Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank very much my colleague and thank you for calling us together so that we can express our sympathy to the family of Julia Carson, to her constituents whom she loved and worked so hard for, and to our colleagues from Indiana; Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Hill and Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Ellsworth, who are here, this great distinguished delegation from Indiana with the crown jewel, Julia Carson, as one of the senior members of the delegation.

Thank you so much. I know you are among those who were the last, certainly from Congress, to visit with Congresswoman Carson and conveyed back to us her usual good cheer and dignity and demeanor, and that is how she was.

And so that it's very sad to convey to her grandson Andre Carson on behalf of all of the Members of the House of Representatives the deep sadness that we have over their suffering.

Members have talked about her in Congress and the kind of person that she was, and I remember visiting her on a number of occasions in Indianapolis, and what was a joy to behold was the esteem in which she was held by all of the people there, whether we were walking down the street or talking to police officers there. Wherever it was we went to events that she had, relating to health care, relating to the issues that concerned America's working families, people just worshipped Julia Carson. I never saw anything like it. I never saw anything like it.

She came to Congress, as has been mentioned, after decades of distinguished service to the State of Indiana, and Members have talked about her, the positions that she has held. During her time in the House, she was a very powerful advocate for the people of Indianapolis and for working families across the Nation.

As the Indianapolis Star editorial board wrote, ``The city's history- making congresswoman never forgot her roots.''

I was listening as Members talked about the role that she had played most recently, the congresswoman from California talking about the role she played in getting the House to vote for a Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks.

I talked about how it was to watch Julia in Indianapolis and just how people responded to her as she was walking down the street, and I now talk about how it was the day that she got this idea and started the ball rolling on this and then the day that Rosa Parks came to the Congress. It was a thrilling, historic day for all of us, the bond between the two of them, the reverence in which we all held Rosa Parks, and the appreciation that she had for the work that Julia Carson had done to make that day possible, not only for Rosa Parks but for the country. She's a star. Julia was a star.

It's a fitting cause for her, as Julia and Rosa Parks shared a quiet determination, a fierce sense of purpose and a total commitment to an ideal of equality which is our Nation's heritage and our Nation's hope.

Sadly, as we all know, in recent months, Julia Carson faced illness, but she did so with her characteristic courage and dignity. When she was here, she was here, and when she wasn't here, she was directing us from home. You were very fortunate, and I'm not usually jealous, but I'm jealous of the fact that you had an opportunity to see her. We had all hoped, of course, that we would see her once again here on the floor of the House.

I know that we're reassured that Julia is now at peace. This lovely, lovely woman, with an incredible sense of humor, she didn't miss anything that was going on on the floor. She would sit there quietly and then make the most incisive and insightful comments about the proceedings.

We're all sad to lose her as a congresswoman, of course, for our country. We're deeply saddened to lose her as a friend, and I hope it is a comfort to Andre Carson and to her family and to her constituents that so many people throughout our country, and certainly in this Congress, share their grief and are praying for them at this sad time.

I thank again my colleague for affording us the opportunity to express our admiration for this great lady, Julia Carson.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Neal, chairman of the subcommittee for yielding and also for his great leadership on issues that regard strengthening the middle class and growing the middle class in our country.

I also want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Neal when he extended his compliments to Mr. McCrery. He is a wonderful Member of Congress, and I am sorry to hear of his announced retirement. He will be missed here.

I listened attentively to Mr. McCrery's comments and want to speak to them because I think they pose the question that this House has to decide upon this evening very clearly. Mr. Rangel and Mr. Neal have given us the opportunity here tonight to send a clear message to the American people that the leverage in this country has changed to the middle class now instead of protecting the assets of the top 1 percent in our country.

Mr. McCrery says to give a tax cut, to prevent a tax increase we are going to increase taxes. Hello? He said, Hello? Hello, Mr. McCrery; yes, we are going to give tax relief to 23 million Americans, 23 million Americans, and approximately 5,000 to 10,000 Americans will be paying the tab. And they will be paying the tab because this legislation closes a loophole. We are closing a loophole.

These hedge fund CEOs who have taken their profits offshore to avoid taxes, this is called tax evasion, and this loophole closes that. So yes, tax relief for 23 million families, 10,000 or fewer people paying the price.

What is the alternative? As Mr. Neal mentioned, to borrow. Happily, my colleagues, for those of you who may not know, I got my seventh grandchild this weekend. And as it is with grandchildren, you always think of the world in which they will live and what we are doing, the fiscal soundness, in the country in which they will live.

So what we are saying to this newborn baby, we have a choice here tonight. We can either close the loophole of tax evasion for the wealthiest people in America in order to give tax relief to 23 million families in America, 5,000 to 10,000 get an increase, 23 million get tax relief, or we can say to the little baby and all little babies born across America and all their children, you are going to pay the tab because this money will be borrowed, probably from a foreign government, possibly from China, $50 billion. Fifty billion dollars. Put that on your tab, little baby, because you are going to be paying that price for a long time.

So it is either the American taxpayer, future generations, suffering if we go the Republican route, or it will be fairness, fairness, a new principle in tax policy in our country. The choice is clear. We choose tax relief for 23 million families with 10,000 or fewer people paying the tab. The wealthiest people, producing billions of dollars, billions of dollars once their loopholes are closed in order to foot the bill or passing this on to our children.

I wonder if our colleagues would be willing, when we talk about AMT, the alternative minimum tax and paying for it, or any other issue when we try to pay for it, if they would be interested when they suggest that we not pay for it, if they would be willing in the same vote to vote to increase the debt ceiling, because that is exactly what you are proposing. Let us not pay for this. Let us increase the national debt in order to give comfort to people who are evading their taxes by going offshore to the tune of billions of dollars.

So I think what the Ways and Means Committee has done is masterful. It is a mystery to me why it isn't bipartisan, and I hope that the bright light that we can shine on it tonight of fairness will encourage the Senate to support this legislation.

Not to pay for the AMT middle-class tax relief is really a hoax on the American people. I know that in the course of the debate my colleagues will make that clear. I thank you.

We have had many proud days in this Congress, when we passed SCHIP, the health insurance for 10 million American children, when we passed many pieces of legislation that related to our children, their health and education and the economic security of their families, the environment in which they live, a world at peace in which they can survive, but none of them has been as proud a day for me as when the Democrats stood tall for the middle class giving them tax relief, having it paid for so that those little children do not have to inherit the debt.

Once again, let's make this the children's Congress and vote for this important legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank Mr. Hoyer for his leadership on this very important legislation. He has worked very hard to try to achieve a level of bipartisanship on this legislation that could override the President's veto. In the United States Senate, there is a substantial bipartisan majority large enough to override the President's veto. I hope that we could achieve that in this House. We are not going to take up that vote tonight, as has been indicated by Mr. Hoyer. That debate and that vote will take place on January 23.

It is just very interesting to hear the reasons why the President of the United States said veto to the children of America. Veto in Latin: I forbid. I forbid the children of America, the children of working families who play by the rules and want the best for their children, who are struggling to make ends meet and who need health care and the health care that keeps them in the workforce and off of welfare and off of Medicaid.

Madam Speaker, it is particularly interesting to hear in this debate on the omnibus bill where there is talk of hundreds of billions of dollars more for the war in Iraq. For 40 days in Iraq, we can insure 10 million children in America; 40 days in Iraq, 10 million children in America. This is not an issue. This is a value. This is an ethic of the American people. The Democrats and Republicans, people of no party affiliation, everybody cares about the children of America. Over 80 percent of the American people support the SCHIP expansion that we want to do to double the number of children.

So when the President says we have not met his objections, he is moving the goal post. In his first veto message, he said he is concerned about the fact that people making $80,000 would be eligible for SCHIP. Not so. The only way they could be eligible is if the President of the United States himself gave them a waiver. The President has given waivers to families making 300 percent of poverty. The President himself has given that waiver. And now he is complaining about that level of income for families, hardworking families to receive SCHIP.

The President said he is concerned that there are still adults in the program. The Democratic response, bipartisan, strong, with 45 Republican votes, said that the adults would be phased out. The reason some of them are in there in the first place is that in order to get the children into the program, Governors had thought that it would be important to bring families into the program, and the President of the United States, President Bush's policy allowed that to happen. So he is turning his back on his own policy. He is turning his back on these children by saying their families should be off of SCHIP.

So when the President says he is opposed to the bill because it raises taxes, then we get to the heart of the matter. This bill is paid by an increase in the cigarette tax, and this is really why the President is vetoing the bill. The President is saying that rather than raise the cigarette tax, he would prefer to prevent an additional 5 million children in our country from getting access to quality health care.

The President has also said in other comments about this legislation, everyone in America has access to health care; they can just go to the emergency room. That was probably one of the most ill-informed, with stiff competition for that honor, but nonetheless probably one of the most ill-informed statements that could ever be made by anyone dealing with public policy and access to health care.

So again, I think all the Members of Congress who voted for this in a very strong bipartisan way in the House and the Senate can take great pride in setting a high watermark for what this Congress should be doing for children of working families in America.

I salute Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Stark for their exceptional leadership. I also salute Mr. LaHood for what he tried to do to bring bipartisanship to all of this. I commend Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch for their courageous leadership in the Senate, in leading the way to a veto-proof majority of Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate.

Whether you are talking about Easter Seals or the March of Dimes, the Association of Catholic Hospitals, AARP, AMA to YWCA, to everything alphabetically in between, everyone supports SCHIP except the President of the United States and those in this body who will side with him on this vote.

What a sad day. What a sad day that the President would say, rather than insuring 5 million children, I don't want to raise the cigarette tax. What a sad day when we would spend in 40 days in Iraq what it takes to insure 10 million children in America for 1 year. But we are not going to let this veto stand. We will act upon it and we will continue to fight the fight until 10 million children at a minimum in America have access to quality health care under the SCHIP program. It is the wish of the Governors.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in San Francisco and my colleagues in the Bay Area delegation, I want to thank Chairmen Oberstar and Cummings, and Ranking Members Mica and LaTourette, for their cooperation in bringing this resolution to the floor.

The San Francisco Bay is one of Northern California's most precious resources. Its biodiversity and fundamental role in commerce and recreation make it essential to the vitality of the entire Bay Area.

The Bay is special to San Franciscans. We bring our kids and grandkids here to play and learn about the environment. We surf and sail. And we appreciate the precious ecosystem that exists on the beaches, in the estuaries, under the water, and in the nearby National Marine Sanctuary--the Gulf of the Farallones. So protection of this Bay--its safety and its health--has always been a high priority. Any harm to the Bay is a serious matter, and when disaster struck on November 7th our community was quick to respond.

Thousands of Bay Area residents immediately volunteered to clean beaches, rescue wildlife and undo the damage caused by this devastating spill. City officials worked with federal authorities on a volunteer management agreement to train and deploy local volunteers who were qualified to assist with difficult shoreline and wildlife recovery efforts. As a result, over 1,000 members of the Bay Area community were quickly trained and credentialed.

In addition, community non-profit organizations such as San Francisco Connect and the San Francisco Volunteer Center rallied support; environmental organizations like Baykeeper, Save the Bay and the Bay Institute offered their expertise; and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, members of the San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association, commercial crabbers and other Bay Area fishermen offered their equipment and experience.

Today's resolution honors all of the individuals, organizations and officials who volunteered their time, their skills and their energy in response to this disaster. Their commitment to both the environment and their community saved wildlife from oil residue, protected the Bay's ecosystem and made our beaches safe again for Bay Area families.

As it says in the Bible, `to minister to God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.'

To all of those who ministered to the Bay, I thank you as a San Franciscan, as one who is honored to represent our great city in this House, and as Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day for our country, a day in which this Congress can declare itself a Congress for the future, a Congress for America's children.

Earlier today, some of you saw me reference this baseball signed by Bobby Thomson: ``The shot heard round the world,'' October 3, 1951, a historic day in baseball. When he signed this baseball, he referenced a phrase used by Ralph Waldo Emerson referencing the shot fired at Concord, which began the Revolutionary War, the fight for American independence. If Bobby Thomson could reference a shot heard round the world, we should indeed be able to do it today. This vote on this legislation will be a shot heard round the world for energy independence for America.

I want to thank some of the people who made this possible. As many of you know, at the beginning of this Congress, our Chairs of the appropriate committees were tasked to prepare legislation to be ready to be introduced by the Fourth of July, our Independence Day. They did so, and on June 30, in preparation for the Fourth of July weekend, we introduced our legislation.

I want to begin by thanking Mr. Dingell for his exceptional leadership as Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. This bill is about America's national security. Mr. Dingell has always been about that. He has dedicated his life, starting in World War II, in his public service for our country. Thank you, Mr. Dingell.

Another great veteran in this arena, Mr. Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War, was an important part of this legislation with the pay-fors from the Ways and Means Committee. Thank you, Mr. Rangel.

Earlier you heard from Mr. Oberstar and the important work he is doing with the greening of America's Federal buildings and many other resources. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Waxman of Oversight and Government reform; Mr. Miller of Education and Labor, where we are having our green jobs initiative; Mr. Rahall from Natural Resources, making an important contribution to this legislation; Mr. Lantos from Foreign Affairs; Mr. Gordon from Science, the Science and

Technology Committee has been central to this legislation; Mr. Peterson from the Agriculture Committee. America's farmers will fuel America's independence. We will send our energy dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East. Congresswoman Velazquez from Small Business, where small businesses will be the incubator of this new economy. Thank you, Chairwoman Velazquez. And Congressman Markey of the Select Committee, thank you also for your tremendous leadership for over 30 years on this issue.

I mention all of my colleagues, these chairmen, not only to salute them, but to say they started a process over a series of months where practically every member of these 11 committees of Congress had an opportunity, Democrats and Republicans alike, to weigh in on the initial legislation, which was introduced in time for the Fourth of July, as promised, and which was passed by this Congress in the first week of August; and it is the follow-up on that legislation that we are voting on today.

It is a part of our first 100 hours. As we near the end of this session of Congress, we can harken back to that first 100 hours, our Six for '06. Our first piece of legislation was about how we protect America, passing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I am so pleased that that was passed with strong bipartisan support in this House and was signed by the President.

The minimum wage was passed with strong bipartisan support in this House of Representatives and was signed by the President.

Making college affordable, the biggest package for college affordability since the GI Bill of Rights in 1944, passed by the Congress, signed into law by the President.

The biggest legislation for ethics reform in the history of the Congress, bipartisan majority, strong overwhelming support, and signed into law.

In the course of time, passing Mr. Gordon's bill, our commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one, the Innovation Agenda, the COMPETES Act, overwhelming majority, bipartisan majority, signed into law by the President.

I mention all of these because they have bearing on what we are doing today. It is about our national security, it is about jobs and the economic security of our country. It is about the environment, and therefore it is a health issue. It is a moral issue. With all that I have said, that is why we have scientists and evangelicals, we have business and labor, we have the environmental community, all strongly supporting this legislation.

And here are some of the reasons why. I will give you their words. Over 20 generals have signed a letter saying that we have to move in this direction in terms of reversing global warming. But, very specifically, the other day we heard from Admiral Denny McGinn, and he said this: ``Our dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to Americans. Your vote for tough fuel economy standards is a vote for increasing our safety and our well-being.'' This is a national security issue.

It is an issue that relates to our environment and therefore the health of our children. That is why the Pew Charitable Trusts for Fuel Efficiency wrote: ``If the House and Senate finally approve this and the President signs it, they will have done more for consumers at the pump than any Congress or administration since the 1970s.'' They were referencing also the fact that the consumers will save $700 to $1,000 as a result of this bill, per year. And over a period of time until 2020, they will save $22 billion. That is why the Consumer Federation of America is supporting this bill. It is about American jobs.

The president of the Alliance of American Automobile Manufacturers wrote: ``We believe this tough, national fuel economy bill will be good for both consumers and energy security. We support its passage.''

I could submit for the record a long list of representatives of the business and labor community who are supporting this legislation.

And labor, the legislative director of the UAW, Alan Reuther, says: ``We believe that this historic measure will provide substantial energy security and environmental benefits for our Nation while protecting and expanding jobs for our workers.''

The list goes on. National security, jobs, the environment, the health of our children, and the future of this planet, as well as the consumer benefits. It is, again, a historic day because it has been so long since we have come to the place where we are, as has been said, over 30 years since we have addressed this issue in this substantial way in the Congress of the United States.

The point of this is, are we about the past or are we about the future? I hope that we can have strong bipartisan support for this legislation. We were able to accomplish in this 12-month period, as Mr. Emanuel said, in this 12-month period, what was not done in 32 years in the Congress of the United States.

So, my friends, I ask you to think about this vote and take great pride when you cast a ``yes'' vote. Many of you are far away from your legacy, but when that day comes, I hope you will consider this day a part of that legacy when you made history in this Congress of the United States. And not only did you make history; you made progress for the American people. They are watching to see what we do. This legislation is as immediate to them as the price at the pump that they face when they fill up their tanks. It is as immediate to them as heating their homes. It is as global as preserving this planet.

If you believe, as do I, and I think all of us do, that this is God's creation and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it, that is why we have strong support from the religious community, including the evangelical community, then I hope you will take this act of faith today to make history and to make progress for the American people, especially to declare this the Children's Congress.

Thank you, my colleagues. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, my colleagues. I accept that recognition as a recognition of the role of Speaker of the House, a role that Dennis Hastert performed with great distinction, and I rise to salute his leadership, Mr. Speaker.

My colleagues, you have heard me say on a number of occasions in relationship to Dennis Hastert that in the Congress, as Members of Congress, we hold the title ``Honorable'' by virtue of our office that we hold. But in the case of Dennis Hastert, he holds the title of ``Honorable'' not just for the office he holds, but by virtue of his character, his leadership, and his contributions to our country.

About a year and a half ago in June we all observed a celebration for Speaker Dennis Hastert when he became the longest-serving Republican Speaker of the House.

Long may his record stand.

That milestone was testament to the great respect he commanded not only in the Republican Conference but in this Congress as a whole and in our country. Thank you, Dennis Hastert, for your record of achievement.

I want to acknowledge someone who had a role that I once had, minority leader, who is with us today and honors us with his presence and again is a tribute to the leadership of Dennis Hastert, Minority Leader Bob Michel.

Many of you know but I think it always bears repeating that Dennis Hastert has long had a commitment to our country, first as a teacher: for 16 years, a teacher of our children, and a coach, as he reminds us.

He then went on to the State legislature in Illinois where he served for 6 years. And then in 1986 he came to the Congress of the United States where he has served with great distinction and with many accomplishments, and he enumerated some earlier.

In 1999, this Congress elected him the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House. He brought to that office the values of the heartland of America and the wishes and the voice for the people of Illinois' 14th Congressional District, and we have all benefited from that.

Although we have from time to time on occasion differed on issues, I remember once, we all agree on the importance of public service, the kind of public service that has been the hallmark of Speaker Hastert's career, whether in the classroom or in the Congress of the United States.

Today I want to join my friend, Dennis, in saluting Jean for sharing Dennis with us for all these years and for her role as a teammate to him and his contributions to our country. And thanks to Joshua and Ethan and to your entire family.

Mr. Speaker, and by that Mr. Speaker I am speaking to Speaker Dennis Hastert, I know I speak for everyone in this House when I thank you for your service, for many things, which I could enumerate, but I want to mention one in particular which I have mentioned to this House before.

We all were part of history when Rosa Parks became the first African American woman to lie in state under the Capitol dome. It was a great day for Congress and for our country. It simply would not have happened without the leadership of Speaker Dennis Hastert.

As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to say I know I speak for every Member of this House, but I know I do when I say thank you for your leadership, congratulations on a great career. I know great things are yet to come.

Best wishes to you and your family. Godspeed in your future. God truly

blessed America with your service to our country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as one who has long served on the Intelligence Committee, I understand full well the threats to our national security. I understand full well the need for us to have legislation that strikes the proper balance between liberty and security. I think this legislation does just that. And I commend Chairman Conyers, chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Chairman Reyes, for their important work and their leadership in presenting this legislation to the floor for consideration.

The bill is important and accomplishes the goal of striking the balance between security and liberty in the following ways: it defends Americans against terrorism and other threats; it protects Americans' civil liberties; and it restores checks and balances.

The bill protects Americans by providing the Director of National Intelligence with the flexibility he has requested of Congress to conduct electronic surveillance of persons outside the United States. No warrants are required whenever foreign-to-foreign communications are captured regardless of the point of collection or anywhere in the world.

It protects our civil liberties in a number of ways. The DNI has agreed that when Americans are targeted for surveillance, a warrant is required. We have now included certain criteria that the government must take into account in considering whether a warrant is required. This will help prevent inappropriate warrantless surveillance and ``reverse targeting'' of Americans under the guise of foreign intelligence.

The bill restores checks and balances. This is very, very important because it, again, is part of our oath of office to protect the Constitution of the United States. The bill rejects groundless claims of ``inherent executive authority.''

There are those who claim that the President has inherent authority from the Constitution to do whatever he wishes. Long ago our Founders rejected that concept in founding our country. We must do that as well and continue to make that clear.

The legislation also makes clear that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence. The government must seek approval from a FISA Court. So we are talking about the Congress of the United States passing legislation, as it did in the late seventies, passing this legislation today which is in light of the new technologies and new reality in the world, and recognizing the authority of the third branch of government: the courts.

This legislation includes extensive reporting to Congress with respect to the interception and dissemination of communications among Americans and from Americans. This is very important because we want to minimize the use of that information and keep it for the purpose for which it is collected.

Most significantly, the bill does not provide immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the President's warrantless surveillance program. We cannot even consider providing immunity unless we know exactly what we are providing immunity from. And even then, and even then, we have to proceed with great caution.

It is important to note that the bill sunsets on December 31, 2009, the date the PATRIOT Act sunsets, so the next administration and the next Congress can review and reassess the program.

This legislation is supported by organizations dedicated to protecting our national security and protecting our civil liberties, including the Center for National Security Studies, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and many other groups that work to protect privacy rights. The bill protects both national security and civil liberties, reaffirms our constitutional system of checks and balances, and deserves the support of this House.

Mr. Speaker, all of us want our President to have the best possible intelligence, our President and our policymakers, so they can do the best possible job to protect the American people. But no President, Democrat or Republican, should have the authority, to have inherent authority, to collect on Americans without doing so under the law. This legislation establishes that principle; and it establishes it in a very focused way in keeping with the need for flexibility for the Director of National Intelligence, in keeping with honoring our oath of office to the Constitution. I urge our colleagues to support this important legislation.

I, for one, am very, very proud of the work of Mr. Conyers and Mr. Reyes and thank them for their leadership.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I commend Geraldine Gennet for her outstanding service and dedication to the House of Representatives.

In her 11 years as General Counsel of the House, Geraldine set a standard for professionalism and non-partisanship that will inform the work of the new General Counsel and all future holders of that position.

She created an Office of General Counsel that is respected by all Members of the House and widely recognized for its excellence throughout the legal community. I wish Geraldine continued success and happiness in her new endeavors.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his leadership in bringing this important legislation, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, America honored our veterans, something that we do every day in our hearts but which we openly celebrated on that day. I am very proud that this year we could celebrate also the biggest increase in veterans benefits in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration thanks to the New Direction Congress.

Yesterday, the President of the United States signed the Defense appropriations bill with the biggest increase in defense spending, made necessary because we must rebuild the capacity of our troops, which capacity has been weakened by the war in Iraq. And today, we bring before the Congress new direction legislation regarding the orderly and responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq.

This legislation is necessary because whatever you may have thought about the war or the conduct of the war or the origin of the war, whatever you may think about the performance of the Iraqi Government there, and I have my views on that subject, the fact is we can no longer militarily sustain the deployment in Iraq. Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option.

Our troops have performed their duties magnificently, excellently, patriotically, and courageously. We owe them the deepest gratitude for their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifices that they and their families are willing to make. But even as they tried

to create and had their military successes, God bless them for that, the secure framework was established to enable the Iraqi Government to make the political change necessary to end the civil war. Well, the sacrifice of our troops was simply not met by the actions of the Iraqi Government.

How much longer should we expect our young people to risk their lives, their limbs, their families, for an Iraqi Government that is not willing to step up to the plate?

This legislation today offers something fundamentally different from what President Bush is proposing, a 10-year war, a war without end, costing trillions of dollars at the expense of our military readiness. In fact, it offers something different than this House has done before. Indeed, it provides the tools to our troops so that they can get their jobs done with the greatest respect for that job. But it also presents a strategy that will bring them home responsibly, honorably, safely, and soon.

The legislation is different because it ties the funding to a strategy for redeployment. It is different because the funding provided is for the short term so that we can measure the administration's plan, if there is such a plan, to redeploy the troops on the schedule established in this bill.

We do have a military crisis not seen since Vietnam. Equipment is wearing out and needs to be replaced. Our troops, wherever they are, are only being trained for counterinsurgency in Iraq instead of a wider training for a full range of missions that they may be called on to perform. The deployment schedule of the Bush administration is wearing down our forces, plain and simple.

The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has made this readiness issue the cornerstone of his opposition to this war in Iraq. The distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on Defense has told us over and over again that this deployment in Iraq cannot be sustained without weakening our national security, without diminishing the capacity of our armed services to meet challenges to our national security wherever they may occur. As such, this readiness crisis poses a grave threat to America's national security.

Yet under the President's plan, and this was expressed by representatives of the administration on more than one occasion, the President's plan would bring 30,000 troops, the number of troops that were sent in for the surge, that 30,000 troops would be redeployed back to the U.S. by July of 2008. So let's understand this. This means that by July of 2008, we will have the same number of troops in Iraq as we had in November of 2006 when the American people called for a new direction in Iraq. Again, we cannot afford the President's commitment in Iraq. It traps us. It traps us, and we cannot, while we are in that trap, address our readiness crisis.

This redeployment, in addition to undermining our military capacity to protect the American people, is also unsustainable financially. According to a recent report by the Joint Economic Committee, this war could end up costing American taxpayers $3 trillion. We will pay any price, as President Kennedy said, to protect the American people, but without us going into the shortcomings of this war and the President's execution of it, $3 trillion, think of the opportunity cost of that money in our readiness, in the strength of our country, in our reputation in the world.

The legislation before us is important. Again, the title of it is the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. It would begin redeployment within 30 days of enactment and have a goal of completing the redeployment by December 15, 2008. The legislation requires a transition in the mission of U.S. forces from being in combat to diplomatic and force protection, to targeted counterterrorism and limited support for the Iraqi security forces. It would prohibit the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and fully equipped. Thank you, Mr. Murtha, for your leadership on that subject and on this one as well and so many others. It requires that all U.S. Government agencies and personnel abide by the Army Field Manual's prohibition against torture.

The legislation that Mr. Obey has brought to the floor, and I salute your leadership over and over again on this subject and so many others, Mr. Chairman, the House must choose between the President's plan for a 10-year war without end, no end in sight, the longer we're there, the harder it is to come out, the longer we're there, the more severely it hurts our military readiness; or a Democratic plan for responsible, honorable, safe redeployment out of Iraq and soon.

Our troops have already paid too high a price for this war: 3,850 U.S. troops killed, 28,000 injured, thousands of them permanently. That is, of course, the biggest price to pay. But the price that we are paying in our reputation in the world for us not to be able to take our rightful place as a leader in the world to make the world safer, to make the region, the Middle East, more stable, and so many other challenges that the world faces, whether it's the eradication of disease, the alleviation of poverty, the curbing of global warming, keeping peace, ending the fury of despair that contributes to the violence in the world. The countries of the world are crying out for American leadership, and at the same time they disrespect us for what is happening in Iraq.

We must act now to provide a new direction because it is clear that the President has turned a blind eye to all of this. And in addition to what I said earlier, our troops paying the biggest price, our reputation in the world, the several-trillion-dollar price tag to the taxpayer, and the cost to our readiness, despite the fact that the President has turned a blind eye to the facts of Iraq and a tin ear to the wishes of the American people to take a new direction in Iraq and bring our troops home, we must act today. I hope that our colleagues will all support this legislation because in doing so and if it is enacted into law and if this policy is pursued, we can resume our rightful place in the world. We can refocus our attention, as Mr. Obey said earlier, on the real war on terrorism, and we can make the American people safer by rebuilding and restoring the readiness and the capacity of our military to protect the American people wherever our interests are threatened.

All of us stand here and take an oath of office by pledging to protect and defend the Constitution. In that preamble, to provide for the common defense is one of our first responsibilities. Unless we do that, protect the American people, nothing else is possible.

So let us support this legislation which helps us honor our oath of office to defend the American people and to respect the sacrifice, the courage, the patriotism of our troops to make us the home of the brave and the land of the free.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership on the Ways and Means Committee. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and respect the leadership also of the distinguished ranking member of that committee.

Thank you, Mr. Rangel, for your leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. It enables us as Members of Congress to plant a flag for fiscal responsibility, to plant a flag for the middle class in our country, and to plant a flag for competitiveness, to keep America number one.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is important because it provides long overdue middle-class tax relief, preventing a tax increase that will fall upon the middle class come this next year. The bill is about tax fairness; it is about fiscal responsibility; and, again, it is about keeping America competitive.

When we talk about fiscal responsibility, unfortunately, it always seems necessary, after listening to my Republican colleagues, to set the record straight.

The Democratic Party is the party of fiscal responsibility. When President Clinton was President, his four final budgets were in surplus. He left office with our budget on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. Sadly, the Bush administration reversed that taking us to over $3 trillion in deficit, a swing. Now we are at a swing of about $10 trillion, a swing that is greater than anyone has ever seen in history in terms of fiscal irresponsibility.

And what did the Congressional Budget Office under the Republican

leadership say was the leading cause for that? Tax cuts for the wealthy. Don't blame it on the war; don't blame it on anything other than what it really was: tax cuts for the wealthy.

And so today we see a change. Tax cuts for the wealthy under the Bush administration and a Republican Congress paid for by the middle class. Today we reverse that: tax cuts for the middle class, paid for by the wealthiest people in our country.

And as we give this tax break, who is getting it? Think of it, 23 million middle-class families are protected from higher taxes due to the alternative minimum tax. Thirty million homeowners will receive property tax relief. Twelve million children will benefit from the expanded child tax credit, and 4.5 million families will get help affording college education. This is in addition to our earlier investment of the largest expansion of college affordability since the GI Bill in 1944. Thousands of our men and women in uniform will receive tax relief under the earned income tax credit. They were prohibited from qualifying for that because our Republican colleagues would not disregard combat pay in that consideration.

So fiscal responsibility, tax cuts for the middle class, and competitiveness for our country. This weekend as we go into observing Veterans Day, we all know the great debt of gratitude we owe our veterans for their service to our country, their sacrifice, their patriotism and the sacrifices they and their families are willing to make.

What veterans have done over the generations is to protect our democracy. Essential to the success of a democracy, though, is a thriving middle class, in our country and in countries throughout the world, a thriving middle class. And this legislation is in furtherance of supporting that middle class and therefore supporting our democracy.

In keeping with our pay-as-you-go rules with no new deficit spending, this legislation will ensure that our children will not inherit a legacy of debt. In terms of competitiveness, this legislation extends the R&D tax credit and new markets tax credits, among other things; but I mention those two because they are directly related to our Innovation Agenda, our commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one.

So, again: fiscal responsibility, favoring the middle class, keeping America competitive and number one. Democrats are committed to putting middle-class families first. The choice is simple: tax relief for millions of middle-class families or protecting tax loopholes, the Wall Street loophole, that allows a privileged few to pay a lower rate than America's teachers, firefighters, nurses, doctors, police, and our men and women in uniform fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is about the people who are the backbone of America.

The choice is a simple one. Today we Democrats say join us in voting in favor of America's middle class.

I urge the passage of this legislation and again commend the distinguished chairman and distinguished Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Neal, for their leadership.

I am proud of the courage that my colleagues have shown to protect our middle class and to do so in a fiscally sound way and in a way that, again, keeps America competitive, honoring the service of our men and women in uniform, to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank Mr. Andrews of New Jersey for his leadership on this important issue. He knows, as does the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Miller, that discrimination has no place in America. Our country is a great country because we recognized that long ago, but we have more work to do.

I thank them both for their strong leadership in fighting discrimination and thank them for, in the case of Mr. Miller, decades of service and leadership on social justice. I commend Mr. Andrews for his commitment to protecting the rights of America's workers.

This is truly an historic day. Today, the House of Representatives will consider and hopefully pass for the first time the Employment Non- Discrimination Act, or ENDA. As someone who has looked forward to this day for 20 years that I have served in Congress, it is a joyous occasion. It simply would not have been possible without the outstanding leadership and courage of Chairman Barney Frank and of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. Anyone who cares about a country without discrimination is deeply in debt to Tammy Baldwin and to Barney Frank for their leadership in this regard.

While ENDA's victory will represent an historic victory, I share the disappointment of Tammy Baldwin, Barney Frank and others who support including protection for transgender individuals in ENDA. While I had hoped that we could have included gender identity, I support final passage of ENDA because its passage will build momentum for further advances on gender identity rights and the rights of all Americans.

America is a country that is great and wealthy, but we cannot afford to squander the talents of any of our citizens, nor should we. We all benefit if everyone gets a chance to work hard and support their families. Yet today, in 30 States an American can be denied a job or fired because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. This is wrong. Working Americans should be judged on one criterion, their job performance, and not be subjected to prejudice.

Madam Chairman, our history teaches us that progress on civil rights is never easy. It is often marked by small and difficult steps. We must take this step today toward the ideal of equality that is both our heritage and our hope.

I've heard the use of the word ``tolerance'' today, and I respect the use of that word, but if I may respectfully depart from it and say that in my community that is blessed with a diverse community, our diversity is of all kinds: religion, gender identification, religious faith and the rest. And I always say that the beauty is in the mix. And it's not that we're tolerant in my district in California in San Francisco; it is that we have so much respect for the role that each person plays in our society.

So tolerance, maybe; respect, definitely. But let me also add that it is the pride that we take in that diversity, and it is the pride that I take in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community that brings me to the floor today to urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and thank her for her excellent work as a member of the Rules Committee in managing this important rule to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a difficult issue for Members to decide upon because it goes right to the heart of family life in America. It's about the job security, the economic security, the health security of America's families. And the issue of trade has been one that has been controversial, and frankly, I have largely been more on the other side of it than I am tonight.

I rise in support of the Peru Trade Agreement, and I want to tell my colleagues why. They will have to make up their own minds. But I want to take the opportunity to talk about it in the context of the last, say, 20 years. That is how long I have been in Congress.

For most of that time, I have fought with a Democratic President and a Republic an President, starting with President Bush 41, Father Bush, and throughout the Clinton administration on the issue of China trade. I saw it clearly as a threat to the economic security of America's working families. I could see the patterns that were developing there. But all along, those powers that be always said, no, this is the enlightened course.

At the time, when we started this debate on China, which was right after the massacre in Tiananmen Square, the trade deficit between the U.S. and China, the trade deficit we suffered, was around $5 billion a year. $5 billion a year. It sounded like all the money in the world to us at the time, $5 billion a year. How much leverage could we have to open China's markets? To stop them violating our intellectual property? To have them free the prisoners arrested in Tiananmen Square? To have them stop proliferating weapons of mass destruction? We fought so much leverage.

But Washington, D.C. was very much influenced by the Government of the People's Republic of China. And so all of the powers that be told us, if only we went down the path that they were recommending, that markets would be open to us, that political reform would come, all of these things, China would stop proliferating weapons of mass destruction to places like Iran and Pakistan, to name a few.

What happened was none of the above. But strictly on the issue of trade, say, 17, 18, years ago, a trade deficit of about $5 billion a year. Stick with us, they told us, and great things would happen in this relationship. Oh, they did. For China. The trade deficit now with China is approximately $5 billion a week. A week. It went from $5 billion a year to $5 billion a week. And all of the economic consequences that go with it, and all of the inferiority of product, threatening the food safety, the medicine safety, the toy safety in our country. That's what the sophisticated people told us that we should do was to go along the course that we have. The violation of intellectual property. That piracy is legendary. Of course, nothing has changed except we are now in about a $250 billion deficit to China.

I bring that up because many of us in this room fought that fight. We invested a lot into it. And we were always cast aside as Luddites and unsophisticated people and Stone Age and didn't understand. But we do understand that the American workers paid a price for that. The markets didn't open to our products. Even with WTO that didn't happen. And, again, the deficit speaks for itself.

So I say from that level of passion and familiarity with the issue and being in the fight for a long time, that when I saw an opportunity for us to have labor and environmental standards as a core part of our trade agreements, it marked a drastic difference from what even a Democratic President was willing to give on that score, even a Democratic President. We couldn't get that in the Clinton administration.

So I want to commend Mr. Rangel and Mr. Levin, the two chairmen, for the excellent work that they did. I tell you the China story just as a background as to how difficult it was before. No matter what the evidence, no matter how clear it was, others saw it differently, and they saw it wrong.

So here we are today trying to make some distinctions, trying to make some distinctions about trade agreements that are better than others. I don't think any of them are perfect on either end. And so my reason for supporting this is, as a leader in the Democratic Party, is I certainly believe that part of the legacy of our great party is the legacy of John F. Kennedy who said that free trade was a part of who we are as a country and that international trade would be good for our economy. But we want not only free trade, we want fair trade.

We are going to be Uncle Sam instead of ``Uncle Sap'' in these trade relationships. It had to be fair. It had to be right for our workers.

As I say, this opportunity came along in a bipartisan way to say that unless labor and environmental standards were part of a trade agreement, it couldn't even be considered. It didn't mean it would be considered, but that was the threshold that all of these agreements had to cross. And then they would be judged on their individual merits in terms of the agreement between our two countries.

Recognizing the fear and apprehension and uncertainty that exists in many families and homes across America because of their jobs going overseas, the businesses closing, their communities having a downturn, can't sell their home, all the consequences that go with that, the chairman put forth legislation that passed the House last week, which I hope that the President

of the United States will sign. I think it is essential, essential, if we are going to accomplish anything on trade, on immigration or anything else, that people know that we share the concerns that they have and that we are doing something about it. So the trade adjustment in terms of training and opportunity and health care and all of those things was very, very important.

That was done in the context of other things to address the needs of America's working families. Hopefully we can pass SCHIP to get 10 million children to have their health insurance, pass legislation to make college more affordable, raise the minimum wage, have an Innovation Agenda that says if we are going to compete in the world, we must innovate. We can't just complain about trade, we must innovate. And that innovation begins in the classroom, and it takes us right back to our college affordability, our initiatives of K-12, early childhood education and the rest.

So I think we have to certainly be concerned about the impact of trade. It is self-evident and it is a challenge for us. But we cannot turn our backs on it. And I absolutely refuse to have the Democratic Party be viewed, and I say this to my Republican colleagues, I know you don't want to be viewed, but I have a responsibility also to my Democratic colleagues, I don't want this party to be viewed as an antitrade party.

So, let's make some distinctions. Take every trade agreement on its own merit. The Peru Free Trade Agreement rises to the level of acceptance. I am not saying it is perfect. It rises to the level of acceptance. Labor and environmental principles are in the core of the bill. Other changes we wanted to see were made by the Parliament in Peru. They passed the laws or they made the changes we said they needed to have.

So if you are ever going to support any trade agreement, I would think this would be the easiest one to do. Other trade agreements have other obstacles that have to be dealt with. I don't think we should shut the door on anything, because that gives nobody any motivation to make any change in what we would like to see as a free flow of goods to and from these countries.

It is frustrating, and I respect everything that has been said by my colleagues in this debate. I think it is all legitimate. Some, like Marcy Kaptur, have been in this fight for a long time. Working families in America have no greater champion to advocate for the best possible outcome for them.

But, again, viewing in the context of we want to have an economy that is fairer, that we have a progressive economic agenda where many more people participate in the economic success of our country, that is why we raised the minimum wage and make college more affordable, et cetera, and that is why we are promoting our Innovation Agenda for energy security and reversing global warming, so we can create many more jobs, so America's farmers can fuel America's energy independence, where we will send our energy dollars to the Midwest and not to the Middle East. This is a bigger picture than the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

The Peru Free Trade Agreement is not a big deal in terms of trade agreements, but it is an important step into saying we can make distinctions about trade relationships that are grossly unfair to the American worker, greatly oppressive to the workers in their own countries and are not making people freer. And to those that are in furtherance of growing our own economy while helping to lift other economies in the world, I think in this case the Peru Free Trade Agreement goes in that direction.

So, that is why, my colleagues, I am supporting this. It may seem to be a departure to some of you from where I have been on other trade agreements. But it is a marked difference, a marked difference from where we were before, whether it was President Bush I, whether it was President Clinton, and where we are now.

Those many who have been on one side or the other of this all say it is an amazing accomplishment to have gotten that done. And for that, whatever the outcome of this vote is, for that I want to once again pay tribute to Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin, chairman of the subcommittee, for the great leadership and the work they did. I just want you to know why I was supporting this bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I commend Chairman Obey for his leadership of the Appropriations Committee, particularly on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee on which I had the privilege to serve for a number of years. I commend the chairman of the Veterans Quality of Life Subcommittee, Mr. Edwards, for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of America's veterans.

Everyone who wants to honor our promises to our veterans, everyone who salutes their service to our country owes a deep debt of gratitude to you, Mr. Edwards, for your extraordinary leadership.

Madam Speaker, our national budget should be a statement of our national values. The legislation that we debate here today invests in America's correct priorities. It includes the largest increase in veterans benefits in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration, and potentially life-saving biomedical research, and it does it all in a fiscally sound way.

Madam Speaker, I have a long speech this evening. But in the interest of time, I am going to submit it for the Record and just say two things, because the main focus of this legislation is on our veterans and the other is on the investments made by the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee.

In the military, it is said that we leave no soldier behind on the battlefield, and when they come home, we promise here in this House that we will leave no veteran behind. This legislation fulfills that promise to our veterans. The President has said that he will perhaps veto this bill. I hope that he will have a change of heart and a change of mind in that regard because those who care about our veterans, and I believe that includes everyone, I know everyone in this Chamber and in the Senate, in the Congress and in the country wants them to have what they have earned and what they deserve.

In terms of the other aspects of the bill, I bring to the floor some deep concerns about the priorities that the President is criticizing in this bill. The President says he will veto any bill that is $1 more than what he has asked for in his budget. In this bill, we have $1.4 billion more for the National Institutes of Health. That isn't even enough to meet their needs, to meet the requests for grants that they have in any responsible way. But it is $1.4 billion more than what the President requests. And I can't help but juxtaposition the war in Iraq with this budget today. In the war in Iraq, we spend about 10, $12 billion a month, some of it unaccounted for, some of it in no-bid contracts, some of it in no-performance contracts, some of it the money has just disappeared. Democrats, in taking over the majority, have tried to hold the administration accountable. What we are finding is that it is hard to find some of that money. At the same time, consider this. As the President is spending 10 to $12 billion a month in Iraq, we spend 5 billion, $5\1/2\ billion a year on cancer research.

In America, 550,000 people die of cancer each year. That doesn't count those who are diagnosed, those who are suffering with; I am just talking about 550,000 people who die of cancer. Wouldn't it be better for us to invest more money? Say we doubled the biomedical research for cancer research from $5.5 billion to $10 billion or $11 billion in a year. Think of the return that that could be in scientific advancement. We know the scientific opportunity is there.

The heads of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control, all the entities of government that deal with the health of the American people want more investments in their budgets; and yet their boss, the President of the United States, who has appointed them, has dismissed their professional judgment on these issues, and not only failed to fund, but threatened to veto if we in Congress try to meet those needs.

Across America, almost every family, certainly probably every family in this body, has been affected by cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, you name it, the list goes on, all of which would benefit by a bigger, more robust investment in basic biomedical research in the budget of the National Institutes of Health. So that is why this bill is so important, because it directly relates to health and well-being of the American people and it directly relates to our national security and how we honor our commitment and our promises to our veterans.

I wish the President were here, and I wish the rules of this House would allow us to address him directly because it's a mystery to me and I wonder how anyone who might consider our national budget a statement of our national values could possibly say that although I know that hundreds of thousands of people in this country are dying of cancer, and although I know that scientific opportunity exists that we are ignoring. We have a moral responsibility to fund that opportunity, that scientific opportunity, but which we are ignoring by the President's call for a veto. How do you justify that?

So, my colleagues, I think it is really important that we send a message to the President in the only way that the rules allow us to do in this House, and that is to send it with this bill to the President's desk with a very, very strong vote, a vote for the health and well- being of the American people. How do you explain to your constituents that we cannot afford to find cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, as I said, and the list goes on, but we can afford to spend $1 trillion in Iraq, much of it unaccounted for, and do that all at the same time?

I urge my colleagues to think about your friends, think about your neighbors, think about your families, think about your own responsibility to a healthy America when you make this vote, because you can make all the difference in the world. I think that we should vote as if the lives of our constituents depended upon this vote, because they certainly do. With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation and once again commend the presenters of this legislation for their great leadership.

Our budget is a statement of our values.

The legislation we debate today invests in American priorities: it includes the largest increase in veterans spending in the 77-year history of the VA, and potentially lifesaving medical research, and it does so in a fiscally responsible way.

These bills have passed the House and Senate with the strong bipartisan majorities they deserve.

The President has said he will veto these bills. But allow me to make the case that these are investments that are necessary and right.

The Labor-HHS spending bill has been historically called the ``People's Bill.'' It is where Congress addresses the aspirations of the American people: the economic security of their families, the health and well being of their families, and the education of their children.

Today, this bill is once again the ``People's Bill.''

This is because it makes crucial investments in the health of all Americans: every dollar spent on NIH research is returned to us manifold: in improved quality of life and millions of lives saved.

We should be proud that NIH supported researchers have made the United States the world leader in biomedical and behavioral research, creating thousands of jobs and new businesses in the process.

But in order to build upon past scientific achievements, address current medical needs, and anticipate future health challenges, we must make investments today.

We stand today on the precipice of countless scientific breakthroughs. For example, mapping of the human genome has greatly advanced our knowledge about the links between genetics and diseases.

Scientists are working right now to identify genetic changes that increase and decrease risk for cancer, to determine patterns of protein markers for very early detection of cancer, and to better treat and cure the disease.

By funding these critical investments, we can declare a national war on cancer--a disease that kills 550,000 Americans a year.

In my hometown, NIH is funding cutting edge research at the San Francisco VA Medical Center on the health of our veterans. Right now, scientists are breaking new ground in the diagnosis, prevention and management of disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries and spinal cord injuries that result from combat.

No group of Americans has stood stronger and braver for our Nation than those who serve in the Armed Forces. 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. They have done everything asked of them.

How we repay that service speaks volumes about our national character.

I want to thank all of our veterans and military service organizations who have long advocated for the funding contained in this bill.

I also want to thank Chairman Spratt, Chairman Obey, and Chairman Edwards for their leadership and their dedication to those who have worn our Nation's uniform.

This bill provides $6.6 billion more than last year and $3.7 billion more than the President's budget. These are dollars well-invested.

For example in this bill:

We provide quality healthcare to 5.8 million America veterans, including 263,000 who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We ensure that the veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan--one third of whom will be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and 300,000 who are expected to suffer from Traumatic Brain Injury--get the best treatment possible. We will ensure the poly-trauma centers and Centers of Excellence for Mental Health and PTSD are fully operational.

For our veterans living in rural areas, this bill will increase the travel reimbursement rates for those who travel long distances to the nearest VA facility.

These benefits have been earned. These are the benefits our veterans deserve.

Madam Speaker, on this coming Monday, our Nation will honor its veterans with Veterans Day. But in this body, every day should be Veterans Day. On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a Nation, let it be our promise that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind.

Today, we are delivering on that promise.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, in his nearly 20 years as a Member of the House, Congressman Mike McNulty has tirelessly served the people of New York with distinction. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, Congressman McNulty has been a leader in the efforts to ensure America's seniors earn the guaranteed benefit they were promised.

The Democratic Caucus, his constituents, and indeed the American people will miss the energy and intellect he brought to every endeavor. I wish him well and know he will enjoy spending more time with his children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his important work on keeping America number one.

In recent years, the increasing global market has brought many opportunities but has also created unprecedented challenges as to how we address the increased economic insecurity faced by many of America's working families. For a long time, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, trade policy has focused more on opening new markets and has dismissed the real consequences of those faced by those who lose their jobs as well as their communities across America that are hard hit.

Democrats recognize that our economic future rests with our ability to open new markets for U.S. goods, especially since our markets are already largely open to our trading partners. However, the status quo is not working, and we must do much more to help American workers compete and thrive in the increasingly competitive global market. That is the purpose of this important legislation before us, the trade adjustment assistance bill.

Mr. Speaker, being from Massachusetts, I'm sure you've read in the history books, for somebody of my age I recall, when President Kennedy called for the, called upon the American people with his challenge to put a man on the Moon and have him safely return within 10 years. It was very, very exciting. It was almost unbelievable, but it did happen. Why I mention it, though, is because in his remarks at that time, President Kennedy said, if we are to honor the vows of our Founders, we must be first, and therefore we intend to be first. For our science and industry, for peace and security, we must be first. And that's what this is about today, how America can continue to be number one.

We have worked together with that Innovation Agenda in that spirit; the Innovation Agenda, much of which has been passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way by the Congress and signed into law by President Bush. And it will help promote, will make serious and sustained investments in research and development, help promote the public-private partnerships that will develop

high-risk, high-reward ideas into marketable technologies and more jobs for American workers. In other words, we're saying, if we are going to compete successfully, we must innovate, and that innovation begins in the classroom.

So Democrats recognize in the global knowledge-based economy, America's greatest resource for innovation and economic growth resides within America's classrooms, and we have made a new commitment to encouraging students and encouraging highly qualified teachers in the field of math, science and engineering.

We've also made higher education more affordable and accessible. Again, in the strong bipartisan way voted by the House, we passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. That was signed into law by the President and has made the largest investment in college affordability since the GI Bill was passed in 1944, a bill that was referenced by our colleague, Mr. Sestak, earlier.

We've also forged a new approach for free trade agreements where, for the first time, Democrats in Congress and Republicans, working with Mr. McCrery and Mr. Rangel, the chairman, working with the administration, were able to forge a new approach. For the first time, enforceable basic labor rights and environmental standards will be included in free trade agreements negotiated by the Bush administration ensuring that our trading partners do not lure American jobs abroad through the use of weak labor laws and lax environmental standards.

Today's bill is the next step in our agenda to expand economic security. It's a departure from the status quo. The current trade adjustment assistance initiative does not do enough to help those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own.

Specifically, as has been mentioned before, the bill will dramatically expand the number of workers who will qualify for TAA benefits. This is very important. It will offer increased funding and options for workers' training so that individuals can pursue substantive training programs that lead to higher paying jobs. It will expand access to health care by strengthening and streamlining the health care tax credit and other health benefits so that workers are not forced to live without health care as they search for a new job. And it will revitalize communities decimated by manufacturing job loss with tax incentives. Those are some of the provisions of this important legislation.

This would represent a huge step forward. This would say to the American people and the American workers who have lost their jobs or are concerned about losing their jobs to trade that they are not alone.

The bill represents a renewed commitment to helping American workers who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Free and fair trade can only thrive if we help those who are facing the downside of a global economy.

In the coming months, Democrats will continue to lay out a positive agenda to ensure economic growth and economic security for America's families. We will continue to pursue a positive agenda to keep America number one. I urge our colleagues to oppose the substitute and to support the underlying legislation.