Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to express my strong opposition to this $87 billion appropriations request.

While all of us believe that we must provide enough money to ensure that our troops are safe, the Congressional Research Service has calculated that if the Army continues to use resources at the current pace, it can fund military personnel requirements in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere throughout the end of May 2004, even if we do not appropriate one more dime for Iraq. And operational and maintenance funding should last through March 2004. There is no justification for this $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill, and I will not support it under any circumstances.

After months of misleading the American people, this administration cannot account for the $79 billion that has already been provided by Congress.

Mr. Chairman, this President has mismanaged this costly and unnecessary war. They cannot account for American taxpayers' money already spent, and this administration has been caught with misleading and untruthful actions, and they are now being revealed. And now the President has the audacity to be angry with the media because they report to us on the continuous killing and maiming of our soldiers.

Mr. Chairman, we need the truth about what is going on. Our soldiers are being picked off one by one. The President made this big flashy and costly announcement that the war was over. What a terrible miscalculation; 183 soldiers have been killed since that announcement, more than during the war.

We do not need to give this administration 87 billion more of the taxpayers' dollars. We do need an exit strategy. It seems so easy for some of my colleagues to get up and talk about we cannot afford to cut and run.

Mr. Chairman, we are talking about risking the lives of America's young people in Iraq. And someone has got our soldiers signing form letters talking about how well things are going. That too has been revealed. Yes, we do need an exit strategy. And we also need a domestic agenda for America. We need to create jobs, repair our roads and highways, and build schools and health clinics. I do not begrudge the Iraqi children and families education and health care; but Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Powell, and Ms. Rice told the American people the Iraqi infrastructure could be rebuilt with Iraqi oil revenue. Well, we find that is not true.

I am tired of the lies and spinning by this administration. We must deny this administration the ability to borrow more money, create more debt, weaken our economy, and continue to cause the loss of lives of our precious young people.

Mr. Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to focus attention on the lack of credibility of this administration. This administration has been revealed for attempting to mislead the American public, and they certainly have mismanaged this so-called Iraqi freedom war. This administration's credibility is on the line, and let me recount some of the reasons why.

Every American now knows that there are no weapons of mass destruction, that this administration claimed they knew about, had identified and could document in Iraq. They even claimed that they had the drones that do surveillance that were capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction. That has been debunked. That is not true. They also claimed and there were weeks of stories in the paper about the President's claim that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase yellow cake, or uranium, from Niger. That has been found not to be true.

They claimed and tried to mislead the American public in several ways. They have been caught trying to tie 9/11 to Saddam Hussein, and they have had to back off of it, and they have looked rather foolish in doing that.

But, really, to underscore this lack of credibility, imagine that Karl Rove, sitting at the right hand of the President of the United States, had the audacity, the temerity to call the press and to out an undercover CIA agent and the wife of an ambassador. Not only did he break the law, he endangered the life of this woman. And this is a man who is calling the shots in the White House, again whispering into the ear of the President, guiding and leading him.

They also claimed, as they bombed Iraq, that Iraq would be rebuilt with the oil resources. We know that they secured the oil fields when they landed. And they told us that they would be pumping the oil and that the revenues from that oil would pay for the rebuilding. Well, those are just a few of the instances of misleading information, distortions, information that has managed to confuse the American people and create a lot of distrust.

But I am not going to concentrate all of my 5 minutes on that. That story has been written. And I do not care how they try to do their little mini shake-up and pretend that Rumsfeld is not the point person that he is, and drag out Condoleezza Rice, who is supposed to put a better spin on it than Rumsfeld. I do not care how they try to do that. The fact of the matter is, the American people are unhappy.

We are unhappy when we look at the request for $87 billion that this President has asked the American public to ante up, this $87 billion at a time when the economy is not well. When we have lost over 3.5 million jobs, where people are trying to make ends meet, cannot pay their bills and have plants that are closing down every day, the President asks the American people to ante up $87 billion because he is proposing to spend $850 million on Iraqi health care, including $150 million for a new Children's Hospital.

The number of uninsured Americans has grown to 43.6 million in 2002, up from 41 million in 2001. There are 8.5 million children without health insurance. And I can keep on going. They want to do some housing in Iraq. The President proposes to spend $470 million on housing and construction, including $100 million to build 3,528 new houses in Iraq. How many Members of Congress could use some new housing in their districts?

In the United States, we are experiencing a housing shortage on an unprecedented scale. According to the Millennium Housing Commission, there is currently a 1.8 million unit gap between the number of extremely low-income households and the number of affordable rental units available for these households.

But let us not stop there. Let us move on to education. The President's proposal includes distributing 5 million science and math books, 1.2 million school supply kits for students, and as many as 1,000 primary schools are being rehabbed. One Member on the other side of the aisle got on the floor and showed us the brand new book bags they bought for all of the children of Iraq. I had to remind him that children in my district do not even have books to put in a book bag.

The President's signature program, No Child Left Behind, is underfunded by $8 billion. While we are witnessing this in this country, think about the lack of credibility that this administration has created with the way it has done these contracts.

An August 28 Washington Post article noted that Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than a couple billion dollars under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars more under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Bechtel has earned at least $350 million.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on and on. But every night Members will be coming to the floor talking about the lack of credibility, the mismanagement and the shock and awe campaign that was put on. Well, Mr. President, we are going to shock and awe you. Mr. President, you are going to be shocked when the people speak out and decide that they do not want this kind of representation.

Madam Speaker, I came to the floor this evening to join my colleagues and hoping to educate the American public about what is going on with our government and what is happening with the request for $87 billion to continue the war in Iraq.

I think it should be very, very clear and I would like to set the record straight for myself. I will not support $87 billion to continue this war under any circumstances. I am very clear about that. As a matter of fact, I have been concerned. When it first came to light that the President was requesting $87 billion, I heard some of my colleagues in the other House say, we are going to ask him some tough questions; we are going to ask them all kinds of questions about what they did with the money that we appropriated before. But they all conclude by saying, but we are going to have to give him the $87 billion.

I have not and will not reach such a conclusion, a, because the President and his representatives, whether it is Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell or Wolfowitz or any of the rest of them, Dick Cheney included, they will come to this Congress and they will tell us whatever they think they need to tell us in order to get what they want. They have not been truthful in any shape, form, or fashion; and they continue to defend this preemptive strike and to mislead us about what they are doing.

Madam Speaker, I do not want anybody to say that because I do not support the $87 billion that I am unpatriotic. That old accusation has worn out. It has worn thin. The President and his representatives have threatened everybody with we are going to call you unpatriotic if you do not do or say what we want you to do or say. Well, I am not threatened or intimidated by that. I am not going to support $87 billion, and I am more patriotic than they are.

As a matter of fact, as I stand here tonight, there is a traitor in the White House, a traitor who has outed a CIA operative, placed a woman's life on the line because they chose to be vindictive and to get back at her husband because he, in fact, helped to reveal the fact that he was the one that had been dispatched to Niger to find out whether or not Saddam Hussein had tried to get uranium to further his efforts to build nuclear warfare; and because he told the truth, the ambassador told the truth, he simply said I told the CIA that, in fact, there was no evidence to show that there had been an attempt by Saddam Hussein to get uranium from Niger, but the President put it in his speech to this House and said in so many words and led the American people to believe that it was another reason why it was important for him to

have this preemptive strike. Well, there is a traitor in the White House. They are unpatriotic, and I do not want to hear them utter the word one more time about who is patriotic and who is not.

As a matter of fact, as we look at how we have been misled, we need to remind the American public over and over again that we support our soldiers. We are upset that they have not had the equipment to keep them safe and secure and all that we thought they had. Each day we are finding out more and more about that which they have not had and ways that they have been suffering.

We have been misled by Donald Rumsfeld. Donald Rumsfeld comes up to this House and gives us so-called classified briefings. We do not learn any more from him than we learn on CNN; and Members have been too intimidated to ask him the tough questions, to push him up against the wall and tell him when they think that he has been misleading us, but just take a look in the ways that we have been misled.

First of all, we must say over and over again, remember, they said they were going to do this preemptive strike because Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction. They have found none. There are none. I do not think they will ever find them.

But, of course, Mr. Wolfowitz said, we just told them that. He had the arrogance and the audacity to say, well, we thought that would be the best way to get support for the war. So they misled us, told us a lie, basically, that there were weapons of mass destruction.

And then they told us that they had drones. And these drones that were normally used for surveillance were equipped to deploy biological and chemical warfare. Another lie. The uranium lie.

I will close by saying we have been misled; we have been lied to. The American public should not feel mispatriotic. Do not support this war. Tell your Congresspeople not to spend $87 billion on this war.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to support the President's request for $87 billion to continue the war in Iraq. We asked him to continue the inspections, he chose to do a preemptive strike. And now he is telling us that we have got to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. I am not going to support that. They told us that the oil that they would get, revenues that they would get from Iraq, would support the reconstruction. Now, we have colleagues coming on the floor, telling us what a wonderful job they are doing and showing us bookbags that they have for the children of Iraq. I want the Members to know children in my district do not even have books to put in bookbags, and we have Members on the other side of the aisle who do not support more Federal funding to local school districts. They say it is a local school district problem.

Give me a break, Mr. President. The covers are off. He has mismanaged this war. He has made promises. The only one who is benefitting from this war is Mr. Cheney's company, Halliburton, that is getting contracts that were not competitive. The President will not get a vote from me for $87 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1276, the American Dream Downpayment Act, a bill to assist low-income families in achieving homeownership by providing downpayment assistance under the HOME Investments Partnership Act.

I would like to thank the chairman of our Subcommittee on Housing, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), for his leadership. I would like to thank him for his evenhandedness in the management of the committee that helps to bring us all together in support of legislation that makes good sense for all of the Members of this Congress.

I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) and tell her how fortunate she is as a new Member to have the support of her administration in seeing to it that she is able to have a bill that will truly do something for American families that we would all like to do. Normally, this bill would be thought of as a liberal bill. This is the kind of bill that the Democrats would normally roll out, if we were in power, because it is talking about spending money, it is talking about spending money for poor people who want to have homeownership, but cannot afford that downpayment.

Downpayments are very tough. Many people who pay their bills regularly, who have never missed paying their utility bills, they pay their rent on time, they work every day, just cannot manage to come up with that 10 percent or 15 percent or whatever is being required in those markets for downpayments. And so that is why this bill is so important.

It would create a new subtitle within the Home Investment Partnerships Act to authorize grant by formula to States and localities for the exclusive purpose of providing downpayment assistance to low- income first-time home buyers; families, that is, with 80 percent or lower of local median income, the formula to be established by HUD, based on a grantee's need for and prior commitment to assistance to home buyers.

The bill authorizes $200 million in funding in each of the next 2 fiscal years. The administration projects that $200 million in funding would assist 40,000 low-income home buyers. The downpayment assistance authorized under this will be administered by the Home Investment Partnership Program that is referred to as HOME. HOME is an existing grant program that helps communities nationwide expand the supply of housing for low- and very low-income families.

The House appropriated $125 million for this program in funding year 2004 VA-HUD appropriations bill approved by the House earlier this summer. This is an increase from the $75 million appropriated in the funding year 2003 VA-HUD budget for the program contained in the omnibus appropriations bill for funding year 2003 passed in February of this year.

Unfortunately, HUD is still writing regulations for this downpayment assistance program and has not yet released the funding year 2003 funding.

According to HUD study, entitled Barriers to Minority Home Ownership, the overall home ownership rate is 68 percent, while home ownership rates for African Americans and Latinos are 48 and 46 percent, respectively. The HUD report established that one of the most persistent barriers to minority home ownership is the lack of capital for downpayment and closing costs.

Without going into a lot more detail, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that this is a bill that will get support from both sides of the aisle. Democrats have been advocating for a long time for these kinds of expenditures to deal with the housing crisis in America, and so I expect that we will have unanimous support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left on this side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume to close out the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is motherhood and apple pie. This is what public policy should be about, recognizing a need and moving to place in law some law that will indeed help those who really do need assistance to realize the American dream. This did not start today, did not start yesterday.

We have a lot of legislators who have worked on this. Congresswoman Roukema is not here anymore. She worked on this, and I think we had it in the 2003 Omnibus bill. We did not get that at that time, but it has been revisited in this way by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), and again, there will be no opposition. Truly, this is motherhood and apple pie. Homeownership, there are so many people who are desirous of owning their homes, who work every day but cannot afford that downpayment.

I am pleased that we spent time in committee thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and Democrats were able to improve this bill during the committee markup by offering several amendments that were adopted, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and even an amendment that I offered to require targeted outreach programs. My amendment requires participating jurisdictions to conduct outreach to people living in public housing, Section 8 housing and manufactured housing as part of their plan to access these dollars. That means we are taking care of inner city, we are taking care of suburbia and we are taking care of the rural areas. It is not just about public housing. It is about manufactured housing, also, and so we worked to make sure that the outreach that is done is comprehensive. This outreach will ensure more residents will have an opportunity to share in the American dream and break their dependence on public housing assistance.

I am also pleased that the committee report on this bill includes report language clarifying that funds appropriated for this program should be new money and not be offset by a reduction in HOME block grants. Sometimes we come up with bills and we talk about the costs, but yet we do not appropriate new money. We reduce the money in some other pot, and we have language in this bill that will prevent that from happening.

Mr. Speaker, owning a home also can provide a sense of security and contribute to safer, stronger neighborhoods. A financial and personal stake in a residence helps the residents to create a better neighborhood where families, children and all the elderly can thrive and enjoy a better quality of life.

I am pleased to be a part of this committee. I am pleased to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to talk about an issue of fundamental unfairness which burdens many of our veterans: concurrent receipt. I organized this Special Order to focus attention on the unfairness of the concurrent receipt law and to give Members the opportunity to demand that the Republican leadership bring to the floor H.R. 303, the bill that would end concurrent receipt.

Madam Speaker, today we will hear Democratic Members from districts throughout the Nation call for an end of concurrent receipt. Concurrent receipt is a Civil War-era law that prevents disabled veterans from receiving both military retirement and veterans disability benefits. Under the law, for every dollar that a veteran receives in disability pay, $1 is taken away from their retirement pay. The effect of the concurrent receipt law is to tax a veteran for being injured while serving in the military. This is an extremely unfair burden that we place on our wounded veterans.

Madam Speaker, America's veterans have made huge sacrifices in order to protect our freedoms. We should not repay their sacrifice by denying them the benefits they have earned and deserve. Congress must repeal the concurrent receipt law.

Over the past several years, there has been a strong bipartisan effort to repeal this law. In this Congress, the bill to repeal concurrent receipt, H.R. 303, has 370 cosponsors. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a longtime Republican Member, is a sponsor of H.R. 303. Madam Speaker, 370 cosponsors is an extraordinary number of cosponsors for any bill. As all of us know, there are few bills introduced in this body that have 370 cosponsors. There are even fewer bills that do not come to the floor for action by Members of the House.

Yet despite this tremendous bipartisan support, the House Republican leadership, as well as the White House, has refused to support this bill. In fact, the Secretary of Defense has said that he would recommend that the President veto any legislation that includes language which would eliminate concurrent receipt. The House Republican leadership continues to ignore the will of the Members, and our constituents, and refuses even to allow H.R. 303 to come to the floor for action.

The opponents of this bill say that it will cost too much money. They cite a study from the Congressional Budget Office which estimates that it would cost the Federal Government $3 billion in fiscal year 2004 to cover the 400,000 eligible veterans. It is incredible that the opponents would offer such a poor excuse for why they refuse even to bring this bill to the floor.

Give me a break.

Mr. Speaker and Members, the Bush administration has spent almost $80 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan and is seeking a supplemental appropriation of $87 billion for the war in Iraq and Iraqi reconstruction. Yet, the administration will not seek the resources required to protect the retirement pay of veterans who had the misfortune of becoming disabled while serving their country. What a cruel, sick joke. These veterans earn their retirement pay, and they deserve both a full retirement benefit and their disability compensation.

We must not walk away from our obligations. How can we put a price on the service that these men and women gave to our country? How can we put a price on going through life without a limb or without the ability to see or hear? They did their job with bravery and dedication. Now, we must do ours. The Federal Government should provide full benefits to veterans who protected our people. Simple fairness and decency requires it.

Because of the opposition of the Republican leadership to this bill, Democrats have had to file a discharge petition in an attempt to bring H.R. 303 to the floor and force consideration of this bill. A successful discharge petition requires 218 signatures. To date, however, even though H.R. 303 has 370 cosponsors, there are only 203 signatures on the discharge petition.

Nearly every Democrat has signed the discharge petition, but only two Republicans have signed. Because of the opposition of the Republican leadership, not even Congressman Bilirakis, the sponsor of H.R. 303, has signed the discharge petition.

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the Republican leadership has strong-armed their Members into not supporting the discharge petition on H.R. 303 and prevented the Congress from providing this essential relief to our veterans.

The Republican leadership's unfair and outrageous refusal to bring H.R. 303 to the floor for action is harming our veterans and keeping many veterans from obtaining a decent quality of life. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of thousands of veterans suffering under the concurrent receipt law. Because the United States military is committed to missions throughout the world that will result in additional veterans becoming disabled, the number of veterans who will be subjected to this tax will only grow.

Unfortunately, this is only one of the many policies that this administration and the Republican party have adopted which harms our veterans. For example, although it is not uncommon for a

veteran to wait 6 months or more to see a doctor, the Republicans' budget did not provide enough funding to shorten these waiting periods.

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to see the President constantly using our veterans for photo-ops, but when it comes to providing the necessary funding to give our veterans a good quality of life, the Republicans are nowhere to be found.

We, Democrats, have another way. We appreciate the sacrifice that all veterans have made and believe that the government must provide the necessary funding for veterans to receive the medical, educational, and other benefits they need and deserve. We particularly appreciate the men and women who were injured while serving their country and believe we should provide them with their full retirement benefits, as well as their full disability compensation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to pass H.R. 303 and help our disabled veterans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time left on the hour.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), who has truly been a leader on this issue all over the country, and he is the Member who filed the discharge petition.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank not only the gentleman from Georgia but all of my colleagues who spoke this evening. We are spending so much time

on this issue because our veterans should be special and should be very important to all of the Members of Congress and to public policymakers in general.

Our veterans have been so loyal, not just to our country because of their service but they are always loyal to the Commander in Chief. They have allowed themselves to be misused, to be ignored, and to be marginalized too much, and particularly by this administration. We find ourselves fighting and the veterans are scratching and clawing trying to just get the kind of benefits that they deserve.

They are in these veterans hospitals across the Nation waiting in line for service, cannot get appointments. We do not have enough beds for them in nursing care homes. And now we hear about this particular issue on the floor tonight, and it seems to me that the President of the United States would put an end to this. This is a Commander in Chief that is now saying that he needs $87 billion more to continue the war in Iraq? We are going to have more veterans who will be disabled, who will come home, who will have to suffer this great injustice.

This is the President who has already spent $79 billion and who is coming back for more. And this is the President, along with others in the administration, who is talking about we all have to make sacrifices. Our soldiers are dying, our soldiers are being crippled and disabled. They are losing their limbs. How long do we have to beg? How long do we have to plead with this President?

I am here tonight, along with my colleagues, to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to please sign that discharge petition. Please send a message to the veterans that during this time when we are at war, at a time when many of those who watch us on television who are fighting in Iraq, who may be the victim of some sniper's bullet any time, any day, let them know that should something happen, should they be crippled, should they lose a limb that they can depend on their government to see to it that they get both their retirement and the disability benefits that they deserve. I do not think that is too much to ask, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly feel a little bit ashamed this evening that we have to carry this debate this far. I served on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs when I first came to the Congress of the United States. I interacted with all of the service organizations. I made a lot of friends, and I discovered at that time that there are many in the Congress who will wave the red, white, and blue flag and they will talk the talk; but they will not walk the walk. They will not stand up and ask for the dollars. They will not defend the services. They will not even take the time to help the veterans fight through the bureaucracy of veterans affairs to get the benefits that are coming to them.

My office makes this its number one priority. Not only do we work for the veterans, we have had to organize a whole chapter of the Vietnam- era veterans in my district because they were being ignored and they were not being serviced. We think that that is the least that a Member of Congress can do, to service the veterans, to fight for them, to make sure that they get justice. And on this issue, this should be the highest priority of our veterans agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I had not come to the floor prepared to say anything; except when I heard my colleagues from the other side of the aisle talking about the success of Iraqi Freedom, I just have to remind the Congress of the United States that we have been asked for $87 billion to continue this war that was a preemptive strike that most of us, or many of us, did not agree with.

The fact of the matter is we are finding out every day that we have been misled, that we have been told stories that are not true. They have still not found the weapons of mass destruction, and now we are asked not only to support our soldiers, but we are now asked to rebuild Iraq. Most of us are certainly in support of our soldiers, and we are very upset that they have not had the equipment and the supplies and other kinds of things good planning would have caused any army to have. But most of us are not satisfied with the fact that we are asked to rebuild Iraq when, in fact, this administration told us that they were going to get the money from the oil wells, the oil wells that they secured when they first went

in, to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq; $87 billion, not now.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for yielding me this time. I know how hard he and others have worked on the bill, and I certainly know what they are attempting to do. I just feel as if I would be derelict in my duty if I did not speak to some of the issues that I have spent so many years working on. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) did not have to allow me this time, knowing that I oppose the bill, and I am extremely appreciative for that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition both to the process that has brought this bill to the floor under suspension of the rules and to the substance of the underlying bill, H.R. 2086, the reauthorization bill for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the so-called Drug Czar's Office.

Mr. Speaker, why is this bill before us today under suspension of the rules with only 20 minutes of debate for each side and no opportunity for Members to offer amendments? Is there anyone who truly believes that this bill could not be improved if we had a full and fair debate on the many issues raised by H.R. 2068 and if Members had the opportunity to offer amendments to the bill?

The Director of the ONDCP manages a Federal drug control budget of almost $20 billion. The Federal drug control budget for the last 5 fiscal years alone was almost $100 billion. ONDCP is tasked with managing an enormous Federal drug control budget. What is the return on the investment? Where is the bang for our Federal dollars? Surely, something more than such cursory floor consideration is in order for these major issues.

The war on drugs is a joke. It is ineffective, and it is a waste of taxpayers' money. This money should be spent on prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. During proceedings in the Committee on the Judiciary, I certainly tried to offer amendments to defund this program altogether. We need to start all over again.

Mr. Speaker, the nationwide prison inmate population today is about 2.1 million people, over 160,000 of them in my State of California alone. Many of the inmates are serving time for drug offenses. Nationwide, more than 40 percent of the prison population consists of African American inmates. About 10 percent of the African American men in their mid to late 20s are behind bars. In some cities, more than 50 percent of young African American men are under the supervision of the criminal justice system. Given the role of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses in producing these statistics, we need to have a serious debate about the efficacy and soundness of the war on drugs and on mandatory minimum sentencing.

Mr. Speaker, Americans need real help in diverting their children from drug use. Families need rehabilitation to save and unite families. This so-called war on drugs is merely a joke, and I believe that we can do better.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy observed in a major speech this summer to the annual meeting of the American Bar Association on mandatory minimum sentencing, he said, ``Our resources are misspent.'' This is a Supreme Court Justice. ``Our punishments too severe, our sentences too long. The Federal sentencing guidelines should be revised downward. I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of Federal mandatory minimum sentencing. In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.''

These task forces go out into these poor communities and find some misguided kid with one gram of crack cocaine. They spend all this time locking them up, taking them to court, getting mandatory minimum sentencing where they spend 5 years or more under mandatory minimum sentencing. The judge has no discretion. It does not make any difference whether they have ever been in trouble before. It does not make any difference that their families are good, they are professionals. The child makes one mistake. They are not cracking the big drug czars. They are not getting the people who are really responsible for putting the drugs on the streets. They will lock up anybody that they can easy so that they can get some more drug task force money.

I just had all the defendants here at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation weekend from Tulia, Texas, where they arrested 10 percent of all of the African American men in the town of Tulia, Texas, arrested them on the testimony of one lying guy, one man who was a part of the drug task force, the drug agent, Mr. Thomas Coleman, who is now, by the way, under indictment for his misconduct in Tulia. He just simply lied. And he went to the judge, no jury, they gave people sentences from anywhere from 4 or 5 years to 20 and 30 years. They had to take an army of pro bono lawyers from the big law firms and from the NAACP and from the ACLU to go out and get these sentences overturned. This is a joke, and it needs to be stopped.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first let me say that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), worked very, very hard to get a bipartisan bill to bring everybody together, along with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). I think everybody put their best foot forward on this legislation, and I am just sorry that I am not able to support the bill simply because I have to protect California.

I think there was a misunderstanding somewhere along the way. I made lot of inquiries about whether or not post-1996 legislation or laws were protected in this bill. I was led to believe that they were protected, but now I find that they were not protected, and what we stand to do is literally undo or preempt much of the good consumer legislation that has been produced in my State. So I must object to the permanent preemption provisions that are proposed in this bill, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

I believe that the States should be free to adopt more extensive consumer protections than those that are provided in this Fair Credit Reporting Act. I believe that the national standards contained in the Fair Credit Reporting Act should be the floor, not a ceiling, on the protections available to consumers. States should have the right to provide additional protections.

I will ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, do any of you know what the next major consumer problem will be in the year 2010? In 1996, when the amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act was established, identity theft was not even on the radar. We had never even heard of identity theft. The idea that someone would violate a person by stealing their identity and accessing their financial records was not an issue we were familiar with. Now it is the fastest growing consumer complaint to the FTC, with over 200,000 complaints in 2002 alone.

As Californians, our laws on such emerging consumer issues as identify theft represent the gold standard in consumer protection, and that is why I am asking for support on an amendment to carve out all of California laws enacted since the passage of 1996 amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act from preemption provisions contained in the bill.

There has been an attempt, well, I do not know what happened, but, again, there was a misunderstanding, and I was misled. All of the consumer protections that were enacted after 1996, with the exception of California Civil Code 1785.25(a) regarding furnishers, are preemptable. So, I have a long list.

For example, let me tell you what is preempted. Consumer reporting agencies must disclose the names and addresses of all sources of information used in Consumer Reports. That is California law, now preempted if this passes.

California also requires consumer reporting agencies to, with a reasonable degree of certainty, match at least three categories of identifying information within the consumer's file with the information provided by a retailer. The categories of identifying information may include the consumer's first and last name, month and date of birth, driver's license number, place of employment, current residence, previous residence, or Social Security number. This effectively reduces a successful attempt at identity theft and reduces the chances for mistaken identity.

Another preemption, a consumer has the right to receive his or her credit score, the key factors in any related information. Another preemption.

A consumer would be able to have a security freeze placed on his or her credit report by making a request in writing by certified mail with a consumer credit reporting agency. A security freeze prohibits the consumer reporting agency from releasing the consumer's credit report or any information from it without the expressed authorization of the consumer. It would preempt it.

Upon receipt from a victim of identity theft of a police report or valid investigative report, a consumer reporting agency must provide a victim of identity theft with up to 12 copies of their credit report during a consecutive 12-month period free of charge. It is very hard to straighten up this identity theft. Sometimes it takes 3 to 4 years. But if you are getting that credit report every month and you can compare what has been taken off, what has been left on, where the mistakes are, you can wind out of this thing.

With strong consumer protections, Federal preemption of States would not be necessary because Federal law would be the floor, rather than the ceiling.

Then, again, as all of you are aware, this past August, California signed into law SB1, which provides strong consumer protections that should be the law of the land. You are going to hear more about this in an amendment additional to mine that will be presented.

But, again, let me just say that whatever the mistakes were, I should have been involved in the manager's amendment to correct these problems. I have not been placed in there. So I do not know what we are going to do, but I ask my colleagues to please consider what has been done here.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to explain to the gentleman that this is not an imposition on the rest of the country; this is a carve-out for California. This is a protection for what we have already done. We have protections in the law from 1996; and what we are saying is, you should not have national standards that are less than what we have produced in California. I have tried to protect that. I thought that I had. And as our ranking member said, a mistake was made. We thought, based on the representations of everybody, that it had been protected. And now I am here with an amendment that simply says, leave California alone and allow the better consumer laws to stand in California. Do not preempt these laws with standards that are less than what we have in California.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

No. As the ranking member tried to explain, there are two different issues here today.

Mr. Chairman, there are two different issues here. When we did this work in committee, we thought that we had protected the consumer laws that were made in California after 1996; and everybody, all of our staff people, everybody thought so, on both sides of the aisle.

No. I just read a number of them a few minutes ago in my presentation that had to do with some other laws, with credit reports and some other kinds of things.

Yes.

Yes. That is the latter part. That is the latter part of this amendment. But the amendment that I am speaking to now is the one where I said consumer reporting agencies must disclose the names and addresses of all sources of information. California requires consumer reporting agencies to, with a reasonable degree of certainty, match at least three categories identifying information. I read a list of items that had been preempted that none of us thought had been preempted, and I am trying to carve out for California and put them back in.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I think I made the case as clearly as it can be made. I was told by everybody that certain California laws after 1996 were protected. Now I find that they have been preempted. And I really do not think it is fair that I find myself here on the floor today having the laws of my State preempted and a manager's amendment that does not attempt to correct it.

I suppose I believe that my ranking member is going to do everything he can, I guess working in conference somewhere, to try and give back the protections that we have in California. I have always maintained that the Federal standard should be the floor. If any State would like to protect its consumers more, who is the Federal Government to tell them they cannot do it? That is wrong.

I do not buy the argument that it is inconvenient for some bank or financial institution to have to deal with California, because California has better consumer laws, and they would just rather be able to deal with them the same way that they deal with everybody else.

I do not think it is fair, and I do not think we should use the powers of our government to do that.

Let me just say this, that knowing that I was today that we were not preempted, and this does not have anything to do with SB1, I am talking about those laws that I referred to. Knowing that I was told that, I would expect my colleagues, who have worked pretty well on both sides of the aisle, to try and get a bill that everybody could support, that you would at least represent to me that you are going to try and undo the mistake. That you are going to try.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Reclaiming my time, we have to compare it issue-by-issue and then determine whether or not, in fact, you have done better or you have done worse.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for all the work she has done on this most important issue.

Mr. Chairman, if anybody had told me that I would be on the floor of Congress arguing States' rights, facing off with a conservative from Alabama, I would have told them they are crazy. But I am here today arguing States' rights on one of the most important issues confronting Americans today, and that is privacy.

Americans do not want people peeping into their bedrooms. They do not want folks eavesdropping on their calls. And they sure do not want financial institutions selling their personal and financial information. And that is what this is all about. This bill would require financial institutions to first obtain a consumer's explicit consent before selling or sharing their personal or financial information with affiliates or third-party companies for any purpose other than to complete a transaction initiated by the consumer.

What right do we have as Federal lawmakers saying to the American citizens that we do not care that they want their privacy protected; that we are the Federal Government; that we do not care what the States want because we have decided we want national standards for the convenience of the financial institutions. We do not want the financial institutions to have to be inconvenienced by having a State like California have better consumer laws than they have in these national standards.

I just do not believe the way this argument is going. I cannot believe that

I am standing here defending the privacy rights and the States' rights of Americans against the conservatives on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, it is just too much for me to absorb at this moment. Let me say we have worked hard in California to have better consumer laws, and I dare say if we do not get it on this side, we are going to have to fight in the other body. But in the final analysis, we also have the ballot in California. We will go to the ballot to deal with this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I was hopeful that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle would have the good sense not to oppose something like this. This is so ridiculous. This is so ridiculous that they could absolutely defend a credit card company increasing your interest rates, even though you are paying your bills on time every month. You are paying your bills on time, you have not missed a payment, but because you did not pay Nordstrom's or Gap, and you may have a dispute with them, they are going to raise your interest rates. Then, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle will say, they have to do that; and if we do not allow them to do that, that will have a chilling effect on credit.

Well, I think what one of my friends on this side of the aisle just said to me makes a lot of sense. She said, you know, this is nothing but a racket. You are defending a racket. You are defending a racket that is exploiting the people for no good reason. They simply want to make more money, and they can come up with any excuse, any way possible to get more money, to gouge your constituents; and you would stand here and argue that unless we allow them to gouge your constituents, you will have a chilling effect on them being able to get some credit. Give me a break. This is the greatest ripoff I have ever seen. And to add to it that if you are paying your bills on time, you are not missing a payment, and you go out and borrow some money because you may have a situation where you need more money, they look at that and say, oh, they went out and they borrowed some more money; I can use this, and I can describe it as a credit risk. Up with the interest rates.

Oh, you are better legislators than that. You do not want to do that to your consumers. You do not want to undermine them that way. You do not want to have the dollars that they are working hard to earn pulled out of their pockets in this racket.

Support the amendment. That is the decent thing to do.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 8: Page 7, line 15, insert ``(a) In

General.--'' before ``Section''.

Page 7, after line 24, insert the following new subsection:

(b) Specific Exceptions.--Section 624 of the Fair Credit

Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681t) is amended by adding at the

end the following new subsection:

``(e) Specific Exceptions.--Subsections (b) and (c) shall

not apply to--

``(1) the California Financial Information Privacy Act

(division 1.2 of the California Financial Code, as in effect

after June 30, 2004); or

``(2) the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act of

California (sections 1785.1 through 1785.36 of the California

Civil Code).''.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Los Angeles International Airport, which is located in my congressional district, is the third largest airport in the United States, with capacity to serve 78 million air passengers per year. The operator of LAX has proposed a rather controversial airport modernization project that would include the construction of a remote passenger check-in facility. The details of this proposal and the environmental impact report were released on July 9, 2003, and are now open for public comment. There is a strong coalition in the district opposed to this plan.

Supporters of the proposed project to construct a remote passenger check-in facility claim that the facility is necessary to improve the safety and security of LAX, and, they claim, to prevent terrorist attacks at LAX. However, it is even more likely that the concentration of passengers in a remote passenger check-in facility could actually reduce the safety and security of LAX.

The Rand Corporation conducted a security study of the proposed remote passenger check-in facility which was released May 14, 2003. The study concluded that the proposed project would not significantly improve the security of LAX. The study also suggested that concentrating passengers in the remote passenger check-in facility would make this facility the likely target of a terrorist attack. The study even suggested that concentrating passengers in a remote passenger check-in facility would exacerbate the effects of such an attack.

Mr. Chairman, this idea is not only opposed by many of the homeowner groups in the area, it is basically opposed by the coalition throughout southern California who is trying to get LAX to move to a regional response to passenger increase. The Rand study did conclude that limiting the capacity of the airport would reduce the overall vulnerability of LAX to terrorist attacks. However, this could be accomplished by maintaining LAX at its existing capacity with no additional airport construction projects.

My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to review the proposed project to construct a remote passenger check-in facility at LAX to determine whether the project, as designed, will protect the safety and security of air passengers and the general public. The amendment would also prohibit the construction of this project until such time as the Secretary of Homeland Security has completed the review and determined that the project will improve protection of the safety and security of air passengers and the general public.

We cannot afford to experiment with the safety and security of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, we have gone through 9/11 and we have created Homeland Security, and it seems to me that Homeland Security cannot be excluded from the review of these so-called expansion projects or reconfiguration projects, whatever name they come under, in the many airports in this country, if in fact we are concerned about the security of airports, and I know that we are, and I am certainly concerned about LAX. It has been said more than once that LAX is a target and that it is at risk.

We should not allow politicians to expand airports, to create construction projects. We should not allow politicians to do this without the benefit of the kind of review that will go even beyond what FAA has been doing in the past and would include the considerations of Homeland Security. Why did we develop a whole Department on Homeland Security if we cannot include in it the review of these proposed projects for reconfiguration and expansion by elected officials and politicians in all of these local areas?

I know that my colleague on the other side of the aisle has reserved a point of order, and I respect that; but I would just ask my colleagues to find some way to work with me, to take a look at these kinds of expansion or reconfiguration projects. Mine may be the one that is being brought to you today, but this is going to happen all over the country. What are these local city councils, what are the mayors, what are the Governors, what are they doing? Are they expanding construction in the name of politics, looking towards the next election, or do we have really security factors built in to these kinds of projects? I would ask you to find a way to work with me on this.

Point of Order

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 26: Page 15, after line 13, insert the

following:

Sec. 108. (a) Review.--The Secretary of Homeland Security

shall conduct a review of the proposed project for

construction of a remote passenger check-in facility at Los

Angeles International Airport to determine whether the

project as designed will protect the safety and security of

air passengers and the general public.

(b) Report.--Upon completion of the review, the Secretary

shall transmit to Congress and the Administrator of the

Federal Aviation Administration a report containing the

results of the review.

(c) Prohibition.--The Administrator shall not allow

construction of the proposed project until such time, if any,

as the Secretary has completed the review and determined that

the proposed project as designed will protect the safety and

security of air passengers and the general public and will

offer greater protection than is currently available at the

exiting facilities of Los Angeles International Airport.

Mr. Speaker, the hardworking, dedicated employees who sit here on the dias behind the Well of the House are the heart and soul of this institution. Their sacrifice and service are the glue that enables the House to proceed with its business and that helps all of us to serve our constituents and the American people.

On a daily basis, the employees who sit on the dais are an invaluable resource to all of us who are privileged to serve in the House of Representatives. They serve all of us, without regard to party. Every day that the house is in session, and certainly when we have weeks as lengthy and as challenging as this one, we all surely have to admire the selfless devotion to service that keeps the House staff at their posts working to serve all of us.

Whether it is two or three o'clock in the morning during a heavy legislative week, or simply recording the proceedings on a routine Suspensions Monday, no matter what the challenges may be, our reading and journal clerks are always here to assist us and serve this institution.

It is all too rare that we say thank you for their hard work, their patience, their good humor, and their devotion to this body. Today, however, is a very special occasion and I want to take this time to thank and salute one of the giants of the staff of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and pay tribute to the House's Chief Journal Clerk, Eve Butler-Gee, who will be retiring when we adjourn at the end of this legislative week for our Summer recess. According to the Congressional Research Service, Eve is the first woman Journal Clerk in the history of the House of Representatives.

Ms. Butler-Gee and her three Assistant Journal Clerks are always on duty at the rostrum to ensure that the House meets its constitutional responsibility to maintain an official record of the parliamentary proceedings of the House. Eve has done a great deal to modernize Journal procedures and enhance the professionalism of the Journal clerks.

Eve began her professional career in the House while in her early twenties. She left the House in the middle of her working years to work for a charitable foundation, and then returned to the House in 1987 when then Minority Leader Bob Michel appointed her as the Minority Enrolling Clerk of the House.

In her tenure as the Journal Clerk, like all those who have preceded her and all those Clerks who will follow her, Eve has been a witness to history, to events of great joy, those of great sadness, events that often truly have changed the shape of our world. What remarkable stories she will take with her as she concludes her service!

I could use my time to review more of Eve's professional accomplishments, but those of us who are privileged to know her, and to experience her wisdom, her humor, her warmth and friendliness, know that Eve is so much more than her resume.

Eve has been a good friend to all of us and a person whose service has brought great credit upon this institution. I understand that Eve intends to spend her retirement traveling, enjoying her family, pursuing her interests in writing and community theater, and continuing active service with the Episcopal Church.

I value Eve's ability and her diligent service greatly. What I value even more is the friendship and warmth that she brought to all of her contacts with me, and, I know, with so many other Members.

So I conclude simply by saying: Thank you, Eve for your pioneering service, for your professionalism, and for your friendship. I wish you well and know that the future will continue to hold great things for you. Congratulations and Godspeed in your retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my serious concerns about the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. This bill fundamentally shortchanges our veterans and it is no way to thank them for their sacrifice and their service.

Just about every day, we hear about one of our soldiers dying in Iraq for a war that was based on questionable evidence and inaccurate information from both our intelligence community and from the Administration.

Just as often, although we don't hear about it as much, our soldiers are being injured in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, the Philippines and the dozens of other countries to which they have been deployed. I thank each and every soldier for his or her courage, dedication and sacrifice made in order to protect our country and defend our freedom.

However, when it comes to thanking our soldiers and our veterans, it is not enough just to stand up and give a speech or wave a flag. My colleagues and I want to ensure that our soldiers have all the resources they need whenever they are deployed. Yet, we also must make certain that our soldiers have the resources they need when they return home. We must provide our soldiers and our veterans with the health care, the disability compensation, education and the many other benefits that they have earned and deserve.

This bill fails to provide the necessary resources our veterans need. the President and his party would rather provide trillions of dollars in tax cuts than pay for the health care of those who protect our freedom. It's tragic the way that this Administration pays lip-service to our soldiers but fails to fund programs that can improve the quality of lives of those who serve.

Because of the Bush tax cuts, this bill provides the VA with $1.8 billion less than was promised even in the Republican Budget Resolution. In fact, the $25.2 billion in VA funding in this bill does not even keep up with inflation which will put an even greater strain on the VA's already scarce resources.

There is already a shortage of qualified doctors and nurses. This bill will only exacerbate the problem. Too many of our veterans are forced to wait six or eight months to see a doctor. Because of the seriousness of their injuries, some even die before they have the opportunity to see a doctor. The inadequate funding in this bill will do nothing to alleviate the waiting periods. This is no way to treat our veterans.

We can and must do better than this sorry bill. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, reject these unfair tax cuts, and provide the resources our veterans need.