Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this very important issue.

In the very short time allotted to me, I want to commend my colleagues for being so vocal on this issue at this time and, frankly, for a very long time. I have said before when we had another resolution, an earlier resolution, on the floor that there is no Member of Congress that I hold in higher esteem than the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his work on human rights throughout the world. And he has been a leader on this issue, visiting over the years, warning America, warning the world of the impending disaster that was there in one form or another over time.

And the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) has taken the lead in the Committee on International Relations on this important issue, and it has not been because Members of Congress, especially the Congressional Black Caucus in the Congress, have not blown the whistle, have not sounded the alarm, have not called the public's attention to what is happening there.

And the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), of course, as the cochair of the Human Rights Caucus, has been singing this song for a very long time. Why do people not listen?

When the tragedy occurred in Rwanda, everyone was embarrassed, sad, and contrite and said that it was not going to happen again. Never again could we ignore all of God's children being destroyed by each other and sit back and watch it happen to the tune of hundreds of thousands of people.

We have now been told that 30,000 people will die in the Sudan, and if we do not act, then hundreds of thousands more will die. How can we tolerate this? How can we call ourselves persons who care about every person living on the face of the Earth and not care about each and every one of these children and their parents and their families in the Sudan?

The issue today is one that we have discussed before. Is it ethnic cleansing or is it genocide? And if it is genocide, then it should provoke a reaction from all of the countries of the world who consider themselves civilized and respectful of human rights and, quite frankly, those of us and I know the motivation of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and some of our other colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this regard springs from our belief that all of these people are God's children, worthy of respect.

The Bible tells us that to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship; to ignore God's creation, which are these children, is to dishonor the God who made them. Right now, the world is dishonoring God. We are not committing acts of worship; we are committing acts of negligence.

It is genocide, and the perpetrators of this genocide sit with impunity in Khartoum and say they are engaged in all of this as a matter of self-defense. Is it self-defense to rape women five, six times over again so that they cannot even go home to their husbands in a society which finds that unforgiveable on the part of the woman? Is it self-defense to have children starve because food cannot get through?

Seeing the pictures of those children challenges the conscience of the world, and yet we are having a debate on semantics in the world. But not in this House. In this House we know it, we call it for what it is.

As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) said, a calculated, focused, intended elimination of these people; and that very clearly spells out what the definition of genocide is and how what is happening in the Sudan meets that standard and therefore should invoke certain actions by the rest of the world.

We all believe very strongly that something has to be done. But in light of what we said after Rwanda, we are considered hypocritical or inconsistent or just with very poor memory if we do not act upon this now. We must all answer for the genocide that is happening in the Sudan.

So I commend my colleagues for their tremendous leadership. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the Black Caucus, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and others have worked so hard on this for such a long time. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) was just there last weekend and brings back personal stories of what he saw. So I thank them. Any one of us who wants something to happen there is deeply in their debt, as are the people of the Sudan. We must make a difference on this. I thank them for taking these steps to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his leadership on this very important subject.

The situation in the Sudan challenges the conscience of the world, certainly of our country; and I am happy that this Congress is responding. I am pleased that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) is not in opposition to this motion to instruct the conferees to support the highest level of funding to respond to the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan. Again, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for offering the motion. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for his leadership in including $95 million in funding for the humanitarian crisis in the Sudan in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Darfur is truly an emergency; it is a crisis. Without immediate and effective international intervention, hundreds of thousands of people will die. That is for sure. It is so sad.

The Sudanese government has mobilized militias to carry out a scorched-earth policy of indiscriminate attacks on African civilians. As many as 30,000 civilians may have already been murdered, and more than 1 million driven off their land into unprotected camps in the Sudan and neighboring Chad.

Both USAID and the United Nations have described these atrocities as ``ethnic cleansing,'' and the Committee on Conscience of our own Holocaust Museum has issued a genocide warning for Darfur. Ethnic cleansing, genocide. We must act.

A genocide in the making demands the immediate attention of our government.

I call upon the Bush administration to keep the pressure on the Sudanese government. Sudanese officials must know that the United States and the international community will not tolerate the continuation of the humanitarian tragedy in Darfur.

Both the House and Senate Defense Appropriations bills contain $95 million for emergency humanitarian relief in Darfur. As critical as these funds are, however, they can only help those whose lives are in danger if the Sudanese government cooperates.

The Sudanese government must fulfill its promises to restrain the militias it controls and to remove the bureaucratic barriers that make delivery of relief supplies so difficult. That includes facilitating visas for providers to enter the country. The evidence to date does not suggest that the Sudanese are serious about helping to end the misery in Darfur.

The recent visits of Secretary Powell and U.N. Secretary General Annan to Darfur were helpful in focusing attention on this crisis, and I commend both of them for the priority they have given to the Sudan, but much more needs to be done if we are to avert a catastrophe.

We spoke so much about the situation in Rwanda and we did not act soon enough, and it was horrible. If we ever had the opportunity again, we would certainly rise to the occasion. Well, it is happening again; and we must rise to the occasion. The Sudanese government is not.

President Bush must not hesitate to impose sanctions as necessary to encourage a much higher degree of cooperation by the Sudanese government. Our response to the daily misery in Darfur must not be half-measured and delayed. We must act now while there is time to stop further slaughter, or our country will look back at lives lost in Darfur with the same regret and shame that we feel for other events in other parts of Africa, as I mentioned, Rwanda. My colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), pointed out that even if we acted now, still about 300,000 people will die. We can hopefully lower that number, but it certainly will be higher if we do not act.

How many times have we heard the public outcry, Why did we not stop the killings? This is a crisis. This is an emergency. We must act now to stop the slaughter of thousands of innocent people.

Mr. Speaker, I commend once again the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), our colleague; and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, working with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) to get additional funding in that bill, in addition to the $95 million.

Mr. Chairman, in a previous response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated the vote would remain open as long as there were Members in the well wishing to vote. That case does not exist at this time, so when will the Chair be gaveling this vote down?

Mr. Chairman, apparently the basis for the Chair's response before is no longer true. Members are not in the well wishing to vote.

Mr. Chairman, how long has the vote been open?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Manzullo- Velazquez amendment to the Commerce, Justice bill. But before I speak to that amendment, I want to commend the very distinguished chair of the committee and the ranking member for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.

As one who served many years ago, in my earlier time with the Committee on Appropriations, on this subcommittee, I have an appreciation for the many difficult decisions that you have to make and the great opportunity there is for the American people in this particular appropriations bill.

I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf). He knows this, but I want to take a public opportunity to say that there is no person in this House that I admire more than I do the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). He is a champion for human rights throughout the world, and as one who has spoken out, as with many of our colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, on the situation in the Sudan, I want to recognize his exceptional leadership in that regard and say how much we all appreciate your visit, your trip there, and your relentless, persistent advocacy for the underprivileged throughout this world, in this case in particular, in Darfur. I know many of us are eager to hear a report of the gentleman's trip there.

Once again, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for being the great challenge to the conscience that he has been in his service in Congress.

I would like to now address the amendment that is being proposed to improve the small business access to 7(a) loans. As you may know, Mr. Chairman, the SBA 7(a) loan program is the most commonly used Small Business Administration loan, and backs approximately $11 billion in loans to small businesses each year. And yet it has faced shutdown caps and restrictions this year and received no funding under the latest Bush budget and Republican appropriations bill.

The President's budget proposes to run the program solely through fee increases, substantially raising the costs for small businesses to use the program and taking billions of dollars out of the economy.

Democrats, and in this case in a bipartisan way with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), are fighting to adequately fund the 7(a) loan program and make more loans available to small businesses.

We know that small businesses, Mr. Chairman, are the engine of our economy. They account for 95 percent of employers in our country, create half of our gross domestic product and create three out of four new jobs nationwide.

We have a chance today to save the 7(a) program, and I hope that our colleagues will join the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo) in supporting the bipartisan amendment. It will provide fuel to our small businesses which run our economic engine.

I would like to again recognize the leadership of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), our ranking Democrat on the Committee on Small Business, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for cosponsorship of this amendment.

We are very proud of the service and leadership of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). She is making history in her role as the ranking member on a full committee in the House; and in her service on that committee and in this body she has been a champion for small businesses.

I know she will be joined by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and others from the committee who have worked very hard.

When we had our small business summit in June, small businessowners came from around the country, and access to capital was one of their top priorities. Passing this amendment will go a long way to addressing the need for capital. Capital attracts talent, talent attracts capital, the dynamic goes on and on. And while we want to promote the growth of many, many more jobs in our country, it is important that we do so by creating much more equity for potential businessowners and for current businessowners.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will not be using that full amount, but I did want to rise once again to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo) for their excellent leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor. I again want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the full committee, for his great leadership in bringing a very important appropriations bill to the floor; and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) also for moving this section 7(a) provision in full committee. Although he was not successful, his leadership was important to the momentum that we have today. I thank him for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by saying this one thing: I always say that the only thing more optimistic than starting a new business is getting married. In order to take on the responsibilities of a marriage or a business, a person has to be very entrepreneurial, very optimistic, very confident. There are so many risks involved in starting a small business. At the very least, we should have access to capital so that we can increase the equity, the ownership that the American people have in businesses that do create jobs, that do create capital in our country, which in turn attracts the talent that we need to be internationally competitive.

This is a very important amendment today. It is not to say that the decisions that have to be made to fund it are not difficult; and as I said earlier, I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), ranking member, for the difficult decisions they had to make to bring this Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to the floor.

But we have to choose in favor of small businesses in our country if we are going to grow the economy. Small businesses are the engine of the economy. We cannot just talk about supporting small business. We have to put our resources there and give them access to the capital they need to succeed to accompany the great optimistic spirit and entrepreneurial spirit that they bring to the endeavor of starting a new business.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support this bipartisan Manzullo-Velazquez amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my colleagues Sam Farr, Dana Rohrabacher, Maurice Hinchey, and Ron Paul, and I salute their courage in bringing it to the House floor.

This amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill would prohibit the Justice Department from spending any funds to undermine state medical marijuana laws. It would leave to the discretion of the states how they would alleviate the suffering of their citizens.

Eleven states, including my home state of California, have adopted medical marijuana laws since 1996. Most of these laws were approved by a vote of the people. More than 70 percent of Americans support the right of patients to use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

I am pleased to join organizations that support legal access to medical marijuana, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Bar Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, and the AIDS Action Council.

Religious denominations supporting legal access to medical marijuana or state discretion on this issue include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the National Council of Churches, the National Progressive Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and the United Methodist Church.

Proven medicinal uses of marijuana include improving the quality of life for patient with cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other severe medical conditions.

In my city of San Francisco, we have lost nearly 20,000 people to AIDS over the last two decades, and I have seen firsthand the suffering that accompanies this awful disease. Medical marijuana alleviates some of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting, and nausea.

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a report that had been commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The study found that medical marijuana ``would be advantageous'' in the treatment of some diseases, and is ``potentially effective in treatment pain, nausea, and anorexia of AIDS wasting and other symptoms.''

To fight the war on drug abuse effectively, we must get our priorities in order and fund treatment and education. Making criminals of seriously ill people who seek proven therapy is not a step toward controlling America's drug problem.

Again, I commend Mr. Farr, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Hinchey, and Mr. Paul for their leadership on this issue, which affects the health and well- being of so many Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exemplary life and accomplishments of Michi Oka Onuma, a native San Franciscan who died peacefully at the age of 96 on May 15, 2004. Michi Onuma represented the best of San Francisco. She was a talented leader with a generous heart. She will be greatly missed.

Michi Onuma overcame many obstacles in her life. Graduating from the University of California at Berkeley in 1931, she was one of the few women college graduates of her generation of Japanese Americans. She managed as a single parent at a time when divorce was taboo. She overcame the prejudice that came with being Japanese American, including suffering interment, along with 120,000 fellow Japanese Americans, during World War 11.

During her long life, Michi Onuma had various careers, including as a social worker and a community newspaper reporter and editor. She never fully retired, working well into her eighties before cancer slowed her down. Fortunately, she recovered and remained vital and engaged until the end.

In the process of raising a family and having a career, Michi helped build and sustain community institutions that continue to flourish today. Michi Onuma persuaded the inaugural board of directors of the Japanese Community and Cultural Center of Northern California to build a community center. Michi Onuma was on the YWCA board in its early days when foresighted first generation Japanese American women raised funds to purchase a building for community use in perpetuity. Since these women were not allowed to own property outright, they left the property in trust with the YWCA organization with the understanding that the YWCA would follow their wishes. When the YWCA went back on its promise, Michi Onuma provided the historical documentation needed to negotiate the return of the YWCA into community hands. Nihonmachi Little Friends, a child care center serving the Japanese American community, is now the proud owner of the building.

Other recipients of Michi Onuma's leadership included organizations that she founded such as the Red Dots, a community golf club; the Japanese Women's Alumnae Association at UC Berkeley; and Satsuki Kai, a Japanese wives group. Michi received a star on the Walk of Fame on Gene E. Suttle Plaza in 2003 for her work in the Western Addition of San Francisco, especially during the upheaval that redevelopment caused in the Japanese and African American communities in the late 1950s. She was also honored as a women warrior by the Pacific Asian American Women Bay Area Coalition as a symbol of what strong women can accomplish.

Michi Onuma was a visionary, a pioneer, and a strong leader who had a lasting impact on San Francisco. We are grateful to have had her with us for so long.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.

Will the gentleman concede that the amendment that is going to be accepted by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), and we appreciate the great leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), is not the same amendment that the Committee on Rules did not allow to come to the floor this morning?

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry to the point of addressing what our distinguished chairman said. Is it not appropriate under the Rules of the House that the Committee on Rules could have made the Eshoo amendment, as submitted to the Committee on Rules last night, in order for debate on this floor today, with waivers?

So if I may just clarify, then it would have been possible and not outside the regular order for the Committee on Rules to have put the Eshoo amendment, as presented in the Committee on Rules, with the waiver.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for yielding me this time.

I am pleased to rise in support of the Eshoo, DeFazio, Inslee amendment to the energy and water bill. Before I speak to it, though, I want to sing the praises of the very distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), for the leadership that he brings to this committee and the understanding that he has of the issues before it. He is a long-standing and respected member of the Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle. I thank him for his service and leadership.

I also recognize the contribution to all of this and leadership of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky),

the ranking member on the Democratic side of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. I commend them both for this excellent product that they have brought to the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, before I speak directly to the amendment on the floor, I want to put it in context. Last night, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) went to the Committee on Rules to request a waiver to offer an amendment that would help Western families to get the refunds they deserve after they were ripped off by Enron and others.

The Eshoo amendment as advanced last night would have also allowed States to participate in claims at FERC on behalf of consumers and provided more time for the public to file complaints. The amendment would have put this Congress on record recognizing the misconduct of Enron and other energy companies, and it would have required perspective to disclose the evidence of manipulation that it has accumulated over the past 4 years. It was a very wise amendment. It was exactly what the consumers of the Western States needed to remedy the energies against them.

Unfortunately, and it is hard to understand why, the Committee on Rules, chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), did not allow the amendment to be offered today. We are told this is an open rule with open debate, but the Committee on Rules ruled against Western consumers when it did not allow the original Eshoo amendment to come to the floor. It did not give the consumers the measure they deserve.

That is why I am very pleased that we were able at least to bring a partial amendment and that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), as I understand, will perhaps be accepting this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). This much more limited amendment would ensure public access to documents on the 2000 and 2001 electricity crisis in California and other western States held by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

This amendment is a crucial first step, not as good as what last night would have been, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) last night, but it is a critical first step in bringing justice to consumers who were gouged by Enron and other energy companies; but it is not enough.

Mr. Chairman, the constituents of those of us who represent the western States were victims of an enormous scam. Yes, the electricity deregulation signed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson was fatally flawed; but when the flaws became clear, when the electricity crisis began to spike, when the blackouts began to roll across California, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should have been our safety net. Instead, month after month as electricity prices went sky high, FERC refused to act.

Time and time again, my Western colleagues, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), and so many others stood together to call on FERC and President Bush to stop the looting of the western States by rapacious energy companies. We wrote to FERC. We wrote to the FERC. We stood up in the Committee on Appropriations. We stood up on the floor of the House, but time and time again FERC failed to stop the rampant abuse of consumers by Enron and other energy companies.

Finally, as Western consumers had lost billions of dollars and the worst of the damage was done, FERC stepped in and brought the Western electricity markets under control. We knew all along that Enron and the energy companies were gaming the system.

The tapes, the now notorious tapes that every Member of this body has an obligation to observe, the tapes of the Enron traders confirm what we knew all along, that Enron and the other energy companies were laughing all the way to the bank as they stole from families and businesses of California.

Enron and its kind lied, cheated and stole; and it is long past time for Enron to pay consumers and the States back, as the amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) that she offered last night, but was turned down by the Committee on Rules, would have required.

Even after adoption of this amendment that we are considering today, settlements will still be made by FERC behind closed doors without representatives of the States present. We wish we were voting today on the original Eshoo amendment that we wanted so that the House could address the larger problems; but at least with the cooperation of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), we are taking this first step toward justice for consumers.

I think that the handwriting was on the wall. I think it was a wise move by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), because I do not think he wanted to subject his Members to voting against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will yield in a minute.

We wish that we were voting today on the amendment that we wanted so that the House could address the larger problem, but at least we are taking this first step toward justice for consumers.

Today the House has unanimously agreed that FERC release its evidence of corporate misconduct to the public. That is what the Committee on Rules should have allowed us to do in a broader way last night, but they rejected it. I call on the Republicans to join us in ensuring that FERC live up to this bipartisan decision and that it release this information.

Mr. Chairman, I will yield a few seconds to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman can get time from his distinguished chairman to go to that length.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure his distinguished chairman will yield him time. My point is because the gentleman was not in the room and I want to reiterate it while he is in the room, I would have hoped he would have been here, because this is an issue of such major concern to our great State of California.

What I said was that the consumers of California were rejected last night in the Committee on Rules, because the chairman of the Committee on Rules would not allow the Eshoo amendment, which would have been the right way to go in order to get refunds for California.

I think that you are going to have to get time from your own chairman.

Mr. Chairman, for 10 seconds, and I yielded more time to you at this time.

Mr. Chairman, no, I did not yield. I said when you yielded to me for 10 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his exceptional leadership in this House on behalf of America's working families. He is a champion for middle-class families in our country, and once again that is reflected in the initiative that he has put forth today. Democrats are united behind the gentleman and his efforts.

As we all know, the budget should be a blueprint for meeting our obligations and moving forward as a country. But the Republican budget is a blueprint for disaster. Today, thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we have an opportunity to have a real impact on the budget. We have a chance to correct some of the imbalance in the Republicans' distorted priorities.

This vote matters. Congress will choose between giving tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year or making critical investments in homeland security, education, our veterans, health care, and the environment.

Mr. Speaker, we all know, and it has been said over and over again on this floor, that our budget should be a statement of our national values. What is important to us as a country should be reflected in that budget. So I ask my colleagues, is it a statement of your values to give a tax cut, an additional tax cut to people making over $1 million per year and leaving children behind because they are not receiving the proper education? Would you rather give a tax cut to people making over $1 million a year or would you rather improve education by adding $1.5 billion for disadvantaged schools, putting us on a path for full funding of the No Child Left Behind?

If the Republican budgets had prevailed over a 10-year period, nearly $20 billion would have been spent on education, and they can see this. It is below the line for every year except fiscal year 2002, and it is just slightly above the line. Ask any economist, and certainly Bob Rubin would attest to this, educating the American people is the best investment that we can make, certainly from a humanitarian standpoint; but from a practical budgetary and fiscal standpoint nothing brings more money into the Treasury than educating the American people.

Early childhood, K through 12, higher education, post-grad, and life- time learning brings more money into the Federal Treasury than any tax cut or anything that you can name. And yet, and yet, the Republicans reject that, despite what it does for the growth of our country, what it does to bring money into the Treasury, and, instead, want to give tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year.

Is it a statement of my colleagues' values to give a tax cut to people making over $1 million a year instead of improving veterans health care and shortening waiting times at VA health care facilities? The Paralyzed Veterans of America call this bill vital. They call this bill vital because, instead of those tax cuts, it truly honors our veterans. We talk a lot about veterans on this floor and how we honor their service to our country, but we dishonor them if we say they do not get the proper priority they should have; that we do not value them in our budget.

Is it a statement of Republican values that in this time of uncertainty in terms of our homeland security to give a tax cut to people making over $1 million a year instead of improving our homeland security; adding $3 billion to give our first responders the equipment and training they need to increase security at our ports and at our airports? Most of the wealthy people I know who make over $1 million a year say they do not need the tax cut, and they would rather have investments in America's children and in America's security. They know that it comes to them at a cost to our society.

This bill is also fiscally responsible. What the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has proposed would reduce the deficit by almost $5 billion. That would be about 25 percent of this money that comes from these people making over $1 million a year. He has investments in education, in veterans, in homeland security, in the environment, and a major investment in deficit reduction. What happened to the Republican deficit hawks? Have you become an endangered species?

Let us be clear. This bill does not raise taxes. The previous gentleman from Florida spoke about this raising taxes on every living being. If everybody he knows makes over $1 million a year, maybe that is the circle he travels in; maybe that is his awareness of society. But it simply ain't so. And the

gentleman is right, the speaker previous to him said ``there ain't no free lunch.'' There certainly is not. We should be paying as we go, and we will be addressing that in the substitute of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) later.

But let us be clear that this does not raise taxes. It does make major investments in our education, health care, homeland security, and environment. It does reduce the deficit by nearly $5 billion, but it does not raise taxes. It halts a future tax cut, for those, again I keep repeating, making over, making over $1 million a year, and stopping the fiscally irresponsible giveaway of $19 billion next year to those who need it least.

And let us be equally clear, we would not spend one penny more than the Republicans would. We just spend it differently. They have passed an ill-conceived Medicare bill that will cost taxpayers $534 billion and which gives $149 billion in windfall profits to big drug companies. They have chosen to ignore a bipartisan approach to pay as you go.

Today, we see the stark difference between the two parties: Democrats are focused on the aspirations and the needs of all Americans; Republicans are solely focused on tax cuts for the wealthy few, many of whom, as I have said, realize that these tax cuts for them take a tremendous toll on society in general.

The gentleman from Wisconsin's bill is a fiscally sound bill that invests in the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time, but more especially for the excellent leadership that he has provided as the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, and I thank him for bringing this substitute to the floor.

I think it would be really very important for the American people to understand the standing that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has on this issue. He has, without any inkling of partisanship, addressed the issues of a fiscal soundness for our country and a budget that reflects our values in a way that has been, again, nonpartisan, professional, and responsible. He knows the facts and the figures. He takes responsibility for what he puts forth and will answer and defend the conclusions that he advances. So when he speaks about his own substitute that will lead to reducing the deficit, you can take him at his word. When he introduces this substitute for pay-as-you-go, it is as responsible as it sounds.

Earlier in the debate, on the Obey amendment, one of our Republican colleagues said there is no such thing as a free lunch. This pay-as- you-go budget really validates that statement, because it says in order for us to provide for the needs and the aspirations of the American people, we must do so in a fiscally sound way, and we must not fool ourselves about the consequences of our actions.

You can talk all day about the dynamic, as our Republican colleagues would say, about the dynamic impact of their tax cuts. They have been cutting taxes and cutting taxes and cutting taxes. Democrats like tax cuts too. We wanted to cut the taxes for the middle class. We want to cut the taxes for Americans who will then spend the money and put it back into the economy, injecting demand into the economy, creating jobs, growing the economy to create jobs.

We want to use our investments in our budget to invest in education. There is no better investment that we can make in terms of helping and meeting the needs and aspirations of the American people in terms of educating them, early childhood, K through 12, higher ed, post-graduate and life-time learning. And nothing does more to grow the economy and bring money into the Federal Treasury than to educate the American people.

So the investments that we talk about with pay-as-you-go are investments that bring money into the Treasury, that put tax cuts where they belong, where they will generate jobs and, again, inject demand. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) very, very carefully presented to us how the pay-as-you-go, when it was in effect, created a situation where we had zero deficit in 1999. This was not an accident. It was not a fluke. It was part of a plan. It was not a situation where we kept trying one thing and another. It was part of a plan. When the pay-as-you-go expired, we now have returned to these growing deficits; this year, $.5 trillion, a historically large deficit.

So, Mr. Chairman, when the Republicans say that we should subscribe to their reckless economic plan because it is going to create jobs, the success of their economic plan has not hit home for middle-class Americans. Yes, some jobs have been created, but they have been lower- paying jobs than the ones that were lost. The purchasing power of Americans has not increased. In fact, the increase in wages since this spring, since March, has been about a nickel. About a nickel. So that is not an economic policy that has been successful for middle-class Americans.

Their policy about tax cuts has been to go to those who need them least. Most of those people know they do not need the tax cuts and would rather they be investments into our society for educating our children. They do not want to, on top of it all, grow the deficit. We keep feeling the effects of that policy in lost jobs, wages that do not keep pace with inflation, and most dramatically, again, in record budget deficits.

When President Bush took office, as was indicated by the charts the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) showed, we were on a path to a $5.6 trillion surplus. A $5.6 trillion surplus. Today, the budget deficit is projected to be over $3 trillion over the next 10 years, a $9 trillion fiscal collapse. We now have a deficit again for this year that is more than $.5 trillion for 1 year alone. That is an astounding burden on our children.

We should be giving our children opportunity, not fiscal obligations because of the Republicans' reckless economic policies.

These deficits matter. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said, ``History suggests that an abandonment of fiscal discipline will eventually push up interest rates, crowd out capital spending, lower productivity growth, and force harder choices upon us in the future.''

Economists agree, deficits are a drag on the economy. Higher deficits mean higher interest rates, which mean families pay more for homes, cars and college tuition. Higher deficits mean lower incomes. And higher deficits mean fewer good-paying jobs.

Our country is at a crossroads on this issue, Mr. Chairman, and today we can choose between two distinct paths. One, as the gentleman from South Carolina suggests, is the road back to fiscal responsibility. The other is the road to fiscal ruin. The road to fiscal responsibility runs right through the Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from South Carolina, which would put the budget on a pay-as-you-go system in which both tax cuts and spending increases must be paid for, a real pay-as-you-go system.

Alan Greenspan agrees. He recently testified before the Senate Banking Committee that pay-as-you-go should apply to both taxes and spending. These rules were in effect throughout the 1990s, as was mentioned, and they were effective. As a result of these rules, we turned record deficits that we had received into the 1990s into record surpluses as we left the 1990s. We could do it again today. The road to fiscal ruin runs through the unrestrained deficits of the Republican proposal. The Republican bill on the floor today is a sham. It steals the mantle of pay-as-you-go without requiring the discipline that real pay-as-you-go would require. By failing to offset tax cuts, the Republican bill will make the deficit even worse.

The issue is simple: The Democratic pay-as-you-go proposal has a record of success. The Republican approach has a record of deficits. If you want to return to fiscal responsibility, vote for the Democratic substitute on pay-as-you-go.

Mr. Chairman, I again want to salute the gentleman from South Carolina and again commend what he has to say to the American people because he speaks truth about the budget and about the deficit. He knows of what he speaks. He knows the discipline that is needed to reduce the deficit. We are all blessed by his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend and thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his great leadership on this issue and for bringing this resolution to the floor. He has been a champion supporter for a strong national defense for our country and knows that it is in our interest to have a secure and safe Israel.

I also want to commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) for her leadership and consistent leadership on this issue as well. I commend also the makers of the motion, the majority leader the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip, for putting before us a resolution that I think we should all support. I think it gets right to the point, right to the point of what we need which is a negotiated settlement between the parties. This resolution preserves that right for those parties.

Mr. Speaker, we can never say it enough, America's commitment to the safety and security of the State of Israel is unwavering. There are unbreakable bonds of friendship between the United States of America and the State of Israel. That is for sure. The United States stands with Israel because of our common interest, our fundamental from in the most basic of all rights, the right to exist, the right to live free from fear, the right to put our children on a school bus in the morning knowing that they will come home safely in the afternoon.

Let there be no doubt the United States of America stands with the State of Israel because of those bonds of friendship but really first, and more fundamentally, because it is in our national interest to stand with the State of Israel. I view this resolution as an endorsement of a fresh start.

I listened intently to what my colleagues have said about concerns they have about the plight of the Palestinians in the region and I share them. This resolution preserves the right for final negotiations between the parties for those parties to resolve their differences. It recognizes that for Israel to be secure and safe, it is important and necessary for there to be a Palestinian state.

So when the Prime Minister of Israel Sharon announced withdrawal from Gaza, and we do not know the extent yet from the West Bank, I viewed it as a new, fresh opportunity for peace in the Middle East, which is in the national interest of our country and the international interest of the world and, certainly, the regional interest of those involved directly.

By passing this resolution, the House of Representatives will affirm the support of the United States already confirmed by President Bush for Prime Minister Sharon's withdrawal plan. The principles endorsed by the resolution are consistent with the framework for peace previously outlined by President Clinton and intended to facilitate the implementation for the road map for peace.

The road map remains the best chance for a comprehensive solution for the differences between Israelis and Palestinians. It is time for all parties to the road map to use the opportunities presented by the Sharon plan to bring an end to the violence and achieve lasting peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, today our country is at a crossroads, and this debate on the floor clearly defines the choice that we have to make. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) at that crossroads offers us a path to expand opportunity in our country and to grow community. The gentleman from New York, as we make this important decision, knows that nothing less is at stake than our technological, industrial, and manufacturing base. The path that the gentleman from New York will take us down is one that will stop the hemorrhaging of U.S. jobs overseas. The gentleman from New York will strengthen our base. That is a decision we have to make. Are we going to strengthen that base, which is so essential to our national security, so essential to job creation in our country? Or are we going to abandon it? The gentleman from New York strengthens it. The Republican proposal abandons it.

But I have to give the Republicans credit, I really have to give them credit, because they are consistent. They are consistently the handmaidens of the special interests at the expense of the public interest and the public good. Every opportunity they get to bring legislation to the floor, we see the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in that regard. That is most unfortunate. Because people across our country are suffering from job loss, from uncertainty in their lives, from their communities dissolving because businesses are leaving and what that means to America's families and America's communities. That is most unfortunate.

The gentleman from New York on the other hand again takes us to a place which strengthens community and strengthens and expands opportunity. We have to view what the Republicans are doing within the context of their reckless economic policies. Here they come to the floor abandoning the American worker at a time when the Republican reckless policies have produced the worst job loss since Herbert Hoover. No President of the United States since Herbert Hoover has lost jobs in office, but these Republican policies have produced those losses. It has to be viewed within the context of, again, that uncertainty in American life. How sad.

The gentleman from New York's proposal should be viewed in the context of a Democratic proposal to take the initiative on outsourcing, a proposal that says we must have innovation to create the jobs of the future, we must have education to produce the workforce of the future, and we must have job creation using the Tax Code that will reward businesses that stay here, create jobs here, and maintain jobs in the U.S.; and that is the distinct difference between what the Republicans are proposing and what the gentleman from New York is proposing today.

Unfortunately, because the Republicans are once again afraid of ideas, they would not allow the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) proposal to come to the floor. They would not allow a substitute to be brought to the floor so we could have a fair airing of these different visions of America, because they are two different visions of America.

Instead, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is confined to a motion to recommit, a parliamentary instrument that gives him only a few minutes to present his case. But his case is a clearly distinctly different one from the Republicans.

We are talking about two different visions of America. The gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) is about supporting American values, of expanding opportunity again through innovation, education, using the Tax Code for job creations, rewarding those who keep jobs here in the U.S. It recognizes the reality of the global economy and wants to make the U.S. manufacturers the most competitive in the world with the most productive workers, the U.S. workers, in the world.

So I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his sense of responsibility to the American worker,

to the American economy, for his sense of responsibility that we all have to make the future better and not have an erosion of jobs in our country but of an enhancing of opportunity. And I thank him for what he is doing as far as a sense of communities is concerned because that is a strong American value that is being seriously undermined by again the erosion of our manufacturing base and what that does to communities across the country.

So I urge my colleagues as they stand at this crossroad to choose the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) vision of America. They can do so by supporting his motion to recommit. They can do so by rejecting the Republicans' ill-conceived legislation and voting ``no'' on final passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Stark and Ms. Lee, and myself, to offer tribute to Leslie Reif, who died on February 7, 2004. Leslie Reif devoted himself in exceptional ways to service in the communities in which he lived and worked. He served the Oakland community by choosing a career in public education, and bringing his exceptional talents to first and fourth grade students at the Jefferson Elementary School in Oakland. Mr. Reif served the San Francisco community by demonstrating an abiding concern for others in his neighborhood of Bernal Heights, and at his faith community at the First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco on Franklin Street.

At the Jefferson Elementary School, Leslie Reif wore many hats. He was a fourth grade classroom teacher, responsible for mathematics, English, writing, geography and other subjects. Beyond his classroom, Mr. Reif was the school coordinator for the Martin Luther King Oratorical Fest held each year in February. During the fest, classes perform poems, plays and music to honor the memory of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and to advance his goal of equality for all persons. For the last 2 years, Mr. Reifs class placed first at the Jefferson Elementary Fest and then went on to place second and win a medal at the regional competition encompassing all schools in Oakland.

Leslie Reif could always be counted on to help other teachers hang photographs and educational exhibits in their classrooms, be a sounding board for advice or just to lend a sympathetic ear when someone was having a bad day. Mr. Reif was also the Fourth Grade teacher representative on the Faculty Council, a group that handles issues that affect working conditions at the school.

Mostly, those who knew him described him as a caring individual and a tireless teacher. Mr. Reif typically arrived at school at 7:15 in the morning and often stayed late into the afternoon correcting papers, setting up the classroom for the next day, working on his lesson plan, directing extra-curricular activities or assisting other teachers with their own classroom projects.

There is perhaps no better testament to his contribution to the students at Jefferson Elementary than in their own words and those of other teachers who were his colleagues there. On the Monday morning following his death, the school placed a giant banner in the central corridor for students to express their feelings. That banner, large as it was (ten feet long and four feet tall), turned out to be too small. Within hours, it was filled with messages of sadness, loss, love and grief. Another banner was added. When that one filled up, yet a third was put out. By the next day, that one had been filled as well.

The messages are poignant and speak volumes about the respect and love that his students felt for him. Many of the messages were surrounded by hearts. For example, one elaborately decorated, bleeding heart contained the Spanish words for ``Rest in Peace''--``Que en Paz descanse, Maestro, Reif'' A few others: ``I remember your kindness. I will miss you bunches.'' ``I'm sad but have happy memories.'' ``Dear Mr. Reif, I hope your family will never forget you.'' ``You were a wonderful teacher. I miss you. I love you.'' ``The school will be your home.'' ``I miss you very much. You were my best teacher.''

A Kindergarten class that barely knew Mr. Reif put up his picture and surrounded it with lighted candles in tribute. The students in his current class also wrote touching letters to Mr. Reifs family. Several referred to Mr. Reifs concern that his students not be the victims of violence, a real concern of his after he was held up at gunpoint one morning while parking near the school. Said one student, ``He was helpful by telling us not to open the door because someone could come in and shoot us . . . that it would be better if someone shoots him than someone shoots us.'' Another student wrote to Mr. Reifs son, Daniel, ``He was a really nice man. I bet he was a very good father.'' Many referred to the academic achievements they made under his direction, such as the ability to write properly composed letters, and to his efforts to teach them good manners.

Similarly, fellow teachers at the school are honoring Mr. Reifs achievements and contributions by having a plaque made up in his honor and memory, which will be placed on the lectern in the auditorium which is used at all school assemblies and the Martin Luther King Oratorical Fest. In addition, a scholarship fund has been established in his name by the Marcus A. Foster Educational Institute in co-sponsorship with the Oakland Education Association.

Mr. Speaker, Leslie Reif was the kind of teacher students remember 10 and 20 and even 40 years later, because he made a real difference in their young lives. He began each morning by having his students recite ``The Happiness Formula,'' a statement written by a former colleague that promotes non-violence, high self-esteem and kindness to others. They will remember him for his tireless dedication to excellence, his infectious optimism, and his deep caring for them and their achievements. He will be remembered as a man who loved working with children.

That public education became his vocation is not terribly surprising. When he was only 16, he was already teaching younger children to play chess, a particular talent of his, and tutoring public school students in New York City, where he grew up. He was, in fact, born in New York City, educated at Bowdoin College and Princeton University, from which he received his B.A. Cum Laude, and Columbia University's School of Journalism, from which he received a Masters Degree.

He moved to the San Francisco Bay Area in 1987, and had been a resident of San Francisco's Bernal Heights neighborhood since 1989. His was a friendly and familiar face to neighborhood residents, shopkeepers and others. He always had a warm greeting on the street or in a store and became involved in community events and activities. For example, when Mr. Reifs son, Daniel Reif, started attending kindergarten at the Paul Revere Elementary School 6 years ago, Mr. Reif volunteered extensively in school activities. He met and was mentored and inspired by the Principal of Paul Revere at the time, Randy Haves.

Not one to allow the inspiration of a great educator to go to waste, Mr. Reif had, within a year, obtained emergency teaching credentials to be a first grade classroom teacher at Jefferson Elementary in Oakland across the bay, and had gone back to school to gain his full teaching credentials. It was only the first step in his involvement at Jefferson Elementary.

Leslie Reif was a member of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco, where a memorial service was held for him on February 11. More than 150 people attended, including several of his students and their parents. He is remembered by church members for his involvement in the Forums Committee and the children's Religious Education program.

Mr. Reif died of complications from an epileptic seizure. In the last decade, Mr. Reif had helped educate others about epilepsy, including working as a health educator for the former Epilepsy League of the East Bay, now the Epilepsy Foundation of Northern California. His death helps to illustrate how much more needs to be done to learn more about, to treat and ultimately to find a cure for this neurological disorder.

Finally, last but certainly not least, Leslie Reif was a loving husband to his wife, Millie Phillips, a devoted father to his son Daniel Reif, and an attentive and supporting stepfather to Ms. Phillips' son, Jeffrey Morgan. Mr. Reif was born to an Irish Catholic mother and a Czech Jewish father, who emigrated to the United States in 1940. It is not surprising that the term used most often by his friends to describe him is the Yiddish term ``mensch.'' He was a kind, modest man who downplayed most of his own accomplishments, while working hard to encourage the success of others. That is the lasting legacy he leaves to his family, his school, our communities and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, with the death of Ronald Reagan and the dignity with which he left us, there is truly mourning in America. If the meaning of a life can be measured by the hearts touched by one's death, the outpouring of grief at the death of our 40th President speaks to the distinctly American life that was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

We Californians mourn Ronald Reagan as our Governor; all Americans mourn Ronald Reagan as our President; and people the world over mourn Ronald Reagan, the passionate voice for freedom.

Today a grateful Nation remembers Ronald Reagan the man. We remember his indomitable optimism and abiding love of country. Ronald Reagan understood the greatness of America has always been the character of the American people. As Americans, we have always dared to dream. And so President Reagan appealed to the enduring belief that sustains us as a people: That America's best days are yet to come.

We remember his leadership. Those of us on this side of the aisle may not have always stood with him on matters of policy, but we always knew where he stood, as he did us, when it came to matters of principle. And though firm in his convictions, President Reagan was not afraid of compromise. Indeed, the lifelong crusader against communism will be remembered for signing the first agreement with the Soviet Union to actually destroy nuclear weapons.

We remember his eloquence. After the loss of our Challenger astronauts, President Reagan consoled a grieving Nation. And whether in front of the Berlin Wall, or overlooking the beaches of Normandy, he echoed the democratic aspirations of freedom-loving people everywhere.

We remember his grace and humor. This is a story that perhaps our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), understands and appreciates better than most in the Chamber. When Ronald Reagan was Governor of California, he came to the legislative chamber to deliver the State of the State Address. Because it was near the time of his birthday, they wheeled in a birthday cake and sang Happy Birthday to then-Governor Reagan. I have to add at that time, the Speaker of the Assembly of California was a giant of a man, Jess Unruh, and who sometimes did not see eye to eye with then-Governor Reagan. They sang Happy Birthday, and Governor Reagan blew out the candles. Someone said, ``Governor, did you make a wish?''

Mr. Speaker, the Governor looked up and said, ``Yes, I made a wish, but it did not come true; he is still there,'' as he spoke to the then- speaker.

At the end of the day, though, President Reagan knew whatever may divide us by party is dwarfed by what unites us as Americans. Speaker Tip O'Neill famously told of how he and the President clashed by day, but were friends after 6 p.m., prompting the President to begin his phone calls, ``Tip, is it after 6 p.m.?''

We remember Ronald Reagan's faith in his country, in his family, and in his God. In that poignant letter 10 years ago announcing his battle with Alzheimer's disease, President Reagan wrote, ``When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I know that for America, there will always be a bright new dawn ahead,'' that dawn referenced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

We remember Ronald Reagan's dignity, the dignity with which he lived and led our country, and the dignity with which he died, turning the long good-bye of his final years into a lesson for all of us.

And all Americans, and I know everyone who serves in the Congress of the United States for sure, have been touched by the dignity, private strength and public grace of Nancy Reagan and the Reagan family to whom we offer our prayers and deepest condolences. Our Nation is in your debt for the care and love you gave our President and the dignity with which you held his hands at the end.

I hope it is a comfort to Mrs. Reagan and the Reagan family that the whole world mourns their loss and is praying for them at this sad time.

For his eloquent defense of freedom, for his leadership style of conviction and compromise, for his eternal optimism for the future, America pays tribute to President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

May God bless Ronald Reagan, may God bless this country that he loved and led, may Ronald Reagan rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Stephanie Herseth) be permitted to take the oath of office today. Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest, and no question has been raised with regard to her election.