their exhortation to ``cut the tall trees'' with machete executions; all of this competition with Hitler has occurred within the last sixty years. We applaud the civilized governments of the world for drawing a line at Kosovo. But we are burdened with a great fear that more mass slaughters are coming because we still have not learned this most profound lesson of modern history.

On the occasion of this sixtieth anniversary let us remember that the trials of the major killers at Nuremberg also failed to take place, that Nazi scholars are still daring to deny the reality of the holocaust. We must remember that new statutes are being contemplated for Stalin. We must also note the fact the Pol Pot died of natural causes. We must show fear in the face of our present inability to advance the trials and convictions of many of the obvious architects of the genocide in Rwanda.

The lesson of history is that we must come down on the perpetrators of genocide with an uncompromising righteous wrath and trumpet their punishment throughout the earth. The message for future mass murders with their convoluted rational and twisted theories is that there will be swift and universally supported punishment. The message for the populations that support genocide in the future must be that there is no acceptable excuse for your actions. For ignoring Auschwitz there can be no pardons, no acceptance of sentimental schemes for truth and reconciliation. For permitting their leaders to violate the most vital principles of human society the citizens must be collectively judged and their nation must be forced to pay a special debt to civilization.

Mr. Speaker, we have preached democracy in Afghanistan. We have preached democracy in Iraq. Now the time has come for us to accelerate the process of more fully practicing what we preach.

I wholeheartedly endorse the democracy mission of America, but I am here today to beg the chosen decisionmakers here in Congress to take a giant step forward to bolster America's world crusade for democracy. Today it is appropriate that we address our remarks not only to the citizens of America but also to the people of Iraq. Our efforts to achieve free elections in Iraq will be totally shattered if we want to propose today that Nation be divided into 30 or 50 units with each unit granted the power to determine its own election procedures, to select its own equipment, and to appoint its own administrators without any uniform national standards.

Our historic compromise granting certain powers to the State that was necessary for the birth of this Nation must no longer be used as an excuse for the abuse of the free and democratic election process here in America. The abuse in certain sections of the country, which once openly used violence and intimidation, were outlawed. All other abuses involving voter suppression and dirty tricks should immediately be made Federal crimes. Out of those who have fought in the past and those still on the battlefield for the cause of democracy, it is our duty to take the steps to escalate our momentum toward the attainment of a more perfect Nation.

Mr. Speaker, we have preached democracy in Afghanistan. We have preached democracy in Iraq. Now the time has come for us to accelerate the process of more fully practicing what we preach. Our great nation is the premium democratic government of the world and we are all proud of that fact. A unifying position of both Democrats and Republicans is that we support democracy everywhere. We believe that where there is democracy the people are inevitably better off. I wholeheartedly endorse the democracy mission of America. But I am here today to beg the chosen decision makers here in the Congress to take a giant step forward to bolster America's world crusade for democracy. As we strive for a more perfect union let us unite to end hypocrisy and to construct a more perfect one person, one vote electoral process.

Today it is appropriate that we address our remarks not only to the citizens of America but also to the people of Afghanistan and to the people of Iraq. We should begin by apologizing for this present electoral system, which undercuts the principle of one person, one vote. Our efforts to achieve free elections in Iraq would be totally shattered if we were to propose today that the nation be divided into 30 or 50 units with each unit granted the power to determine its own election procedures; to select its own equipment; and to appoint its own administrators without any uniform national standards. Our historic compromise granting certain powers to the States that was necessary for the birth of this nation must no longer be used as an excuse for the abuse of the free and democratic election process here in America. The abuse in certain sections of the country, which once openly used violence and intimidation, has been outlawed. All other abuses involving voter suppression and dirty tricks should immediately be made federal crimes.

For too long our nation has accepted as legal and has tolerated blatant sabotage of free elections. Florida offered abundant evidence of such sabotage in the year 2000. Now, in 2004, Ohio has produced a multiple list of irregularities and we are demanding a more thorough investigation. In Ohio the failure of 25 to 30 voting machines to operate correctly with one precinct recording a negative 25 million votes; and the forced waiting periods of three hours in the rain in African American neighborhoods, and ten hours at a polling site for college students; these are only a few of the outrageous examples of voter disenfranchisement in Ohio.

In honor of those who have fought in the past and those still on the battlefield for the cause of true democracy it is our duty to first investigate and then to legislate to overcome all of the poisoning obstacles which obstruct the consolidation of a more perfect national election process. This is a vitally necessary action which will escalate our momentum toward the obtainment of a more perfect nation. God bless America. And God bless democracy everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, Newsday recently published an important investigative series highlighting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) abysmal track record during the first term of the Bush Administration. In this series of articles entitled ``Erasing the Rules,'' Newsday reporters outline OSHA's failure over the past 4 years to issue a single ``significant'' regulation or standard protecting worker health or safety. This failure is unprecedented in the history of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. Since the OSH Act was first enacted in 1970, every other Administration has issued regulations to protect worker safety in a manner deemed economically significant--either saving or costing society $100 million dollars, or more. Furthermore, as his first Congressional act President George W. Bush repealed the mandatory standard on ergonomics. He thereby abolished any effort to address the hundreds of thousands of repetitive motion injuries suffered by American workers every year.

Mr. Speaker, this series exposes the steps taken by OSHA over the past 4 years to turn back the clock on worker safety and health and I urge my colleagues to read it. I am therefore submitting a portion of the Newsday ``Erasing the Rules'' series on OSHA for the Record and ask that it be printed. The remainder of the series will be examined on www.Newsday.com.

[From Newsday, Oct. 21, 2004]

Erasing the Rules

(By Tom Brune)

Many agencies headed by industry veterans who are watering down

regulation

Five minutes after an operator drained a chemical runoff

pit at a paper mill in Pennington, Ala., an invisible deadly

cloud of hydrogen sulfide seeped out of the sewer, killing

two nearby workers and injuring eight others.

The cloud resulted from an unplanned chemical reaction,

created when the drained pool of spilled NaSH, a chemical

used to pulp wood, unexpectedly mixed with sulfuric acid that

had been added to the sewer to control acidity.

And it added another tragedy to the scores of reactive

chemical accidents at workplaces--resulting in toxic

releases, fires or explosions--that have killed more than 100

workers and caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages

since 1980, according to the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard

Investigation Board.

The problem is so grave that in 2002, the year of the paper

mill deaths, the Chemical Safety Board recommended that

federal regulators revise a key safety regulation on chemical

process management to require companies to take steps

to.prevent a broader range of unintended chemical reactions.

But the Bush administration's director of the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, a veteran chemical company

safety executive named John Henshaw, has so far declined to

do so.

Instead, OSHA has formed a cooperative partnership that it

calls an ``alliance'' with the chemical industry to highlight

the issue

and now urges companies to voluntarily follow a manual on

dealing with reactive chemicals that OSHA has posted on

its Web site.

``We think that's a better approach than going through a

lengthy rule-making process,'' said Henshaw, who said he

thinks it's unclear how a rule can be crafted. ``Over the

long haul, we can do it more effectively this way.''

Henshaw's decision reflects the approach of the Bush

administration, an approach it calls ``smarter regulation,''

which emphasizes fewer new rules, examination of existing

ones and the coaxing of companies to voluntarily comply with

safety standards.

Appointments from industry

And Henshaw represents an important facet of the Bush

administration: he is one of the scores of corporate or

industry officials, or their lobbyists and advocates,

appointed to political jobs, high and low, across the

executive branch.

Nearly half--47 percent--of the Bush administration's 400

top-level Senate-confirmed appointees to cabinet departments

came from corporations, law and lobbying firms, or business

consulting, a Newsday analysis found.

That gives business and industry a much greater influence

than it had in the Clinton administration--just more than a

third, or 34 percent, of President Bill Clinton's appointees

came from corporate, law and lobbying, or business

backgrounds.

But the extent of those appointments by Bush represents

more than just the expected tilt toward business by a

Republican administration.

The Bush administration has given key regulatory jobs to

executives like Henshaw, representatives of the same

companies that face regulation, Newsday found. At the

Agriculture Department, which manages the national forest

system, a former lobbyist for the timber industry is now an

undersecretary and at the Food and Drug Administration a

former tobacco and drug company lawyer is the general

counsel.

Those appointments raise the question of whether public

authority ought to be dominated by private interests, said

Harvard University ethics professor Kenneth Winston.

Yet experts agree that the appointments violate no laws and

breach no ethics guidelines, which are narrowly drawn to

address specific personal gain at the expense of the public.

Instead, the experts say, the appointments cast in sharp

relief the priorities of a presidential administration,

because personnel is policy. In rolling back a wide variety

of new or proposed rules, Bush appointees are achieving what

they view as an important goal of eliminating burdensome

regulation and freeing companies to grow.

At the same time, however, some of the changes undo, weaken

or forestall requirements to protect the environment or

improve safety and health in the market and workplace,

sparking sharp criticism from consumer and liberal advocacy

groups.

``What has been different about the Bush administration is

that the people who are on the receiving end of regulation

now have control of regulations,'' said Gary Bass, executive

director of OMB Watch, which monitors regulation and the

Office of Management and Budget.

``It's the proverbial slogan we have used,'' he said, ``You

don't want to have a fox guarding the henhouse.''

reduced regulation goal

More of Bush's business appointees tend to be from heavily

regulated industries, such as manufacturing or energy, than

Clinton's who tended to be from financial and high-tech

firms, the appointee analysis found. That, experts say, makes

Bush appointees more likely to seek reduced regulation.

Critics charge the Bush administration is gutting or

stalling needed government regulation, such as the revised

standard on reactive chemicals, as a way of helping

businesses that back Republicans more than Democrats.

Others, particularly those in organized labor, complain

that the Bush administration has virtually shut them out,

giving a one-sided tilt to companies, corporations and

businesses at the expense of working people.

The Bush administration defends its appointees, calling

them highly qualified individuals who make decisions based on

the American people's best interests while abiding by strict

legal and ethical guidelines.

Chad Kolton, an OMB spokesman, said appointees with

business backgrounds bring expertise to the job, but he

acknowledged they also bring management views. ``That doesn't

mean they are entirely against regulation,'' he said.

The Bush administration seeks to ensure that the benefits

of regulation outweigh the costs, he said.

``Our primary interest is making sure health and safety are

protected,'' Kolton said. ``We are focused on results and

look to achieve the results in the way that provides the most

flexibility and economic growth.''

Blaming what it calls ``an explosion of new federal rules

and paperwork'' over the past 20 years that has inhibited job

growth, the administration says it has cut new rules by 75

percent and is targeting 100 existing rules for streamlining.

an early signal

The first congressional act signed by Bush as president was

a repeal of a mandatory standard on ergonomics, which had

sought to address hundreds of thousands of repetitive motion

injuries a year.

Organized labor and others hailed the regulation as an

important safeguard for the more than half a million workers

injured each year, creating $9 billion in benefits at a cost

of $4.5 billion. Industry groups complained the regulation

would cost business more than $100 billion for questionable

results.

A tougher OMB under Bush in its first year kicked back 22

new major rules to the agencies for reconsideration,

effectively killing half of them, and agencies withdrew

dozens of proposals in early stages of the rule-making

process.

The administration approved 58 anti-terrorism or security

rules after the Sept. 11 attacks, but OMB reports a drop in

other new economically significant ``social regulations''--

rules issued to provide benefits like cleaner air but with a

significant cost.

The Bush administration issued 18 new major social

regulations in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 combined, according

to OMB reports. The Clinton administration approved more than

20 social regulations a year from 1996 to 2000.

Some new Bush rules have been controversial. This year, the

Republican-controlled House and Senate voted to repeal a new

Bush rule on overtime that the administration said would

extend overtime benefits to an additional 1 million workers

but that critics said would cut it for 6 million employees.

Other new Bush regulations have been aimed at changing

protections of the environment--allowing mountain-top mining,

snowmobiles in national parks and greater emissions from

power plants.

And under Bush, OSHA has so far published no new

regulations that the government classifies as ``economically

significant,'' that is costing or saving society $100 million

or more. That's a first for a presidential term in the OSHA's

24-year history. OSHA issued nine of those rules under

Clinton and 10 under Bush's father, an OMB Watch study found.

Similar to Reagan

An expert on political appointments and the federal

government said the Bush administration is more like the

administration of Ronald Reagan, who as a candidate vowed to

eliminate OSHA, than the administration of George H.W. Bush.

``Bush II has drawn more on Reagan than on Bush I,'' said

Paul Light, a New York University public service professor

and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. ``His father

really represented a more moderate wing of the party. On the

regulatory front, Bush II represents the Reagan revolution.''

Reagan and his top officials were confrontational in their

approach to regulation, appointing people openly hostile to

the mission of the regulatory agencies as regulators--they

threatened to abolish OSHA, slashed budgets and cut

enforcement.

Bush and his top officials, however, are much less

confrontational, Light said. But they may be even more

effective. They have succeeded in penetrating rule-making and

enforcement, from the top-line review at OMB to the field

level, where even career workers get calls from the White

House, Light said.

``This is a very well-oiled administrative machine, and

it's very controlling,'' Light said, explaining that White

House political director Karl Rove and others have unusual

influence over the rest of government. ``Chiefs of staff of

each of the secretaries have a weekly telephone conference

with Karl Rove over what's happening in their departments.''

no hope of change

Jim Gannon has very little hope that OSHA will do anything

about reactive chemicals.

In 1995, Gannon was burned on his arms, legs and face when

the Napp Technologies Inc., plant exploded after the improper

mixing of chemicals, killing five, injuring dozens and

leaving a crater in downtown Lodi, N.J. Gannon has since

moved to Florida, but said he still hasn't recovered. At age

44, he said he can't work because of his injuries and said

that he's homeless.

``The whole thing was not supposed to explode,'' he said.

``So what do you do now? I don't expect nothing. Because

obviously nobody's going to do nothing.''

After Lodi, six labor unions filed a petition with OSHA

requesting an emergency revision of the 1992 Process Safety

Management standard for reactive chemical management, seeking

application of the regulation requiring a 14-element safety

program that covers 131 distinct chemicals with toxic or

reactive properties to a broader list of chemicals.

Eric Frumin, health and safety director for the Union of

Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, which

represented 70 workers at the Napp plant, remains bitter

about the company and the fact that workers still face

dangers they shouldn't have to.

``These are not accidents anymore,'' he said. ``They are

predictable. We have the means technically and

organizationally to control the risk of unintended chemical

reactions.''

Deadly unintentional chemical reactions can occur when a

chemical reacts to heat or impact, a chemical or chemical

mixture begins an out-of-control reaction, or two

incompatible chemicals mix, resulting in a toxic cloud or

explosive reaction.

Companies can control these reactions by identifying their

chemicals, evaluating potential hazards, and training

managers and

staff on how to handle chemicals to avoid inadvertent

reactions. These steps are outlined in the existing safety

regulation, but only for the most hazardous chemicals.

Frumin and others say the federal regulation must be

expanded to force companies to pay attention to the potential

hazards of other chemicals, especially those companies that

do the bare minimum on safety to maximize profit.

The Chemical Manufacturers Association, a trade group that

has changed its name to the American Chemistry Council, and

the American Petroleum Institute opposed added regulation.

The two groups said expansion of the current standard would

greatly increase costs without substantial benefits. The

council now is ``test driving'' a flow chart that explains

steps for managers to follow while evaluating reactive

chemicals, said council safety specialist Dorothy Kellogg.

OSHA did not act immediately on the unions' petition. But

it finally placed the standard revision on the Clinton

administration's last regulatory agenda.

In December 2001, under the new Bush administration,

however, OSHA withdrew it, saying it had other priorities.

Bush set those priorities by replacing Labor Secretary

Alexis Hermann, a Democratic activist and advocate for women

and minorities, with Elaine Chao, a fellow at the

conservative Heritage Foundation and wife of Republican Sen.

Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Chao tapped Steven Law, executive director of the

Republican National Senatorial Committee, as chief of staff,

and he assembled Labor's management team. Law is now the

department's deputy secretary.

Under Chao, the number of discretionary lower-level

political appointees like special advisers and confidential

aides at Labor doubled to 90, personnel records show.

No labor appointees

The team recruited heavily from industry and conservative

think tanks. None of the Bush political appointees at Labor

come from organized labor. Three of Clinton's appointees came

directly from unions.

In her first regulatory report, Chao wrote she had set a

new course: ``In general, [the Labor Department] will try to

help employees and employers meet their needs in a

cooperative fashion, with a minimum of rulemaking.''

At OSHA, a target of lobbyists seeking relief for

businesses from regulation, the administration named Henshaw,

an executive at the chemical company Astaris Inc., as

director and steel-industry lobbyist and former Republican

House aide Gary Visscher as his deputy.

OSHA has moved forward on just one economically significant

rule--lowering permissible exposure to hexavalent chromium,

which can cause lung cancer--but only because a federal

appeals court ordered it to meet a Jan. 18, 2006 deadline.

OSHA officials said reduced rule-making has not affected

attaining results, as the workplace fatality rate hit a low

of 4 per 100,000 workers in 2002.

Records, however, show the rate has been dropping steadily

since 1994, and data released last month show the fatality

rate steady but number of deaths slightly up in 2003.

Henshaw declined to speak on the record. Visscher defended

OSHA's work.

``It is true that the regulatory agenda looked like it had

fewer items,'' said Visscher. ``That does not mean the agency

was working on fewer items.''

He said many of the proposals pared from the agenda were

low priority and not likely to go anywhere. The agenda now

reflects more realistically rules that will be completed, he

said.

Among those proposals was the revision of the regulation

compelling companies to follow the reactive chemical Process

Safety Management standard. The Chemical Safety Board has set

out to raise its priority level.

Evaluating the rules

Created by Congress in 1990 following Union Carbide's

accidental toxic chemical release that killed thousands in

Bhopal, India, the independent board is charged with

evaluating OSHA and EPA rules and investigating chemical

accidents.

After two years of research on reactive chemicals not

covered by OSHA's standard, the board found no consistent set

of data, but discovered 167 accidents that took 108 lives at

a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. It found that

OSHA's rule had gaps, and in September 2002 the board voted

to recommend that OSHA revise the standard to fill the gaps

and to set up a database to track incidents.

OSHA did not respond right away, but accidents continued,

including seven that resulted in board investigations.

On Feb. 7, 2003, for example, a violent chemical reaction

inside a vent collection system set off an explosion and fire

at a plating chemicals manufacturing facility in Cranston,

R.I., critically injuring one and sending 18 others to the

hospital.

On Sept. 21, 2003, a worker was injured at a high-tech

biochemical products plant south of Dayton, Ohio, when a

nitric oxide leak led to an explosion of a 300-foot tall

distillation column, blowing out windows of the main office.

On April 12, 2004, a 4,000-gallon vat overheated and burst

a safety valve at a Dalton, Ga., plant, releasing a toxic

cloud that sent 180 people to the hospital and killed all

animals in a 4-square-mile area.

More than a year after the board's recommendation, in

November 2003, Henshaw wrote the board saying he declined to

follow its advice because disagreement among experts about

which chemicals to include or how to regulate them required

OSHA to seek more information from stakeholders, which

include chemical companies. In the meantime, OSHA said it

would increase outreach to employers and pursue voluntary

measures.

OSHA `unacceptable'

The Chemical Safety Board, led by its Bush-appointed chair

Carolyn Merritt, also a chemical company safety executive, in

a unanimous vote in February 2004 called OSHA's response

``unacceptable.''

Merritt said she personally was ``disappointed.'' She noted

the board is not part of the Bush administration.

While welcoming OSHA's increased attention to the issue,

Merritt said a rule is needed to require companies that do

the minimum to meet safety rules.

Board staff point out that the state of New Jersey, which

has had other disastrous chemical incidents since the Lodi

explosion, last year issued its own regulation to broaden the

list of chemicals that must be included in safety planning.

In mid-March, the board began tracking reactive chemical

accidents at plants and has logged about two dozen incidents,

including a reaction involving ammonium nitrate in August at

an aircraft plant in Ferris, Tex., that killed a worker.

Not long after the Chemical Safety Board voted to classify

OSHA's rejection of its recommendation as ``unacceptable,''

one of its members retired and the Bush administration moved

quickly to fill it.

The White House tapped OSHA's deputy director, Visscher.

Visscher is the former vice president of the American Iron

and Steel Institute, who for years worked as a Republican

staffer who sought to make OSHA more business-friendly.

Democrats blocked confirmation of all of Bush's new

executive appointments this summer, but Bush gave Visscher

one of his few recess appointments, allowing Visscher to

serve until December 2005.

Visscher said the White House asked him to take the new

position and he agreed.

The AFL-CIO objected, complaining he lacked the legally

required credentials of a background in chemistry or

regulation of chemical hazards that the other members have.

The AFL-CIO said it also was ``deeply concerned that Mr.

Visscher's appointment would politicize the Chemical Safety

Board's investigations and recommendations.''

Visscher said he has ample experience with workplace

safety, and said, ``I'm not here to politicize the board.''

Press aides for Visscher said he had won the support of Ron

Hayes, the outspoken founder of a support group for families

of workers killed on the job and former member of a federal

worker safety board. Hayes confirmed he had written a letter

of support for Visscher.

``Gary's a pretty good guy,'' Hayes said. But Hayes added

the Bush administration had placed Visscher on the Chemical

Safety Board for a reason.

``What they need is eyes and ears there,'' Hayes said.

``What Bush would like to do is rein them in.''

staffing from the right

Drawing from corporations, inside-the-beltway law and

lobbying firms, and think tanks, President George W. Bush has

assembled the most cohesive and conservative administration

in decades, according to presidential experts and a Newsday

analysis of political appointments.

While President Ronald Reagan was more traditionally

conservative, Bush has succeeded in making more consistently

conservative, and business friendly, appointments from top to

bottom, according to presidential experts.

``The Bush people have vetted every candidate for every

agency, down to the least important appointee to the least

important agency,'' said presidential appointment expert Paul

Light, a public service professor at New York University and

a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

``They ask the hard questions,'' Light said. ``If a

candidate does not believe in their agenda, he is not going

to be appointed.''

Michael Franc, vice president of government affairs at the

conservative Heritage Foundation, agreed. ``When you go

agency by agency, up and down the food chain, you have an

enormous amount of consistency,'' he said.

Bush tapped nearly half, 47 percent, of his top 400 Senate-

confirmed political appointees to cabinet agencies from

corporations, business consulting firms, or law and lobbying

firms, a Newsday analysis found.

That contrasts with President Bill Clinton, who turned to

people with business backgrounds to fill just a third, 34

percent, of his 405 Senate-confirmed political appointees to

cabinet agencies during his first three years in office.

But there is even a difference among the type of business

people each of the presidents brought into their

administrations, the analysis found, a difference that

experts say had an effect on the Clinton and Bush policies,

particularly on regulatory policy.

``The Clinton administration had a preference for Silicon

Valley types, and investment bankers,'' said Light. Those

firms faced little government oversight and so did not push

Clinton to ease regulation.

Bush appointed more executives from the traditional hard

industries--manufacturers, defense contractors, oil and gas

utilities, Light said.

``They do represent a set of industries that are heavily

regulated,'' he said, and they would be more interested in

reducing regulation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my statement be included at the appropriate place in the Record in its entirety and request permission to revise and extend my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, as other members on the Democratic side of the aisle have stressed, the Republican majority has allowed us only a handful of hours to examine the content of this mammoth bill, which numbers in the thousands of pages, before holding a vote on final passage. This rushed vote on the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005 represents more than a serious disservice to the American people. It signifies a disgraceful denigration of our role as elected representatives and a serious blow to our democratic form of government.

Although I therefore lack any time to sift through, let alone examine carefully, the lion's share of provisions in this omnibus measure, I have seen two labor clauses which cause me the gravest of concerns. First, this conference report reverses a provision--which passed both the House and the Senate with clearcut bipartisan support--to ensure that workers who put in overtime hours get paid overtime wages. The Republican leadership in Congress has therefore joined with the Bush Administration in pilfering the pockets of hard-working Americans and their families. By taking away the right of millions of American workers to earn overtime pay, the Republican leadership is also turning back the clock more than half a century. They do so to the detriment of hardworking women and men and their families across this nation.

Secondly, a clause in this bill that would seriously erode worker protections against tuberculosis (TB) and bioterrorism. This provision prohibits the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from enforcing any part of its respirator standard for workers at risk of exposure to TB and other deadly infections. At a time when the Bush Administration is invoking daily, color-coded terrorist alerts, it is senseless to weaken the only standard we have to protect health care workers against air-borne pathogens or air-borne ``weapons of mass destruction.'' By prohibiting OSHA from enforcing either an initial as well as an annual fit test for workers' masks, that is exactly what is possible. According to Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Vice President for Biological Programs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, drug-resistant TB is a biological agent that might be used as a weapon, in addition to small pox, pneumonic plague, and others. To undercut the only protection that front-line health care workers would have against such agents--namely, their respirators--is worse than irresponsible and reckless. It is entirely without conscience. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues in the 109th Congress will see the wisdom of reversing this provision, which seriously undermines workers' protections against TB and bioterrorism.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us contains several extremely important provisions. They are designed to provide essential medical care and compensation for the brave Americans who worked from the 1950s through the 1970s to build this Nation's atomic weapons, often at serious risk to their own health and well-being. In far too many cases, these atomic energy workers were deliberately misled about the serious health risks their occupational exposure to radiation, heavy metals, and other toxic and dangerous substances would entail. Although Congress enacted the Energy Employee Occupation Illness Compensation Program Act, EEOICPA, in 2000 to provide such workers with essential medical care for specified types of cancer and compensation for their inability to work due to illness, a scarce few actually received it. Moreover, a number of workers died without the government ever making good on its promises to recognize their critical contributions to national defense work. In such cases, the surviving spouses and dependent children of these workers remain justly entitled to compensation.

Mr. Speaker, in the early 1950s there were two atomic weapons employers in my district, the 11th Congressional District of New York. One such plant, the American Machine and Foundry, AMF, designed and produced industrial equipment for the Atomic Energy Commission. By carrying out metal machining work for the Atomic Energy Commission-- with uranium, thorium and zirconium--employees at this plant were exposed on a daily basis to large volumes of radioactive and hazardous metals. A second plant in my district, the Wolff-Alport Chemical Corporation, procured thorium sludge for stockpiling by the Atomic Energy Commission. Wolff-Alport Chemical workers were likewise exposed to thousands of pounds of dangerous radioactive substances.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this bill will settle long-standing health care and compensation claims by providing guaranteed Federal benefits for eligible employees whose work in Department of Energy nuclear facilities caused serious illness, impairment and/or disabling conditions. Likewise, this bill will guarantee Federal benefits for the uranium miners, millers and transporters made ill as a result of their work and covered under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program,

Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 487, 488 and 489. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 487, 488 and 489.

Mr. Speaker, since 2001 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, has failed to carry out its core mission of protecting the health and safety of American workers. By withdrawing more rules aimed at workplace safety than it has promulgated over the past 4 years, OSHA has set an appalling track record indeed. As such, OSHA and the Bush administration have earned the dubious distinction of definitively turning back the clock on worker safety.

As documented by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, in a March 2004 report, OSHA has decreased the proportion of its budget dedicated to enforcement activities by 6 percent at the same time it has increased by 8 percent the proportion reserved for its Voluntary Protection Program, VPP. Under the VPP, OSHA offers regional partnerships with certain industry associations--such as construction-- to reduce worker injuries and illness. In return for keeping injury rates 25 percent below the industry average and holding comprehensive training sessions for workers,

participating contractors receive a lower priority for scheduled OSHA inspections. Although certain contractors participating in the VPP have met with some success in reducing injury rates, this can never suffice as a substitute for adequate enforcement of U.S. safety standards.

In its budget request for fiscal year 2006, the Bush administration promises to undermine even further OSHA's ability to develop and enforce essential safety and health standards through funding cuts of $12 million. This is a clear subversion of congressional intent in passing the OSHA Act more than 3 decades ago. Let me remind my colleagues that OSHA's clear statutory mandate is to ``assure every working man and woman in the United States safe and healthful working conditions.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that an article that appeared in today's Washington Post, outlining OSHA's woeful neglect of worker safety, be printed in the Record at this point.

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 5, 2004]

OSHA Withdraws More Rules Than It Makes, Reviews Find

(By Cindy Skrzycki)

It's no secret that the Bush administration prefers

voluntary, collaborative efforts on the part of companies to

improve their safety records. Since the administration took

over in 2001, the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and

Health Administration has forged hundreds of agreements with

companies and business associations to improve their safety

records while rulemaking has been sharply curtailed.

According to OSHA Assistant Secretary John Henshaw, the

approach has resulted in safer workplaces with fewer

fatalities, injuries and illnesses--what he calls the triple

bottom line. ``I've seen what works and doesn't work on the

shop floor,'' said Henshaw, reflecting his own career as a

safety and health professional at chemical companies,

Monsanto Co. and Astaris LLC, before he came to the safety

agency.

But labor unions and some watchdog groups would rather OSHA

play its more traditional role, issuing regulations.

``We have a preference for an actual regulation that is

enforceable and fair across the board,'' said J. Robert

Shull, senior regulatory policy analyst at OMB Watch, a

nonprofit group funded mostly by foundations that has three

union officials among its 15 directors.

Adds Peg Seminario, director of occupational safety and

health for the AFL-CIO: Setting and enforcing standards is

part of their mission. ``So why aren't they?''

Since fall 2000, the agency has not been regulating in the

traditional sense, OMB Watch found in a series of reviews.

Twenty-four rules that were in some stage of development on

OSHA's agenda were withdrawn by the administration. Nine

rules were completed, but none were major and several were

related to recordkeeping.

In examining the agency's December 2003 and June 2004

regulatory agendas, which track the progress of its rules,

OMB Watch found that since last December, OSHA has revised a

rule on commercial diving operations, reexamined one on

mechanical power presses and changed how musculoskeletal

disorders are reported. It completed one rule, to protect

shipyard workers from fire hazards, and yesterday proposed

new standards to protect workers from hexavalent chromium, a

chemical used in chrome plating. That was under a court

order.

``It's a meager output. It's the black hole of

government,'' Shull said. ``OSHA cleared the decks of its

agenda. Just swept it clean.'' His group maintains that

gutting the agency's regulatory agenda is a sop to

business, which won a big victory when the Bush

administration cancelled a final rule to protect workers

from ergonomic injuries.

Early in the Bush administration, Henshaw said he didn't

put much stock in the regulatory agenda, calling it a wish

list that contained proposals that had been incubating for

years with no result. He said he preferred a ``to-do'' list--

which OMB Watch now calls a ``do-nothing'' list.

That list has 24 items, including whether employers have to

pay for protective equipment for their workers.

Said Henshaw, who inherited the protective equipment

proposal from the Clinton administration: ``We're reviewing

the comments now and we're committed to taking the next step.

But I don't want to say exactly what the next step is.''

His emphasis, he said, has been on cooperative efforts with

business and stepped-up enforcement of ``bad actors'' who are

responsible for most safety problems.

The agency has formed 231 long-term alliances with trade

associations and companies since 2002 that emphasize

outreach, education, and sharing ``best practices.'' OSHA

under Henshaw has forged 214 active strategic partnerships

that set safety goals involving 4,762 employers, and there

are 1,153 voluntary protection program sites, where companies

with exemplary safety records forego routine inspections.

Critics of the agency are leery of these arrangements,

where union participation is minimal. And they don't entirely

trust the numbers OSHA uses to support its claim that injures

and illnesses are decreasing. Unions don't consider the

reports dependable, she said, because they are furnished by

employers.

Seminario points out that there have been two major changes

in the way employers collect injury and illness data since

2002, making comparisons to earlier years difficult. For

example, the incidence of musculoskeletal injuries on the

job--injuries from repetitive work and poorly designed

workplaces--is no longer reported separately.

Data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on days

missed from work for illness show that over the past few

years, the percentage of days taken off due to injuries and

illnesses related to ergonomic issues has remained constant--

about 34 percent--though the overall number of injuries and

illnesses has decreased.

The business community said it wasn't that focused on the

proposed rules OSHA axed but wanted to prevent new

regulations. And groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

have been unhappy that the safety regulators issued citations

for ergonomic violations under a broad enforcement authority.

Since Congress killed the ergo rule two years ago, OSHA has

opened cases against seven companies for ergonomic-related

violations.

Randel Johnson, vice president of labor, immigration and

employee benefits for the chamber, called the trend

troubling. ``The agency has aggressively pursued ergonomics

citations . . . demanding abatement measures that sound much

like the repealed regulation and micromanaging targeted

employers with a laundry list of requirements. Despite what

the unions may allege, our life with OSHA has been no rose

garden.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is insulting and disgusting for the Republican Majority to make a joke of serious war and peace policy by bringing draft legislation to the floor as a frivolous matter, as a joke.

Every member of the House who is against the draft should join me as a co-sponsor of H.R. 4746, the Selective Service Registration Termination Act. The attached ``Dear Colleague'' letter of June 25, 2004 provides a fuller explanation of H.R. 4746

This bill proposes the termination of the selective service registration system which requires that all eighteen-year-old males register. This lost component of the system maintains a large manpower pool readily available for the quick implementation of a draft. This bill takes away the draft option and guarantees that future policy makers must confine their adventures to actions which can be launched and maintained with only a volunteer military force.

H.R. 4746 clearly indicates that in the case of a full declaration of war by the Congress of the United States the Selective Service System may be reinstituted. Only as a last resort should a war be declared and mandatory proscription be authorized.

In the case of a draft there must be no exemptions for the rich and the powerful. If a draft is implemented the rich and powerful should go first. Attached is a statement from the Congressional Record submitted on July 16, 2003 which expresses the conviction which must guide any future draft: Let the rich go first.

U.S. Congress,

House of Representatives,

Jun. 25, 2004.

Working Families Need Jobs, Not Guns and Uniforms--We Must Terminate

Selective Service Registration

Dear Colleague: I have introduced the ``Selective Service

Registration Termination Act'' (H.R. 4746) in order to

dismantle the machinery of a draft which would suck American

youth deeper into the quagmire of the Iraq War and also

provide manpower for new preemptive wars. Our nation is at a

pivotal point with respect to the use of military force to

protect our vital interests around the world. The worship of

the false god of war would be lessened if we take clear and

careful steps to reduce the pool of potential combat troops.

Continuing a volunteer army policy will provide a strong

restraint and check on new violent adventures.

Every presidential candidate must be made to pledge that

there will be no implementation of a draft after the

election. Working families need jobs, not guns and uniforms.

Preparations for a draft are presently an underground,

covert, ghost operation as we move toward election day;

however, there are distinct actions which point the way to a

future sudden ``common sense'' announcement that the

machinery of the draft must be reactivated. Please note that

the Senate recently authorized a twenty thousand soldier

increase for the Department of Defense. All experts have

agreed that unless circumstances change the size of the

occupying army in Iraq must be greatly increased. Instead of

the creation of a vast new pool of cannon fodder, we must

insist that ``the circumstances must be changed.''

``Shock and Awe'' invasions must not continue to be an

alternative for the unilateral

confrontation of enemies in the war against terrorists. The

machinery of diplomacy; a world wide network of coordinated

intelligence; and the maintenance of the capacity to execute

swift, targeted actions must replace the obsolete and costly

total war strategy. Ending the draft system is the most

practical step available to use to force the end of reckless

war as an alternative.

Working families need jobs, not guns and uniforms. Support

a giant step toward lasting peace. Please join me by

cosponsoring H.R. 4746 by contacting Larry J. Walker at 225-

6231.

Sincerely,

Major R. Owens,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my statement be included in the Record in its entirety and request permission to revise and extend my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us would express the sense of Congress that September 11 be designated a national day of voluntary service, charity and compassion in recognition of the nearly 3,000 Americans who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Clearly, all those who tragically lost their lives that day will forever be memorialized by New Yorkers and the Nation at large. Likewise, it is important that we all continue to pay tribute to the countless rescue and recovery workers and volunteers who toiled heroically to locate survivors as well as the deceased and to clean up the Pentagon and Ground Zero.

Yet it is imperative that we do far more than pay symbolic tribute to these front-line heroes. For many on the front lines at Ground Zero in particular, 9/11 can never be a distant memory. Many of these dedicated workers, from the search and rescue teams to the clean-up and construction crews, have significant and lingering health problems as a direct result of exposure to a wide range of toxins. A number have had to retire from active duty due to serious breathing and respiratory symptoms. Far too many can no longer work at their chosen occupations. Others will never be able to work again.

On Workers Memorial Day in 2003, I held a forum in New York City to examine the health status of the 9/11 workers, including a large contingent of immigrant workers entrusted with decontaminating Ground Zero. We must ensure that these brave 9/11 workers, including the group of day laborers; receive all appropriate health care and monitoring as long as necessary. We must also ensure that the health and safety blunders made in this case, and the failure to protect our workers, are never repeated again.

Mr. Speaker, I hope and expect that in the very near future, we will act upon legislation providing the critical health and compensation these brave 9/11 workers merit and require.

Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 441, 442 and 443. If present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, because of an emergency in my district, I missed rollcall vote Nos. 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453 and 454. If present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 446, 447, 448, 449, 452, 453 and 454 and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 444, 445, 450 and 451.