Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3507.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that today I am introducing legislation to designate the United States Courthouse located at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco, California as the ``James R. Browning United States Courthouse,'' to honor Judge Browning for his lifetime of outstanding public service.

James R. Browning was born in Great Falls, Montana, and received his law degree from the University of Montana. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served in the Pacific Theater during World War II, worked in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, practiced in a law firm, and served as Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed James Browning to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He dedicated the rest of his career to the Ninth Circuit, becoming the longest serving judge in the history of the circuit. Judge Browning became very active in the Judicial Conference of the United States, serving on a number of committees that worked to strengthen the federal judiciary.

Upon becoming Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit in 1976, Judge Browning focused on improving the function of the circuit, which was struggling with a large backlog of cases and delays in appeal decisions. Due to his efforts and innovative practices, additional judges were added to the court of appeals, the time required to decide appeals was cut in half, and the backlog was eliminated. He also improved communication among the justices, emphasizing the importance of good colleague rapport. His innovations were studied and adopted by other circuit courts, and he has received several prestigious awards in recognition of his achievements.

Judge Browning's contributions to national jurisprudence are also outstanding. During his forty-two years on the Ninth Circuit, Judge Browning has participated in almost 1000 published appellate decisions and authored many other unsigned per curiam opinions. In a 2001 tribute, a colleague described him as ``the consummate appellate judge . . . he treats each case that comes before him with careful attention and produces succinct, clearly reasoned opinions.'' Colleagues have also lauded him for his seminal contributions to national antitrust jurisprudence and his attentiveness to ensuring that citizens have access to the justice system.

Judge Browning stepped down as Chief Judge in 1988 but did not retire, remaining an active circuit judge and a member of myriad committees and judicial groups. He took senior status in September 2000. His activities have been significantly curtailed due to declining health. It is my hope that we can enact this bill in the 108th Congress, so that Judge Browning can witness this much-deserved tribute to his lifetime of public service.

Judge Browning's achievements would be fittingly acknowledged by naming the historic federal building at Seventh and Mission streets in his honor. As one of his supporters said, ``A great and sturdy courthouse needs the name of a great and sturdy judge.'' I invite my colleagues to cosponsor the ``James R. Browning United States Courthouse'' bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this hoax of a plan. How can a plan be for the benefit of seniors when the first $4,000 of $5,000 of benefits have to be paid for by a senior who makes $13,500 a year?

Mr. Speaker, I first I want to invite my colleagues to join me in expressing our appreciation to our Democratic conferees who have been true champions of a defined affordable prescription drug benefit under Medicare, the dean of the House and ranking Democrat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and a true champion for health care in this Congress and the country, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), all for their leadership on this important issue.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans would not let these appointed conferees into the conference room. And this bill does not reflect the benefit of the thinking and experience of our very diverse caucus. That is a great loss to this debate and a great loss to our country.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party has made ensuring the dignity and security of our seniors a cornerstone of our mission for generations. Nearly 40 years, ago a Democratic Congress and the Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson, honored that mission by making Medicare the law of the land. Ever since then, America's seniors have known where Americans stand. We created Medicare, we want to protect it and strengthen it.

Americas seniors have also known where Republicans stand. For 40 years, they have waged war on Medicare. When Congress passed Medicare in 1965, only 13 Republicans in Congress supported it. Only 13 in Congress supported it. When Newt Gingrich and the Republicans tried to gut Medicare in 1995, President Clinton stopped them. That same year, Newt Gingrich made his intentions about Medicare clear. He said, ``Now, we did not get rid of it in round 1, because we do not think that is politically smart, but we believe it is going to wither on the vine.'' And tonight the Republicans want to deliver the final blow. On behalf of America's seniors and disabled, we must stop them.

Recognizing the desperate need of America's seniors citizens, Democrats proposed a guaranteed, defined, affordable prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Instead of joining us in this historic opportunity, Republicans offered up a Trojan horse, a deceptive gift intended to win their 40-year war against Medicare.

Republicans said this is a first step toward a prescription drug benefit. This Republican plan is not a first step, it is a false step, it is a mistake. It puts profits for HMOs and big pharmaceutical companies over seniors, providing a $12 billion slush fund for HMOs and gives a $139 billion in windfall profits to the pharmaceutical companies over 8 years.

The Republican plan does not lower costs for prescription drugs. It prohibits the government from negotiating for lower prices. It privatizes Medicare and pushes seniors into HMOs. It makes seniors pay more to keep the Medicare they know and trust. It does all of this for a deceptive plan that makes most seniors pay $4,000 out of their first $5,000 in prescription drug costs. How do you explain that to mom? You are going to get a new benefit, this is the Republican plan. And of the first $5,000 of prescription drugs cost, you, senior citizen of America, are going to pay the first $4,000.

Nearly half of all Medicare beneficiaries, up to 20 million seniors and disabled Americans, will fall into a coverage gap, meaning they will pay premiums all year without receiving benefits all year. Under the plan most seniors will be worse off than before, and millions of retirees will lose their existing employer provided coverage.

Republican priorities are clear: They place the special from interest of the HMOs and the pharmaceutical companies before the public interest of America's seniors and disabled. This is not the beginning of a real prescription drug benefit under Medicare. On the contrary, this is the beginning of the end of Medicare as we know it. The more seniors across America learn about the details of this scheme, the less they like it, and the more they want us to keep fighting for real prescription drug benefit that really answers their needs.

Mr. Speaker, this is an hour of decision. Tonight there is own one way to improve this bill and that is to and to provide the benefit seniors need and deserve and that is to vote no. I urge my colleagues to vote against this Republican hoax. I urge them to send all of the conferees, Democrats and Republicans, to the conference room to produce a bipartisan bill that will be sustainable over time and meet the needs of our seniors and disabled. I urge them to stand with 40 million seniors and disabled Americans who look to us for help and hope at this defining moment.

Speaking on the day when he signed Medicare into law, President Johnson said that this Nation's commitment to its seniors was part of a noble tradition that calls upon us never to be indifferent toward despair, never to turn away from helplessness, never to ignore or spurn those who suffer untended in a land that is bursting with abundance. Tonight the hopes of 40 million seniors and disabled Americans rest upon us. They have waited too long, fought too hard, endured too many broken promises, only to be sacrificed on the alter of the special interest. We cannot, we must not, and we will not abandon them now.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great personal sadness that I pay final tribute to a good friend and a great leader in the San Francisco community--Robert ``Bobby'' McDonnell--who died on August 17th. His extraordinary work in the labor movement and in the community earned him the respect and appreciation of the City of San Francisco.

A native San Franciscan, Bobby graduated from Marin Catholic High School and attended the College of Marin and the University of San Francisco. Bobby McDonnell had a long and distinguished career dedicated to the working men and women of the San Francisco Bay Area. He served as Field Representative and as Secretary-Treasurer for the Laborers' International Union of America, AFL-CIO, Local 261 from 1968 to 1999. He was an Executive Board Member of the San Francisco Labor Council, and also a member of the San Francisco Building and Trades Council. His fierce commitment to the labor movement never ceased, and he advocated labor issues at every opportunity from coast to coast.

He was a member of the Golden Gate Bridge District's Board of Directors from 1984 until the time of his death, where he worked tirelessly to maintain a great public agency. His achievements during his long tenure are too many to list, but in all his endeavors, he served with passion, integrity and excellence.

He was a devoted and enthusiastic godfather to St. Vincent's School for Boys. He unselfishly worked as a volunteer, organizer and fundraiser not only for St. Vincent's, but also the United Way, the United Irish Cultural Center and the Amigos of Central Latino. One of his favorite activities was playing Santa Claus for the different organizations where he volunteered. It was a perfect job for him, because those who knew him say he spread joy and humor wherever he went.

To his wife Mary, his brother Danny, his stepsons Jerry, Michael, David and Harry, I extend my deepest sympathy and my profound appreciation for your sharing Bobby with us. We miss him greatly.

Mr. Speaker, this should be a historic week in the life of our Nation. Instead, it is a tragic week. We should be celebrating Congress' keeping its promise to seniors and disabled Americans to provide a real guaranteed defined prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Instead, we are witnessing another Republican empty promise. Nothing short of a historic hoax on 40 million seniors and disabled Americans.

Mr. Speaker, America's seniors and disabled citizens have looked to Congress for help. Instead, Republicans have perpetrated, as I said, this cruel hoax on seniors, proposing an Alice in Wonderland bill in which logic is turned on its head and everything means the opposite.

A real, guaranteed, defined prescription drug benefit under Medicare could have been the product of bipartisan debate and discussion. Instead, this Republican hoax is a partisan scheme rammed through the Congress and negotiated in back rooms.

Republicans locked House Democrats out of negotiations, or better yet their ``deal-making,'' and in so doing they locked out the 130 million Americans we represent. Seniors, veterans, disabled Americans, rural Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, America's seniors deserve better.

A real guaranteed prescription drug benefit under Medicare would put seniors and the disabled first. Instead, this Republican hoax subverts the public interest for the special interests, putting seniors at the mercy of the HMOs, creating a giant slush fund for HMOs, and creating windfall profits for the big pharmaceutical companies.

Mr. Speaker, America's seniors deserve better. A real guaranteed defined prescription drug benefit under Medicare would reduce costs to seniors and taxpayers. Instead, this Republican hoax increases drug costs, actually prohibiting the government from negotiating lower costs. Imagine that, this bill prohibits the government from negotiating for lower costs.

Republicans have instituted means testing for the first time, forcing millions of seniors to pay more for benefits they already have. Make no mistake, under this scheme, millions of Medicare beneficiaries will pay more, not less.

America's seniors deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, a real guaranteed benefit under Medicare would include all seniors and disabled Americans. Instead, this Republican hoax leaves most seniors and disabled worse off than before. According to the Congressional Budget Office, millions of retirees who get their benefits from their employers will lose their coverage. Let me repeat that. According to the Congressional Budget Office, millions of retirees who get their benefits from their employers will lose their benefits.

Nearly half of all Medicare beneficiaries, almost 20 million seniors and disabled Americans, will fall into the coverage gap, meaning they will pay premiums every month but receive no benefits in the final months of every year, a monthly premium without monthly benefits.

America's seniors deserve better.

Finally, a real guaranteed prescription drug benefit under Medicare would be just that under Medicare, which seniors have known and trusted for 40 years. Instead, this Republican hoax tries to dismantle and unravel Medicare with a voucher program that

pushes seniors into HMOs. This is no longer a debate just about including a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. Republicans are trying to dismantle the Medicare program that seniors have known and trusted, again, for 40 years. Mr. Speaker, this is completely unacceptable.

Republicans have been clear. They want to kill Medicare and privatize it. During the debate on the Republican bill this summer, the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), said, and I quote: ``To those who say that it would end Medicare as we know it, our answer is we certainly hope so.'' And as my colleagues know, the leadership of this body, the Republican leadership, has been on record as saying Republicans want to see Medicare ``wither on the vine,'' to use their words.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been equally clear. We want to save Medicare and protect it. America's seniors see through the Republican rhetoric. This is not the beginning of a real prescription drug benefit under Medicare. This is the beginning of the end of Medicare as we know it.

America's seniors deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, our seniors are smart. They see through this Republican hoax for what it is and for what it is not. It does not put seniors and disabled Americans first. It does not reduce costs. It does not include all seniors and disabled Americans. And it is not under Medicare.

In short, this Republican hoax is not the real guaranteed defined prescription drug benefit under Medicare that our seniors want, that they need, and that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, our seniors deserve better. They are the Greatest Generation. They have fought our wars. They came home and raised our families. They built a new America. The prosperity and quality of life that we enjoy today is owed to their lives of hard work and sacrifice. But today, seniors and disabled Americans are asking why, why is this, the wealthiest Nation in human history, not keeping its faith with its seniors, the citizens who built this country?

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple: priorities. Republicans have different priorities, a few Republicans behind closed doors making deals that would rather give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans than give a real prescription drug benefit to seniors who desperately need it. If I can paraphrase Winston Churchill: never in history have so few worked so hard to take away so much from so many. That is the Republican back-door deal-making.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican hoax, and I urge them to demand that Congress keep working to keep its promise to seniors by providing a real guaranteed defined prescription drug benefit under Medicare that our seniors want, need, and deserve. I hope it is not too late for that. Democrats have been knocking on the door constantly saying, Let us in. Let the Democrats in. Let us work together in a bipartisan way to build a real defined guaranteed benefit under Medicare for our seniors that has bipartisan support and that will be sustainable over time. Instead, the Republicans did not allow House Democrats in the room.

Why is that important? That is important because we represent over 130 million Americans. That is important because within our caucus we have the benefit of the thinking of a large African American Black Caucus, our Hispanic Caucus, our Asian Pacific American Caucus, a large number of women in our caucus. We work hard on the issues here in the Congress. The thinking of this diverse group of people is very dynamic and quite different from the back-room deal makers that the Republicans wrote this bill with.

By excluding Democrats from the room, the Republicans excluded the strength of America, the benefit of the thinking of a very distinguished group of representatives of the American people. No wonder we ended up with a product that, do not take my word for it, read the Wall Street Journal today and see who wins in this bill. It is the pharmaceutical companies; it is the HMOs. The consumer comes in last.

This bill is not a defined real guaranteed benefit under Medicare. It does not meet that standard. It will not have my support, and I hope it does not have the support of a majority of the Members of this body.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for yielding me time. I commend him for his exceptional service to this Congress and this country on issues that relate to energy and the environment. He has been a champion for clean air, clean water, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The list goes on and on. We are all deeply in his debt. Indeed, everyone who breathes air and drinks water in this country is deeply in his debt.

Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor earlier today and told the story about the disgraceful Medicare bill that we will be doing later this week in which House Democrats were shut out in favor of a back-room deal.

Sadly, this energy bill is more of the same. While House Democrats were excluded from the deliberations on this bill, they were not allowed to participate in the conference. The Vice President of the United States and the Halliburton crowd had a seat at the table.

Republicans met behind closed doors to write this bill, shutting out House Democrats and the 130 million Americans we represent, while the special interests had special access. It is just not about the quantity, the number of Americans shut out. It also is about the diversity and the quality of the people who were shut out.

When House Democrats do not have a seat at the table, a seat is excluded to the members of our Congressional Black Caucus, our Congressional Hispanic Caucus, our Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus, our large Women's Caucus. The list goes on and on of the diversity that we have in our thinking. The benefit of the thinking of a caucus of that diversity should not be lost in any legislation that we put forth.

Whether my Republican colleagues like it or not, that diversity represents the future, and you shut out the future from the table. That is why you have a bill that looks back. You have a bill that could have been written in the 1950s, and it is a missed opportunity.

The energy bill is almost 1,200 pages long, but Democrats were not allowed to see the text until Saturday, and here we are, 3 days later, voting on the most comprehensive overhaul of energy policy since 1992. Now that we can see the bill, we know why the Republicans wanted to hide it. It is loaded to the brim with special interest giveaways. It puts the special interest before the public interest.

Yes, there are a few table scraps thrown toward clean energy resources and technologies, but for the most part, the bill will allow big energy companies to feast on a buffet of new tax breaks. It will cost Americans more than $142 billion over the next 10 years.

How bad is this bill? So bad that the CATO Institute, not known as a Democratic institution, so bad that the CATO Institute joined the Sierra Club in saying, in a rare moment of agreement, this bill is three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics.

Meanwhile, this bill does not provide the sound energy policy we need. The American people deserve an energy policy that is worthy of the 21st century, not one mired in the policies of the past, but this bill looks backward, not forward.

This bill will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will make it harder to increase fuel efficiency standards. It does not adequately invest in new technologies and promote energy efficiencies. It will not protect average Americans from price gouging and fraud, and it throws environmental concerns overboard.

Just look at what this bill does to the environment. It waives the Clean Water Act for construction of oil and gas facilities. It waives the Clean Air Act in communities that are blanketed with smog, hurting millions of children. It waives the Safe Drinking Water Act to allow injection of diesel fuel into the water table, and it allows the gasoline additive MTBE to remain in use for years to come, even though it pollutes drinking water and is a suspected carcinogen. The bill even makes sure that the MTBE industry will not have to pay to clean up water it has contaminated. It has held them harmless for the damage that they do. That burden will fall on the people already suffering its effects.

Mr. Speaker, it is no accident that we are voting on this energy bill in the final days before we adjourn. The Republicans did not really want the American people nor the Members of Congress to see what was in this bill. When Americans learn what is in this bill, they will be offended, and they will be disappointed.

This Congress had the opportunity to craft an energy policy that would boost the economy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, clean up the environment and protect public health, but instead, we have before us an energy policy that looks to the past, not the future, and gives away huge, unnecessary tax breaks to the Republicans' special interest friends.

A vote ``no'' on this bill is a vote in the public interest. A vote ``yes'' is a vote for the special interest. I urge my colleagues to support the public interest and vote no.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services for yielding me time and for his great services to our country throughout his whole life which continues here in Congress. As a veteran himself, his service on the Committee on Armed Services is very informed and we thank him and recognize his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the commitment of our Nation's veterans. We will have a motion to recommit, as has been indicated, and it is to support our veterans.

No group of Americans has stood stronger and braver for our Nation than our troops and our veterans. From the bitter cold winter at Valley Forge to the boiling hot Iraqi terrain, our soldiers have courageously answered when called, gone where ordered, and defended our Nation with honor.

As a Nation we have a sacred pact with those who have served us in uniform. They have taken care of us and, in turn, we will always take care of them. That is our solemn pledge.

Today, just before Veterans Day, we stand on the floor of the House of Representatives prepared to vote on the Department of Defense authorization conference report. And on this day we have young men and women, the sons and daughters of America on the ground, engaged in war in Iraq. We salute them for their courage, their patriotism and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. But this bill in many respects does not honor their service.

Democrats are fighting to live up to our promise to our veterans by ending the unfair practice of the disabled veterans tax. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) will be offering the motion to recommit to this effect. He is leading our fight for a complete and total repeal of the disabled veterans tax for all of our veterans. We have made this long-standing issue too hot to handle for the Republicans and they have offered a proposal in today's conference report in response. Their proposal is a step, but it is not nearly good enough.

The Republicans have put forth a proposal that leaves far too many veterans behind. Under their Republican proposal, two-thirds of our veterans, two-third of our veterans still will not receive one penny of compensation for their disabilities.

The Republican deal will address the tax for some veterans but not for others. For the select few it does address, the tax may not fully end for them for 10 years. Many of these are veterans of World War II. Ten years is a long time to wait in any event, but especially if you are a World War II vet. That is not good enough.

America's veterans deserve better. On the battlefield of war our soldiers pledge to leave no one behind. As a Nation, it must be our pledge that after our soldiers come home we will leave no veteran behind. Our veterans served for all of us. We must be there for all of them.

In June, Democrats launched a discharge petition to give Members a chance to vote to end completely the disabled veterans tax for all military retirees. Two hundred and three Members, 201 Democrats, only 2 Republicans, signed the discharge petition, despite the fact that 160 Republicans have co-sponsored the legislation. So we know that our Republican colleagues believe that this is the right course of action. Democrats are giving you a way to honor our own commitment. The right thing to do was obvious then when this discharge petition was signed to completely end the disabled veterans tax.

The right thing to do today, just before Veterans Day, is also obvious. Vote to recommit this bill with instructions to strip out the failed Republican language on disabled veterans tax and add the Democratic language to completely and totally end the disabled veterans tax. Indeed, this language is the language of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a distinguished member of the Republican Caucus.

The current language again leaves two-thirds of our vets behind. The Democratic motion to recommit leaves no veteran behind. We have a moral obligation to those who have paid the high price for our freedom, those who have worn our Nation's uniform. Our words must be as bold as their deeds, and we must honor what they have done for our country.

So let us give a great gift to our veterans on this Veterans Day. I urge my colleagues to honor our veterans service and vote yes when the opportunity comes for the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), for allowing me to speak out of turn here.

I want to commend my colleagues from California, (Chairman Hunter) and (Mrs. Davis), for bringing this resolution to the floor, enabling Members of Congress to express our appreciation for the brave service of the firefighters in our great State of California. These firefighters battled 17 wildfires over the course of more than a week, saving countless lives and protecting us in this great natural disaster. I want to join with my California colleagues in offering my praise, respect, and admiration for the heroic men and women who put their lives at risk under extremely hazardous conditions to contain this disaster and minimize the damage to land, homes, and businesses in Southern California.

During our debate last week on another piece of legislation, I conveyed my condolences to all of our colleagues who had lost lives and families who had lost their homes in Southern California. I especially wanted to express concern to our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), for the loss of his home in the fire, and hope that his family will be made whole, as well as all of the families of the region affected.

The tales of these firefighters, Mr. Speaker, are tales of bravery and sacrifice. We mourn the loss of the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Woolsey) constituent, Marin County firefighter Steven Rucker, who made the ultimate sacrifice. We all extend our sympathy to his family at home and his friends at the firehouse.

In San Diego County, represented by my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), who I acknowledged earlier for her leadership, as well as by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and others, a number of volunteer firefighters have sacrificed their own homes while battling the blazes to preserve the homes of others in their communities.

I would also like to commend the efforts of the 72 members of the San Francisco Fire Department who were quick to join the strike teams to assist our neighbors to the south. These devastating fires have burned almost 750,000 acres, caused the death of 22 of our fellow Californians, and destroyed more than 3,500 homes. It is almost inconceivable.

As we prepare to help families and communities recover from devastation and loss, we recognize without the tireless and heroic efforts of thousands of firefighters, our losses could have been much greater. We salute their bravery, their heroism, and the decisions they make every day to risk their own safety even to protect the safety of others. I might add we commend and salute their families, their courageous families.

I commend my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr.

Hunter). I also want to, once again, acknowledge the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who has so sensitively dealt with the loss of her constituent Steven Rucker. And we all acknowledge the debt we owe to California's bravest for their successful efforts to contain these massive fires.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his leadership and for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) for making this resolution possible this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great personal sadness that I rise to pay tribute to Frank McCloskey, who passed away on Sunday surrounded by family and friends, and that is exactly how he lived, surrounded by family and friends. Frank was a respected colleague in this body, a dear friend and a faithful public servant. He was the mayor of Bloomington for 10 years. He was just out of law school when he was elected mayor of Bloomington, and he was always in touch with his district. He was so proud to represent Indiana in the Congress, and those of us who served with him learned from him every single day about the wonders of Indiana and about the prospects for our great country.

Frank was a fighter, a gentleman, a diplomat, a lovely and gracious man, but a fighter. He believed in causes greater than himself, and he worked tirelessly to achieve them. Anyone who served in Congress with Frank knew once he grabbed hold of an idea, he did not let go. In his work on the Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Affairs, he knew that our highest priority as Members of Congress was to provide for the common defense. He honored that commitment and became an expert on national defense policy. He was passionate and eloquent in his support for the people of Bosnia and a leader in stopping the genocide there. What a source of pride that must have been for him. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is nodding his head and acknowledging that Mr. McCloskey was such a champion for human rights and respecting the dignity and worth of every person. He cared deeply for the people of Bosnia and refused to believe that the United States could not stop the atrocities occurring there. On that issue, Frank was ahead of his time, as he was on so many issues.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) for his work to designate the Francis X. McCloskey Post Office Building. Frank served on the post office and civil service subcommittee, and I know it would be a source of great pride to have a post office named in his honor.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Roberta and their two children. I had

the pleasure of being in their company on a number of occasions and spoke to Frank as recently as last week. He was still a fighter and was fighting to get through this rough patch. But he knew that he had wonderful things in store, but they might not be with us here on Earth. We hope it is a comfort to Roberta and Frank's children that so many people share their loss. We miss Frank not only as a colleague, but as a precious and dear friend. He was a leader. People who never met him benefited from his great service in this Congress of the United States. Again our sympathies go out to his family, to his constituents whom he cared so much about, and I thank again the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) for making this tribute to Frank possible.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, for yielding and for his leadership. I appreciate the Obey alternative that was not able to be offered but that he put forth. And I will speak to that in just a moment.

I rise in opposition to the supplemental. And, in doing so, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary commitment of our distinguished chairman to

our troops. For him it is a family matter. His wife has been, as all have said over and over, an angel to the young men and women that have come back from combat and are at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center and the Walter Reed Hospital. And all of us who have visited them salute their courage, their patriotism, the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. I had the privilege of doing that on a number of occasions with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), as well as visiting the troops in Kuwait.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question as to whether we support the troops. Of, course, we all do. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your extraordinary commitment there, and, as well, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey.) In fact, in the Obey substitute there was $4.6 billion more for the troops. Unfortunately, the rules prevented us from taking up the alternative simply because it was paid for. Funny rules, but there they are.

I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), where we finally were able to get some of the equipment that the troops need to protect themselves as they fight this fight in Iraq. They are precious to us. Again, we salute them. But we cannot send them into battle unless they are adequately equipped.

May I offer my condolences and sympathy to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for the losses in his district and that of many in our great State of California. I salute the firefighters who also are taking risks for us in our Golden State. Because, quite frankly, one of my dismays with the administration on their proposals are that with the $63 billion that we gave them last spring and the summer with a practically unanimous vote, it was not even an issue, of course, the money would be sent. When the President asked for the $87 billion, we later learned that the troops still did not have the kevlar lining in their vests, in their flak jackets, at least 44,000 of them did not. They still did not have jammers to prevent the improvised explosive devices from taking their lives. They still did not have the tracks for the Bradleys. They still did not have the spare parts for nearly half of their equipment.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) visited there, raised a ruckus, but still they did not have it in the $63 billion package in the summer; they still do not have it, this the $87 billion request from the President. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of the troops. We salute them here on this floor; he works for them every day. And without his raising the ruckus, they still would not have it in this bill, but he and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) made that possible. And we are all in their debt, all of us who care about the troops. And I know that that includes every single person here.

As respectful as I am of our distinguished chairman, I beg to differ on the exit strategy. What he stated is something that we all share: A goal that we will successfully accomplish our mission in restoring stability to Iraq. We all agree that that must be done. That is a goal. It is an exit strategy. The administration did not have one, nor did they have a plan. That is a very sad thing. They did not have a plan for postwar Iraq.

Whatever one's view was going into the war, that is history. That was then. Now, we know we have to accomplish the mission, we have to support our troops, and we have to have them come home safely and hopefully soon.

General Zinni's words just resonate with me. They challenge the conscience of our country. General Zinni, retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni said, and I quote, ``America's men and women in uniform should never be put on the battlefield without a strategic plan not only for the fighting, our generals will take care of that, but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning?''

So not only does the administration not have an exit strategy, they do not have a plan. The level of sacrifice has not been met with the level of planning. Because President Bush lacked an adequate plan for postwar Iraq, American soldiers are taking virtually all of the risks and American taxpayers are paying virtually all of the bills.

As I said, Democrats offered an alternative that would have spent an additional $4.6 billion to protect U.S. forces and converted half of the reconstruction loans to loans through the World Bank, thereby costing U.S. taxpayers less, avoiding an increase in the deficit, and encouraging greater international participation. Unfortunately, House Republicans prevented a vote on that proposal. And last week 84 Republicans joined Democrats in favoring loans showing that this is not a partisan issue.

Threats of a Presidential veto if the loans were included in the final bill ignore, really, bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress and the opinion of most Americans.

Last night the conferees turned a deaf ear to the American people and the will of both Houses by stripping the loan provision from the conference report. And so tonight we are being asked to vote on a conference report that hands the President another blank check for postwar Iraq.

This conference report reflects no change in the administration's failing postwar Iraq policy. The $63 billion for Iraq approved last spring has not been adequately accounted for. We do not have any accountability for the policy and, yet, here we are poised to approve $87 billion for more.

I certainly agree with what has been said on both sides of the aisle; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) said it most recently when he talked about the need for the reconstruction, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) referenced it too. Certainly, we know that reconstruction funds are necessary in Iraq. We know that that is important to the safety and the security of our troops. And I think we are blessed in this body to have the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Lowey) as the Chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee that will deal with that. They are internationalists, they understand the importance of that. But I do not think we should have a gold-plated, no-bid- contract kind of a way to approach these.

And that was the beauty of the proposal of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). It gave them $7 billion to use immediately, which was what the World Bank said their absorptive capacity was now, and sends the rest of the money on to the World Bank to be capitalized 4 to 1, $28 billion for this important reconstruction.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) referenced General Petraeus. Anyone who has visited the theater knows what a hero he is, 101st Airborne, great, great, great troops that we are very proud of. General Petraeus pointed out an incident where the U.S. engineers called for $15 million to turn a cement factory into a state-of-the-art cement factory. Our troops working with the Iraqis, this is one of General Petraeus's projects, our troops working with the Iraqis got it up and running not for $15 million, but for $80,000. For $80,000.

So that is why when we are not having loans but we are having grants, and our grandchildren and children have to pay for all of this without any thought of getting any reduction of our deficit from the gushing oil fields of Iraq, should they ever gush forth, it just does not seem right.

Mr. Speaker, what is really sad about all of this in terms of the cost, when the administration came to the Congress and to the Committee on Appropriations, Secretary Wolfowitz said we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon. He said that shortly after we went into full combat with Iraq. Mr. Wolfowitz said we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon. He miscalculated the cost, that is for sure. Ignoring the advice of our own State Department, indeed the Bush administration's own State Department about what to expect in postwar Iraq, and that is a matter of record, it has been published in the assessment that was made after the war, Center for Army's Lessons Learned at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, we know that we did not really even supply our troops with the intelligence, the actionable intelligence they needed to protect themselves and to accomplish the mission.

So we miscalculated the cost, we misunderstood the risks, we do not have the intelligence. And the administration, again, ignored its own report from the State Department about what some of the challenges would be.

Miscalculation, misrepresentation of the cost, misunderstanding of the challenge. Where is the accountability? We need to get that intelligence for our troops just as surely we need to get the kevlar lining for their flak jackets. They are not going to be protected, unless we have the intelligence that is needed to protect them.

So that is why when this blank check of $87 billion comes to the floor, it begs some questions about what we really are doing for our troops. Our intentions are all very, very positive. We know that. But the military is telling us they do not have the intelligence to protect the troops. The military is telling us that.

The State Department told the administration what to expect and that was ignored.

So in any event, I think I have made my point about I think there was a better way. Let us do this right. We know this is not the last request we are going to receive. The administration told us the day the President made the request for $87 billion. They called my chief of staff and said it is going to cost $50 to $75 billion more. So this is just an installment, an installment that is going to be paid for by our grandchildren. I think there is a better way to do it. I am sorry we do not have that opportunity tonight. And that is why I will be voting against the supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I thank him for presenting this motion to instruct, and I thank him for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of America's children. His lifelong service in the Congress and commitment to America's children is an example to all of us. He knows the education issue chapter and verse, and he gives us a very important motion to vote on this evening.

Mr. Chairman, agreeing to the highest level in a conference, as the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) motion to instruct calls for, is the very least that we can do for the children of America. As my colleagues know, earlier, not in this Congress but a Congress before, we authorized the No Child Left Behind legislation. It was groundbreaking. It called for standards in the schools, and it was controversial. It received bipartisan support. It was the President's initiative, and it received bipartisan support in the House, in the Congress.

It was never imagined, I do not think, that when we would go forward with these mandates on public schools in our country that we would give them the mandates and withhold the money. That this bill falls $8 billion short on funding for Leave No Child Behind is appalling, and it is impossible for the schools to meet the mandate.

President Bush and the Republicans have made a great show in supporting education, and they have promised with great fanfare Leave No Child Behind, but when they cut billions of dollars from the bill, they are leaving millions of children behind. When it comes time to keep the promises, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress take a recess from responsibility and again leave millions of children behind.

No matter what else students have learned in school this year, students and their parents across the country have learned a valuable lesson about the Republicans. They do not keep their promises on education. The appropriation bill the Republicans passed this summer falls a staggering $8 billion below the funding level promised in the Leave No Child Behind bill. It only funds a small portion of what was promised for Title I, the program that helps at-risk students master the basics.

It falls more than $1 billion short of the special education funding promised in the recently passed Individuals With Disabilities Education Act reauthorization bill, a 55 percent gap between what the Republicans promised and what they delivered.

The vote on this appropriations bill clearly defined the differences between the parties. Not one single Democrat voted to support this affront to America's education needs and with good reason. I will just take my own State of California for example. It underfunds our needs in California by $1.3 billion for our children. In Georgia, it underfunds by $280 million. When my Republican colleagues voted for this bill, if they were from Georgia, they voted to shortchange the children of Georgia by $280 million; in Arizona, $168 million. The list goes on and on.

By voting for this bill, Republicans showed that all of their rhetoric supporting education is just that, empty rhetoric. It is yet another example of the credibility gap between the rhetoric around here and the harsh realities of the budget priorities the Republicans have. It is more important for them to give tax breaks to corporations, moving manufacturing jobs offshore. It is more important for them to give tax breaks that are even described by the CATO Institute in a negative way to the energy sector.

Everything seems to be more important to the Republicans than the education of America's children.

Today, Members have the opportunity, thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to close the gap between the rhetoric of that education and funding for education. His motion calls for keeping our promises. This is not to restore the full funding. We do not have that opportunity. Republicans will not give us that chance. But at least it tells us to go to the highest funding between the two Houses. As I said, it is the least we can do for America's children.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I once again commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for his great leadership on behalf of educating America's children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay my final respects to Lu Corbett Daly, who passed away on Friday. It is my privilege to work on a daily basis with Lu's wonderful son, Brendan, and it is with sadness and respect that I share with my colleagues the following words from her obituary in the Washington Post:

Lu Corbett Daly, 78, an award-winning advertising

copywriter who had worked for The Washington Post and the

National Geographic Society, died Oct. 24 at the Auxiliary

House, a long-term care group home in Bethesda, where she had

lived since May 2001. She had Alzheimer's disease.

The Direct Marketing Association of Washington named Mrs.

Daly its ``Professional of the Year'' in 1991 for her

contributions to the 1,500-member organization. She also was

a member of the American Association of University Women.

Mrs. Daly graduated in 1947 from Marywood College in her

native Scranton, Pa. She was president of her class for three

years. She studied acting at Marywood and took summer courses

at Catholic University's drama school.

After graduation, she moved with her family to the Chevy

Chase section of Washington and began work in public

relations for Capital Transit Co. before joining The Post as

an advertising copywriter.

She starred in several amateur theater productions, through

which she met her husband. Early in her marriage, while her

husband was a Navy officer, Mrs. Daly moved 11 times in three

years, with the family settling in the Hillmead section of

Bethesda and later in Chevy Chase. Mrs. Daly was a member of

the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament Catholic parish,

serving on its advisory council and helping establish the

Second and Fourth Monday Group, which provides social

activities for seniors.

In 1976, she became a vice president of Daly

Communications, a family-owned consulting business. She was

twice elected to the board of directors of the Washington

direct marketing group, serving two years as program chair.

She was hired by the National Geographic Society in 1982.

For the next dozen years, she helped produce numerous direct

marketing packages, which were sent worldwide to millions of

society members and prospective members. Her work to promote

the 1985 book ``Discovering Britain & Ireland'' helped sell

more than 300,000 copies--a society record. For that effort,

Mrs. Daly won an ECHO Award from the national Direct

Marketing Association. She retired in 1995.

Mrs. Daly was co-editor of ``The Daly Greeting,'' dubbed

``The Only Daly Paper Published Annually,'' which recounts

the doings of her large family. Her father-in-law, John Jay

Daly Sr., a former Post staff writer, began the paper in

1916.

Survivors include her husband of 51 years, John Jay Daly of

Chevy Chase; her eight children, LuAnne Daly of Santa Rosa,

Calif.; Deirdre Daly of Lyons, Colo.; Sean Daly of

Barrington, R.I.; Maura Daly of Germantown; Kate Daly Paradis

of Boulder, Colo.; Matthew Daly and Brendan Daly, both of

Silver Spring, and Corbett Daly of Washington; four sisters,

Gladys Quinn of Scranton, Rita Jeffers and Dorothea McIntyre,

both of Bethesda, and Joyce West of Marion, Mass.; a brother,

William Corbett of Reston; and 11 grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1446, the California Missions Preservation Act. This legislation will provide $10 million in matching grants for the preservation of California's 21 historic missions, to be matched with $50 million in private donations. The missions are the most frequently visited historical attractions in the state, receiving more than 5.3 million visitors annually.

As every California schoolchild learns, the missions shaped the future of California. Built between 1769 and 1798, the missions were the first European settlements in our region and formed a chain along the coast from San Diego to Sonoma. Each mission became a bustling settlement inhabited by Europeans and Native Americans.

Mission San Francisco de Asis, the sixth mission to be created, was founded on June 29, 1776, just give days before the signing of the Declaration of Independence on the opposite side of the continent. Popularly known as Mission Dolores, it grew to become the great City of San Francisco. It now lies near the geographic center of the city and at the heart of the city's cultural and religious life.

Built with adobe and massive beams of sequoia wood, Mission Dolores survived the devastating earthquake of 1906 practically without damage. But as the oldest building in San Francisco, Mission Dolores is suffering the ravages of time and heavy usage. The main altar, two side alters, the statuary, the gardens, and the cemetery are in need of repair and restoration. The mission museum must be enlarged and upgraded to ensure that mission artifacts are properly preserved and protected. Funds are needed for the construction of a memorial honoring the Native Americans on whom the success and the very survival of the mission depended.

While Mission Dolores needs significant repairs and improvements, some of the other missions are at even greater risk, needing seismic retrofits to ensure that they survive the next earthquake. If we lose these missions, we will lose an essential strand in the fabric of our state's history. I urge my colleagues to vote for the California Missions Preservation Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules for yielding me time and the fight he and the other members of the Committee on Rules are making in that venue for openness on the floor of this House.

Mr. Speaker, this is a solemn and serious matter that we have before the House today. And the question is what is the best way for us to provide for our troops, help with the reconstruction in Iraq, and accomplish our mission so that we can bring our troops home safely and soon. We know that it is not about cutting and running. We take our responsibilities seriously that we have inherited in Iraq, and it is not about cutting and running. It is about accomplishing our mission. But cutting and running is what is happening here in this House of Representatives.

The debate on these issues relating to the $87 billion supplemental is just too painful for the Republicans to hear. The fact that there was no plan for postwar Iraq is just too painful for them to listen to.

The amendments that have been thoughtfully considered and presented here by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle point out the shortcomings of this supplemental to begin with. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) had an excellent amendment earlier talking about paying for transportation for our men and women in uniform, that we would pay for that. Why would that not have been in the President's proposal to begin with? Why is it not the law now? The list goes on and on.

We said it over and over again that, without the intervention of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the cooperation of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), our troops would still not have funding for Kevlar in their jackets, jammers to stop the detonation of explosive devices, spare parts for their equipment, and armor for their Humvees. They still do not have it. It will hopefully be in this package. But it was not there in the summer after we gave the administration $63 billion, and it was not in the President's proposal. And that is why these amendments are important, but they again show the concern for the troops was much less than it should be on the part of the administration.

So we come to the floor with this very important matter, a matter relating to war, how we support our troops, how we reconstruct and bring stability to Iraq so that we can accomplish our mission. And we are told that we have an open rule, that the discussion will consider what people propose. And immediately the rule becomes restrictive in terms of what it will allow to be brought to the floor for a vote.

It is beneath the dignity of this House for us to have a debate on the war and not allow the proposal of the Democrats, the Democratic substitute,

to come to this floor. And the main reason it could not come to this floor is because it paid for, it paid for what we would do for the troops and the reconstruction of Iraq. So it is against the rules here to be fiscally responsible to pay for the proposals that we are putting forth.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) put forth some saying that he heard in the Army. I cannot repeat it and I would not repeat it if I could, but I want to go to the Marines. The Marines have an expression, ``Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance.''

Our men and women were properly prepared and they performed their duties excellently, but there was no planning for after the military action, which still continues but which the President declared over May 1. There is no plan. There has been no plan. And to quote General Zinni, ``The level of sacrifice has not been met by the level of planning.''

How can we ask our troops to make those sacrifices when we are not really willing to have a plan? And if there was a plan, it is a failure. And if there is a plan, nobody knows what it is. And if there is a plan, it did not take into consideration the risks in postwar Iraq and, therefore, properly protect our troops. It misunderstood the conditions in Iraq and the challenges that we would face, again, endangering our troops. And it misrepresented what the cost would be to the American people.

Again, we have heard Secretary Wolfowitz's statement about how quickly Iraq would be able to provide for its own reconstruction. So that is why there is some level of disapproval of what is happening here. It is an open rule except we will restrict what we can hear and besides, we are sick and tired of hearing what is wrong with this policy.

That is cutting and running. We are opposed to it in anything we undertake.

We are professional people. We have the privilege of representing the American people. They have serious questions about this, and we are cutting and running and stifling debate.

So I hope that the opportunity that is presented under this rule, under the consideration of the previous question, will enable this House to vote on what happened in the Senate in a bipartisan way last night, which basically said that the American people should not be taking all the risks as far as their troops are concerned and paying all the bills. And this amendment specifically addresses the bills. It says if those oil fields get gushing, this is what it means, if these oil fields get gushing and Iraq amasses resources, then and only then would they pay back the loan. If they cannot, there is consideration for that. It could not be more fair. It could not be more reasonable. It should be voted upon by this body. But it is really unfortunate because time is what we were sent here to use for the American people; and if we cut and run, if we cut and run on a matter of this solemnity and this seriousness to the American people, shame on us.

I urge our colleagues to support the motion that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) will be making in regard to the previous question.