Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I join with my colleagues to celebrate the 35th anniversary of title IX of the Higher Education Act, which assured a woman's right to educational equality. And I thank Congresswoman Hirono for bringing this resolution to the floor and for her leadership on this issue.

By ending gender discrimination in all education programs, title IX has given women the chance to excel and to take their rightful place as leaders and achievers on campuses across the United States. No longer would young women find their educational options limited by years of engrained discrimination. Thanks to title IX, women can now prepare for their future--whether in the halls of power or corporate boardrooms--in the classrooms and on the playing fields of America's colleges and universities.

Today also gives us the opportunity to honor our former colleague, friend, and champion for women's equality--Congresswoman Patsy Mink. As a member of the Education Committee in 1972, Congresswoman Mink helped craft title IX, and engineer its passage.

The day that the title IX legislation came to the floor, Congresswoman Mink was called away on a family emergency. She knew it would be a close vote. And she was right. That time, the bill was defeated by only a single vote. But Patsy fought on. Through sheer force of will, Congresswoman Mink forced another vote, an uncommon occurrence made possible by a woman of uncommon strength. And that time, women won. Congress passed title IX.

For her determination, the women of America will always owe a debt of gratitude to Congresswoman Patsy Mink.

As a mother and a grandmother, I have seen firsthand the results of title IX. Some are more visible, like the growing number of girls on soccer fields and basketball courts, the women of the WNBA, or the famous victory of Mia Hamm and Team USA in the World Cup.

Equally important, though less tangible, is the message that title IX sends to women and girls: Your education is crucial and your future is limitless.

Young women today believe that they can do anything. And they can.

For our children, we must continue to support this belief by fulfilling and sustaining the promise of title IX.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind words and for his more than extraordinary leadership on behalf of America's veterans while they are in the service, in terms of the quality of their life which is addressed in this legislation, and when they become veterans, and how he has had the well-being of America's veterans as a priority for so long in his political year.

Mr. Chairman, today is probably one of the top three happiest days of my official life, because today is a day where, under the leadership of Mr. Edwards, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Obey, Mr.

Skelton, Mr. Murtha, this Congress of the United States is able to keep its promises to America's veterans. It's a day of respect for them.

In the military, soldiers say, we will not leave any soldier on the battlefield. We say, when they come home, we will not leave any veteran behind. That is why, under the leadership of Mr. Edwards in his capacity as a leader on this issue, and I will add Mr. Filner's name to those I'm commending, but a person of the focus and values of Mr. Edwards kept this issue front and center.

For the past 4\1/2\, 5 years, we have met on a regular basis with the veterans organizations and representatives of veterans from across the country. We asked them what their priorities were, because their needs were so great; and frankly, their concerns were so neglected for the last few years that we said, we cannot try to do everything. What are your priorities? This was when we were in the minority.

Their first priority, the first couple of years there was the concurrent receipt issue, this veterans disability tax, which we made some progress on. And the next term, which was the last term, we were still in the minority. We still took a piece of what their agenda was, and that was survivors' benefits. All of these were important to the veterans, but there were many more concerns that we had.

So it wasn't until the Democrats assumed the majority that we could keep the promise of America to America's veterans. That's why it was so thrilling to be with the representatives of the veterans groups, some of them I will name, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, AMVETS, that's the American Veterans, then the Iraq and Afghan Veterans of America, to be with them and other representatives of veterans a couple of days ago when we stood in front of the Capitol and announced that today, with this vote, under Chairman Chet Edwards' leadership, we would be giving the largest increase in the history of our country and in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration.

Why is that necessary? Because there is a backlog of several hundred thousand cases at the VA. That's an injustice. That's an immorality. And there were needed more case workers to address a 2-year backlog, if you had an issue, you went there and you had to wait 2 years if you were a veteran.

Well, the veterans were there when they were needed. They heeded the call. They came to our defense, and now we're saying, wait 2 years for us to consider your case. Just not right. Just not right.

So in preparation for a possible Democratic majority where we could work in a bipartisan way, the veterans put together a budget, again emphasizing their priorities.

And when they did, we took that budget. Congress worked its will on it through the appropriations process to bring us to the floor today. Every one of us in the committee, it was a bipartisan unanimous vote, 56-0, in the Appropriations Committee.

I hope we will have a similar vote today because, as Mr. Edwards said, starting with the budget process under Mr. Spratt to the larger Appropriations Committee under Chairman Obey and now to this moment on the floor under Chairman Edwards' leadership, we were able to give the biggest possible bipartisan vote to this increase. And it is paid for.

When Democrats took control of the House, we instituted pay-as-you- go, no new deficit spending, no increase to the deficit. So that is why this is especially, especially, important because this says that even within the constraints, those budgetary constraints, veterans aren't the priority. In our budget the two leading priorities were America's children and America's veterans. In the appropriations process, we are able to honor that blueprint set forth in the budget again without adding to the deficit, without increasing the deficit. That makes it harder, but that signaled in a very important way that when we talk about our priorities and we say that veterans are in the forefront of them, they are in the lead in terms of the values that we have, a reflection of America's values that, even though there are difficult budgetary constraints, veterans come first.

This is an issue in urban America. It is a big issue in rural America. In rural America, 75 percent of the people know somebody closely who is serving or has served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and everybody in our country knows many people who have served in the military. Four of my brothers served in the military.

We all have a dedication to our veterans. It is more than, though, just talking about it. We had to act upon those words, act upon those values. And I thank Chairman Chet Edwards for giving us that opportunity today to reward our heroes with something that we are giving to them. It is something that they deserve, have been deprived of, but that has come to an end.

So I hope we have a unanimous vote on this to show the bipartisan support for veterans that I know exists in our Congress. I am just very, very proud that we were able to deliver on the promise once we took the majority of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from California for yielding time and for her exceptional leadership.

Every family in America who has concern about the health and well- being of moms and dads, grandparents and children, brothers and sisters owes a deep debt of gratitude to Diana DeGette. With her stewardship of this bill, she has given us an opportunity to give hope to these many families across our country.

Every one of those families in America, every one of us is one telephone call or one diagnosis away from needing the benefits of stem cell research. I can't help but think that even those who are against this legislation today would want their family members, their child with diabetes, their husband with Parkinson's, their father with

Alzheimer's, their mother with breast cancer, to have the benefit of stem cell research.

Science is a gift of God to all of us. And science has taken us to a place that is Biblical in its power to cure, and that is the embryonic stem cell research.

Congresswoman DeGette not only worked on this legislation on its substance, she was generous with her personal experience to demonstrate the need for the bill. She understood that this legislation had to be bipartisan. And I commend Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware for his exceptional and courageous leadership on this legislation as well.

Today, we continue the debate. As Mr. Barton said, we've had this debate before. In fact, bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress have passed similar legislation before. Yet with his cruel veto pen, President Bush dashed the hopes of many for the healing potential of stem cell research. Today, we, along with millions of Americans, are hoping for a different outcome. Because every family in America, again, is just one diagnosis, one phone call or one accident away from needing the benefits of embryonic stem cell, we hope the President will consider his position.

Mr. Speaker, this week I am observing 20 years in the Congress of the United States. I am proud of that. But I mention it here because this is one of the most glorious days, in the top five for sure, that I have experienced here. With the introduction of this legislation again, with its passage, which I think will be clear and bipartisan, we are doing something that is relevant to the lives of the American people. And we are doing something that gives people hope. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to save lives, find cures and, again, give hope to those suffering. It is an opportunity that neither we nor the President should miss.

This legislation, as has been mentioned, would allow American scientists to pursue the science they believe has the most promise to cure. It would bring embryonic stem cell research under the strict controls and ethical guidelines of the National Institutes of Health. That doesn't exist now. Why would we reject that? And it would help ensure our Nation remains pre-eminent in science.

There is every compassionate reason and scientific reason to support stem cell research. But why would we send this promising science offshore? Why would we allow other countries to attract the best scientists with the best facilities and the best public support? If that excellence leaves us, we are not the best. That is completely unacceptable to Americans. I am so proud of my own State of California, where we have taken action on the ballot to establish the research in our own State, but it should be available to the entire country.

According to scientists, including many Nobel Laureates, embryonic stem cell research could unlock the doors to treatments and cures to cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis and many, many more diseases. If we have a scientific opportunity to treat and cure disease, we have a moral responsibility to support it.

Through stem cell research, this bill has the potential to bring hope and health to millions. I hope the President will sign it. It has support in Congress, and in the country, 72 percent of Americans support this bipartisan bill. That is a remarkable number for a remarkable bill. Our Nation's scientists support this bill. Our finest research institutes support this bill. And many religious organizations support this bill. In fact, many religious leaders endorse this bill because of its respect of life, and they believe that science has the Biblical power to cure. As the Episcopal Church writes in its letter in support of this legislation, ``As stewards of creation, we are called to help men and renew the world in many ways. Medical research expands our knowledge of God's creation and empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer.''

Thank you, Congresswoman DeGette and Congressman Castle, for giving us the opportunity to support that science and honor that moral responsibility.

Madam Speaker, more than 26 years ago, the voters of Maryland's 5th Congressional District demonstrated their great wisdom in electing Steny Hoyer to represent them in Congress. As he has now become the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives in Maryland history, we recognize that their trust has never been misplaced, as Steny Hoyer has been a tremendous leader for both his district and for the nation.

This week, Steny continues his history of record breaking: when he was just 27 years old, he was elected to the Maryland Senate, and then subsequently became its youngest ever President. But what sets Steny apart is not the length of his leadership, but the quality of it. On issues crucial to his district, such as standing up for federal employees and protecting the beauty of the Chesapeake Bay, Steny has been a stalwart leader. On issues crucial to all Americans, such as education, the minimum wage, the rights of the disabled, and civil rights, he has achieved great progress.

As House Majority Leader, he plays a crucial role in developing and passing our legislation for a new direction for America. He is a skilled legislator and consensusbuilder. He is respected by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for his savvy, intellect, and integrity.

Steny and I first met more than 40 years ago as interns in the United States Senate. Over the years, it has been a honor to see him as more than just an immensely skilled Member of Congress, but as a loving husband, proud parent, and devoted grandparent and now great- grandparent. It is a personal privilege to call him my colleague and my friend.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to recognize the Centennial Nursing Celebration at the University of California, San Francisco and to honor the University of California at San Francisco School of Nursing, the achievements of its alumni and faculty, and the leadership of nurses at UCSF Medical Center.

Nursing at the University of California began in the spirit of renewal that rebuilt San Francisco after the great 1906 earthquake and fire. Less than a year later, in April of 1907, the University opened its first teaching hospital in San Francisco, along with its first nursing education program. In 1939, the Regents formerly established the University of California, San Francisco School of Nursing--the Nation's first autonomous nursing school at a public university.

Today, the UCSF School of Nursing is consistently ranked among the top nursing schools in the world. UCSF developed the first master's and doctoral nursing programs in the western United States, and currently enrolls more than 600 students in these programs, making them among the largest in the Nation. The school's vision extends far beyond national borders, as exemplified by the scores of international students who come through its doors each year, and the UCSF World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Research and Clinical Training in Nursing.

Over the past century, UCSF has educated more than 10,000 nurses, many of whom have gone on to become health care leaders in California, throughout the country, and around the globe.

UCSF has also established itself as the Nation's preeminent nursing research institution. The school currently ranks first among nursing programs in research funding from the National Institutes of Health. Eight faculty members have been inducted into the Institute of Medicine, a larger number than at any other nursing school. UCSF continues to be on the cutting edge of nursing science--from heart disease and cancer, to pain management and healthy aging.

At UCSF Medical Center and the hospitals and clinics served by UCSF, nurses lead innovations in patient care, translational research, hospital safety, and support for patients and families coping with illness. Beyond the campus, UCSF provides care through a wide range of programs targeting at-risk and underserved populations.

As UCSF celebrates a century of excellence in nursing education, research, and patient care, I urge my colleagues to join me on this auspicious occasion by thanking UCSF nurses for all they have done and continue to do to improve the health care of San Franciscans, of Californians, and of people around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise a great man, a former Member of Congress, a former colleague of many who are still here, Parren Mitchell of Maryland.

Today, with the Maryland delegation, our distinguished majority leader, along with Elijah Cummings, gave the eulogy today with both Senators present, the Governor of the State, the mayor of the city, all of the clergy, not all but a representation of it, and family and friends of this great man, Parren Mitchell.

Many Members of Congress who still serve here served with Parren, and they know he was a champion for economic and social justice.

Mr. Speaker, I want the rest of our colleagues to know about the Mitchell family. They were in the forefront of the civil rights movement; and, as a native Baltimorean, I knew full well the quality of their leadership and the extent of their effectiveness.

Parren Mitchell was a part of that leadership. He came to the Congress in 1971. He was the first African American from Maryland to serve in the Congress and the first African American since 1898 to come to the Congress from south of the Mason-Dixon line. So he made history when he came here, and he was a fighter who made progress while he was here. He was a pioneer and patriot. He fought for our country on the battlefields of Europe. He received the Purple Heart. He fought in the civil rights movement, and then fought here on the floor of the Congress until he decided to leave Congress.

It was wonderful to hear his nephew speak about him, and other representatives of the family speak about him, as an uncle and a friend and a mentor.

It was wonderful to hear the clergy speak of him as a child of the church, a truly religious person who brought his religion and his faith into public service.

It was wonderful to hear the elected officials sing his praises as ones who had learned from him, Senator Mikulski, Senator Cardin. They had learned from him and worked with him. Again, he was a champion for many issues.

He was a founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, and I am so happy that he lived to see five members of the Congressional Black Caucus become chairs of the full committee in the House. We have Chairman Rangel, who will be making our economy fairer and all of the economic justice that Mr. Mitchell talked about; and Chairman Conyers, who did speak today about bringing the civil rights movement into our Congress, into our legislation, protecting and defending our Constitution and our civil liberties.

So it was a happy occasion, although he will be greatly missed. It was a celebration of his life that was enjoyed for many hours today in St. James Episcopal Church in Baltimore, Maryland.

Congressman Sarbanes was there, along with his full family, his mother and father, former Senator Paul Sarbanes, his brother, Michael, and of course a Member of Congress we are very proud of, John Sarbanes.

And Al Wynn was there. We almost had all of the Maryland delegation, the Democrats, that is. And the delegation is almost all Democratic, but that is for another discussion on another day. Al Wynn was there representing the area nearest Washington, DC, but close to the service of Parren Mitchell.

When I spoke at the service I said we would be gathering here tonight to talk about Parren Mitchell and his wonderful contribution to our country and that they should tune in. But I wanted to tell you tonight what we saw today, which was a community who truly respected this great man and truly loved him and who will miss him sorely.

With the passing of Parren Mitchell, our Nation has lost one of its most passionate champions of justice and equality. I offer my deepest condolences on behalf of all of my colleagues in the House to Congressman Mitchell's family, friends, and all who loved him.

Growing up in Baltimore, I learned to revere the Mitchell family for their dedication to economic and social justice. Parren, his brother Clarence, and indeed his entire family, devoted their lives to ending racism and ensuring that our Nation's bounty was shared by all of its citizens. For that, we have all benefited. That is because their advocacy brought us closer to the ideal of equality that is both America's heritage and our hope.

The story of Parren Mitchell's life tracks the progress we've made. But it also shows how much farther we must travel to truly achieve justice for all.

At age 11, Parren Mitchell understood the reality of racism at its most violent and brutal. His older brother, Clarence, a true champion of social justice in his own right, came home one day and told of having just seen the body of a man who had been murdered--lynched--in Somerset County. In that moment, Congressman Mitchell would later say, he decided to dedicate his entire life to fighting for the rights of African Americans.

Years later, in 1950, after graduating from Morgan State, the University of Maryland refused to admit Congressman Mitchell to its College Park campus, telling him that it was ``inadvisable'' for blacks to attend. But that injustice would not prevent Parren Mitchell from pursuing his dream. He fought back. He won his court case. And Parren Mitchell became the first African-American graduate student at the College Park campus, and earned his master's degree in sociology. Because Parren Mitchell refused to see his dream of attending graduate school denied, many more were able to pursue their own dream of a graduate education.

Then, in 1971, when first sworn in as a Member of the House, Congressman Mitchell became the first African-American Member of Congress elected from the State of Maryland. This achievement must have been tempered by the knowledge that he was the very first African- American elected to Congress from below the Mason-Dixon line since 1898. It took almost a century for a Black American from the South to find a seat here in the People's House.

Across the 85 years of Parren Mitchell's life--in his own story and the story of America--we see the slow march of progress. We celebrate today a man who made sure that, however slow at times, we continue to march in the right direction--toward peace, understanding, and justice for all.

Congressman Cummings recently described Mr. Mitchell as ``never concerning himself about fame or fortune but, rather, devoting himself entirely to uplifting the people he represented.'' That was apparent through his leadership as the first African American to chair the House Small Business Committee. There, he put into law guarantees that minority-owned business would share in public works and transportation contracts.

It is also a great testament to the leadership of Parren Mitchell that the organization he helped found--the Congressional Black Caucus-- continues to serve as the conscience of the Congress and increase its ranks to the benefit of all Americans. I am sure Mr. Mitchell is looking down upon us today and that he is pleased that so many CBC members are here to honor him today.

With Congressman Mitchell's passing, we have lost a friend, a former colleague, and a passionate advocate for seeing that America's promise of freedom and equality are realized by all of our citizens. Whether in the Army, where he earned a Purple Heart, teaching at his alma mater, Morgan State, or serving his community as a social worker or a member of this body, Parren Mitchell dedicated his life to service. His loss leaves a void that we must work together to fill.

I hope it is a comfort to Congressman Mitchell's family and friends that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Obey, for your brilliance in bringing the legislation to the floor that we have today so we can express ourselves on the direction of this war, and at the same time, we have the opportunity to meet the emergency needs of the people of America, the Hurricane Katrina survivors, our farmers suffering from natural disasters, children without health insurance, our veterans. Thank you for the strong commitment you and Mr. Murtha and others have made to military health, to veterans health and to BRAC. After 10 years of indifference, we are raising the minimum wage for millions of our hardest-working Americans. And with the passage of the provisions in the first piece of this bill, the first amendment, we strengthen our country and address the health and well-being of millions of Americans who have been ignored again for too long. The new direction of Congress is keeping its promise to them.

Mr. Speaker, we have two amendments before us, and I just spoke about one of them. The other resolution, the other amendment about the war, the President's request plus the Warner resolution, is really an inkblot. We are all familiar with the Rorschach test; you look at it and you see what you see. Some will see one thing; some will see others. Some will see an opportunity, for the first time, for the Republicans to say that accountability is needed on the part of the President of the United States and on the part of the government of Iraq. And so there are these benchmarks. But these benchmarks by no means meet the obligation that we have to our men and women in uniform if they can be as easily waived as they can be in this resolution.

The resolution that the Republicans put forth, I am really glad that they finally admitted that there is a need for accountability. But what they haven't done is met that need with something appropriate. This is like a fig leaf. This is a token. This is a small step forward. Instead, we should have a giant step forward into a new direction. So when I look at this inkblot, I see something that does not have adequate guidelines and timetables; something that does not have adequate consequences; and something that does not have my support. Democrats are proposing something much better.

Instead of a missed opportunity, we had hoped that the President would have accepted our proposals, which we sent to him over and over again, over and over again, meeting his request, and even doing more for our troops, for our veterans, and for strengthening our

military in ways beyond the President's request.

We now have our troops engaged in a civil war. There are reports that the Department of Defense has declared what is happening in Iraq to be a civil war. The American people do not think that it is necessary for us to be refereeing a civil war in Iraq. They want our focus to be on fighting terrorism, retraining the Iraqis, protecting our diplomats and our forces there, and that is exactly what Democrats have proposed. Instead, we have a situation where, in refereeing and engaging in combat in the civil war in Iraq, as the President has us doing there, we have lost thousands of Americans. The number is hard to measure, but everyone agrees, easily over 100,000 Iraqis. The cost to our reputation and our military readiness is incalculable, but it is huge.

We think there should be a new direction. We think what we should be talking about here today is a different vision for stability in the Middle East and how our role in Iraq contributes to that. The generals, including General Odierno, recently stated that any strategy for success in Iraq must begin with the redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. That is a general, a retired general, and his voice is echoed by other generals as well. That, again, is what we are proposing, a change of mission, a redeployment for a different purpose, fighting terrorism, which is the threat to our national security.

The focus on Afghanistan must be reemphasized as that situation becomes more tenuous.

If we went down the path that General Odierno suggests and which Democrats have proposed over and over again, we would have a drastically reduced need for American troops in Iraq. Our troops have performed their duties excellently, excellently. Every opportunity we get, we must honor them for their patriotism, their courage and the sacrifices they and their families are willing to make. Time and again, we do this. And as we go into Memorial Day Weekend, we do it again. And we convey our condolences to those who have lost a family member in Iraq, in Afghanistan or any of the other wars we have been engaged in.

And we have honored our veterans not just with words but with actions. In the last couple of weeks, under the leadership of Chairman Ike Skelton, Democrats put forth our Department of Defense Authorization bill. And in that bill, it was dedicated to troop readiness, with training and equipping our troops so that we don't send them into harm's way at a disadvantage.

Mr. Skelton's bill also calls for a 3.5 percent raise in military pay and a $40 survivor benefit to survivors of those who were lost in battle. Do you know what the President said about that in his statement of administrative policy? That that increase was unnecessary.

While yesterday, we had representatives of the veterans' organizations, especially the survivors, telling us that a $40 increase doesn't nearly go far enough to be commensurate with the sacrifice. We could never match the sacrifice, but we should at least make a respectable attempt at it. And for the White House to say a $40-per- month increase for survivors of those who gave their life in battle is unnecessary, unnecessary to whom? So if you want to talk about supporting the troops, how about supporting the troops, our veterans and their families?

Around the same time, Chairman Spratt brought to the floor the Democratic budget. This budget has a $6.7 billion increase for our veterans; $6.7 billion more than the previous budget; historic in its increase, making veterans a priority, an investment in those who sacrifice so much for us, an investment in honoring our commitment to our veterans. And just this week, Chairman Chet Edwards of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs put forth the largest increase in the VA in the history of the Veterans' Administration, 77 years. This is to make up for some promises not kept, but it is also to say, in our spending priorities, even within the context of PAYGO, no new deficit spending, no increases in the deficit; we put veterans at the top of the list and our military at the top of our list.

This isn't about whether we support our troops. Of course, we support our troops. We all demonstrated that over and over again.

But it is about opposing this war.

This is not the end of the debate. We have to be here to bring this bill to the floor so we can go forward. But this debate will go on. There will be legislation on the floor in the next several months to change the mission once again from combat to fighting terrorism, training and diplomatic and force protection. Again, that would require a greatly reduced U.S. force in Iraq, and coalition force as well.

We will have legislation to repeal the President's authority for the war in Iraq, to repeal the authority that the President has for the war in Iraq. We will have that vote.

We will have votes on Mr. Murtha's defense appropriations bills: one of them the regular order defense appropriation bill; another one, the supplemental that has been requested by the administration.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today sad that the opportunity we have has been missed. There is a recognition that we need accountability, because the American people are demanding it. At least 70 percent of the American people say we have to have accountability. So instead of putting accountability into the bill, we make a gesture at it. We could have taken a giant step in a new direction. Instead, we are taking a baby step. But, as I said, this is not the end of the debate.

As we think about all of this, I would like to recall the words of a philosopher. Hannah Arendt once observed that nations are driven by the endless flywheel of violence, believing that one last, one final gesture will bring peace. But each time they sow the seeds for more violence.

That is what President Bush is doing in Iraq. That has been the deeply flawed policy of President Bush.

Again, Democrats are proposing a new direction. I urge my colleagues as we go forward, however you see the inkblot, however you decide your vote, to join in listening to the American people in the coming days, weeks and months, and bring this war to an end.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Once again, as I have done over and over again, I thank him for yielding, for bringing this important legislation to the floor, and for his extraordinary leadership.

I also want to commend Mr. Murtha for his leadership as well in shaping this path to stability in the Middle East and bringing an end to the war and bringing our troops home safely and soon.

I also want to acknowledge Mr. Skelton, the Chair of the Armed Services Committee. He has been busy at work on his authorization bill, but he very much helped shape this proposal. I commend him and many other Members here who have made this path to stability in the Middle East possible.

Since January, a majority of the Members of this House have been working to change course and change the mission in Iraq. Our goals are clear: Strengthen our military; bring stability to the region; and make the American people safer by ending the war, allowing our attention to be refocused on defeating international terrorism, and at the same time, honoring our commitment to our veterans which, as we have seen unfold in recent months, has been sadly neglected.

Today, we will take the next step in that effort in this legislation by: Providing for our troops fighting a war in Iraq that the President initiated, but for which he has refused to pay in his annual budget requests; honoring our commitment to our wounded veterans of Iraq, Afghanistan and other wars who struggle to get the medical care and benefits they deserve from a system overwhelmed, underfunded and unable to respond effectively; demanding accountability from the Iraqi government on whose efforts a national reconciliation depends, but whose accomplishments in this area have been negligible, disappointing and unworthy of the sacrifice of our troops on the ground in Iraq.

And this legislation ends the blank check for the President's war without end. It does provide a path to stability in the Middle East by changing our mission in Iraq and enables us to focus on the threat of terrorism.

Chairman Obey's bill satisfies each of these requirements and meets the immediate needs of our troops, but allows Congress to decide in a few months whether the situation on the ground in Iraq justifies using the remaining money to redeploy our forces or continue the war.

The President's own benchmarks, these are the President's own benchmarks for measuring progress in Iraq, will be the centerpiece of that evaluation. You would think that the President would embrace this legislation. It has his benchmarks. It asks for a progress report. Perhaps he thinks there will be no progress so he is afraid of that report. And then a vote in the House as to whether to continue the war. The President's own benchmarks

for measuring progress in Iraq again will be the centerpiece. His benchmark. This is the kind of regular and responsible review of the war Congress should have been conducting since the mission began more than 4 years ago.

Regrettably, but not surprisingly, the President has threatened to veto the Obey bill. Unfortunately, the President has taken us down this road before. The President has brought us to this point by vetoing the first Iraq Accountability Act and refusing to pay for this war responsibly. He has grown accustomed to the free hand on Iraq that he had before January 4. Those days are over.

The American people have made it clear that they want a new direction in Iraq, one that is going to bring this war to an end. They have lost confidence that the President can or will produce a plan to do that. Even some members of the President's own party have finally realized he has lost credibility with the American people.

The President said today that he would accept benchmarks. But what he fails to accept is accountability for failing to meet those benchmarks. Benchmarks without consequences are meaningless.

It is interesting to me that in the President's No Child Left Behind legislation, he establishes standards for America's school children. If those children do not meet those standards, there are serious consequences for them, for their families, for their schools and for their school districts. And yet, while holding America's school children accountable with consequences, the President refuses to hold the Iraqi government responsible with consequences while our young people in Iraq are dying.

The President said again today he would accept these benchmarks, we hope that he will and reconsider the thought of veto. This is a bill he should like. It has his benchmarks. It asks for a progress report. He must have some confidence in what he is doing and then leave it up to the Congress to make a judgment in July. What could be fairer than that.

Congress has offered the President recommendations for change in Iraq. In rejecting them, he has offered nothing in return except a demand for more of the same, a blank check for a war without end.

The American people expect more and deserve better. A war which has ended so many lives, weakened our military at a great risk to our security and costs so much money, costs so much in reputation for America throughout the world, cannot continue indefinitely. I don't know why the President doesn't understand. This war cannot proceed indefinitely, and that is the course he has us on.

Any engagement that we have militarily should meet the test of: Does it make our country safer? Does it strengthen our military? And does it bring stability to the region that we are engaged in? The President's policy fails on all three scores.

This bill offers more ideas for winding down this war. I urge the President to consider these ideas and those which may be proposed by the Senate and work with us in conference to produce a bill that meets the needs of our troops and the expectation of our country. We owe it to the American people to try to find our common ground so we can end this war, and we will do that. But we will stand our ground if it is a blank check for a war without end.

We look forward to continuing our conversations with the White House, with the Senate, to again draw down this war and bring home our troops safely and soon.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

I am proud to represent the city of San Francisco, where we are blessed in our community to have a thriving Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) population. It is home to our Nation's oldest Japantown, one of the largest Chinatowns, and countless other ethnic communities.

As one of the fastest growing ethnic groups in our country, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders contribute to our economic prosperity, cultural diversity, and political process. Representing 11 different ethnicities, they have a unique voice, which plays a role in the work that we do in Congress to improve the lives of Americans every day.

While the debate about comprehensive immigration reform intensifies across the country, it is recognized by many of my colleagues as a hurdle that particularly affects Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Whether it is a Chinese student waiting for a visa, or the South Asian worker waiting to be reunited with his family, comprehensive immigration reform is a challenge that must be met. Their experiences reflect that of the first immigrants to our country, who dreamt of a better life for themselves. Within the AAPI community, there is a beautiful diversity that reflects the ideals of family values, hard work, and a wonderful optimism that our nation was founded upon.

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders also face the tragic challenge of combating hate crimes. Last week, the House of Representatives passed legislation that strengthened the ability of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to solve a wide range of violent hate crimes based on religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, national origin, or disability. Although a hate crime may affect the life of one victim, its impact reaches deep into the community. All Americans have a right to feel safe in their community. Sadly, we remember Song Sun Lee, Stephen Kam Yan Li, and Robert Stanford, all recent victims of hate, whose lives were unjustly cut short.

As we work on legislation to improve lives for the future, we must remember the challenges from the past. World War II set the stage for courageous acts of heroism, but at the same time generated acts of grave injustice and discrimination. I salute the Filipino Veterans who fought bravely during World War II and join them in their fight for full veterans' benefits. I recognize the courage of the remaining comfort women and will work to ensure that their rights are protected.

I am pleased to stand here with my colleagues who also recognize the efforts and accomplishments of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in this country. I thank Chairman Mike Honda and the rest of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus for their continuous efforts to ensure that the millions of voices of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are heard.

As we celebrate, let us continue well past Asian Pacific Heritage Month to value and appreciate the contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders living in the United States.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to native San Franciscan Tom Kim, a trailblazing community leader, organizer, and youth activist of Korean heritage, who recently passed away at the age of 64. Tom Kim lived in San Francisco all his life, growing up in Chinatown, residing and organizing in the predominantly Hispanic Mission District, and in the predominantly African American and Japanese-American Western Addition.

Tom was a mentor to many of our local and national community and political leaders. He was a staunch unionist, having joined the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union upon becoming a longshoreman after graduating from high school.

Tom was a champion of the oppressed and underrepresented, especially for our youth. As a catalyst for social justice, Tom co-founded the Real Alternatives Program to help alienated and troubled youth find an alternative to street life and the juvenile justice system. He was one of the first to advocate for community-based alternatives to detention. Many of the modalities for which he advocated early on are now accepted as the best practices in youth work today.

Tom was in the forefront of founding numerous groundbreaking organizations that trained and inspired a lineage of professional social workers and psychologists serving the Asian American community-- the first national Asian American Social Work Training Center; the first national Asian American Psychology Training Center; Asian American Social Work Training at one of California's State Universities--San Francisco State; San Francisco-based Asian American Communities for Education and Asian Youth Substance Abuse Prevention.

At San Francisco State University, Tom helped establish the College of Ethnic Studies and was an early faculty member, teaching juvenile law and community alternatives to detention, as well as Asian American Studies. In 1972, he helped organize the first Asian American Mental Health Conference, which was held in San Francisco. Sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, this seminal conference gave voice to overlooked, underserved, and negatively understood Asian Americans to communicate their needs and concerns.

Tom was a leader in policy development. He held a number of policy positions--White House consultant for the International Year of the Child proclaimed by the United Nations in 1979; member of the California Bar Association Committee on Juvenile Justice; member of the President's Commission on Mental Health, Asian American Panel; consultant to and witness before the United States Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy in 1979 and 1980; and member of the oversight committee for the 1980 United States Census.

I was honored to work with Tom when he co-founded the groundbreaking Asian Pacific Caucus of the Democratic Party, which debuted at the 1984 National Democratic Convention in San Francisco. The Caucus became a vehicle for Asian Americans to figure prominently in the democratic process.

Tom never forgot his own community. He co-founded the first bilingual, bicultural organization that provided Koreans in Northern California social services, a senior center, and direct service programs, such as immigration and crisis intervention. He was the first Executive Director of the Korean Community Service Center of San Francisco.

Tom also started the first Korean American ethnic heritage project in the United States, co-producing ``Lest We Forget: Korean American Oral History Videos,'' featuring prominent Korean Americans such as Olympic diving champion Dr. Sammy Lee, and United States Army Col. Young Oak Kim, who served with the highly decorated 442nd all Japanese American regimental combat unit during World War II.

I extend my deepest sympathy to Tom's family, especially to his two beloved sons, to whom Tom was a devoted father.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, for yielding time, but more importantly, for bringing this important legislation to the floor in his ongoing, long commitment to justice in our country. And I want to commend Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin and Chairman Barney Frank for their leadership. It is an honor to call you colleague. Thank you for giving us the opportunity today to make America more American.

Every day we come to this floor, we honor the tradition of our Founders, that every person is created equal, and that we are all God's children. Every day that we come to this floor, we pledge allegiance to the flag, and at the end of that pledge we say ``with liberty and justice for all.'' That is what today is about. Because in the preamble to the Constitution, which we take an oath to, we talk about forming a more perfect union. Our Founders knew that our Constitution had to be amended. They knew that we had to move to a more perfect union in terms of legislation to reflect the values of our country. And so we are here today to extend to the hate crimes legislation others who have had hate crimes committed against them. The record is clear.

What I am so interested in is the fact that so many law enforcement organizations have endorsed this legislation. My colleagues have spoken very eloquently as to why this is about the values of our country. They have spoken very clearly about the need for this legislation. And if it has been said, I think it bears repeating that the law enforcement organizations, many of them, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, as well as nearly 30 attorney generals across the country, support need for Federal hate crime legislation. They are joined by more than 230 civil rights, education, religious and civic organizations who have voiced their support. Let us be clear that this Congress, this House of Representatives, have heard their call.

Hate crimes, as have been said, have no place in America, no place where we pledge every morning ``with liberty and justice for all.'' We must act to end hate crimes and save lives.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation will help prevent bias-motivated violence based on religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, national origin or disability, while respecting the first amendment rights of free speech and religious expression. It increases the ability of State, local and Federal law enforcement agencies to solve a wide range of violent hate crimes.

We in our country take pride in saying that we are moving to end discrimination of all kinds. Today, we have an opportunity to end discrimination and the violence that goes with it that equal a hate crime. So whatever you may think of any one of us, based on our ethnicity or our gender or whatever, you have no right to act upon that opinion in a violent way. Who would disagree with that? That is why I hope that we can send a clear message from the Congress that this Congress does not agree with that and pass this legislation.

Who of us can think of the story of the Shepard family and the Byrd family and so many examples that we have of this and not say that is wrong. And at the very least, we can pass legislation that tells Federal authorities that they can assist State and local authorities in enforcing the law. Over 100,000 hate crimes reported since 1991. There are so many more that go unreported, many of them unprosecuted.

So today, let us take this step forward that is consistent with the values of our Founders, both in terms of all being equal, and our faith that we are all God's children, but also consistent with the call and the preamble to form a more perfect union.

Again, passing this legislation makes America more American. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to acknowledge the exceptional leadership of Chairman Obey, Chairman Murtha and Chairman Skelton in putting together this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Congress passed this bill, and yesterday we sent it to the President of the United States. We did so with great pride, because it is a bill that supports our troops, honors our promises to our veterans, holds the Iraqi government accountable and winds down this war. It is a bill that honors the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. Thank you, Chairmen Obey, Murtha and Skelton.

The President had an historic opportunity. He had an opportunity to take yes for an answer, because the bill contained what the President had proposed. The President proposed benchmarks. His very own benchmarks were contained in this bill. The Department of Defense has guidelines for readiness for our troops, for their training, their equipment and the time they can spend at home and overseas. They are in the bill, even with a waiver for the President, giving the President more latitude. The President said no. The President said no.

I had hoped that the President would see the light, instead of turning a tin ear to the wishes of the American people and a blind eye to what is happening on the ground in Iraq.

The President, in signing the veto, is reporting that progress is being made in Iraq. Well, I don't know what his definition of ``progress'' is, but, sadly, April was the deadliest month this year, with over 100 of our troops killed there.

The President, in his statement on vetoing the bill, said that he vetoes the bill because, in his words, ``It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you start to plan withdrawing.''

In criticizing these timelines, of course, the President is wrong. But when he was a candidate for President, it made sense to him to say to President Clinton, ``I think it's also important for the President to lay out a timetable as to how long our troops will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.'' This is candidate Bush on the war in Kosovo, where we did not lose one single American soldier; this from a President whose initiative has lost over 3,000 Americans and countless, countless, countless Iraqis.

Bipartisan congressional majorities approved of using timelines for redeployment to instill urgency into benchmarks that have already again been endorsed by the President and the Iraqi leaders. They have agreed to this, except they reject them in this bill.

A wide range of people have noted the value of timelines in persuading the Iraqis to make the political compromises needed to end the violence, including Secretary of Defense Gates, who said, ``The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably have had a positive impact in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment.''

The Congress will not support an open-ended commitment to a war without end. He wants a blank check. The Congress will not give it to him.

Next the President said that Congress is substituting our judgment for the judgments of commanders in the field 6,000 miles away. Wrong again, Mr. President. We are substituting our judgment for your judgment 16 blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House. We are substituting the judgment of this Congress for your failed judgment.

The American people have lost faith in the President's conduct of the war. They have said that they want accountability and a new direction. This bill gives them both.

Next the President claimed, and Mr. Obey again referenced this, that this bill is loaded with non-emergency spending. Well, it may be a non- emergency to the President, but it certainly is an emergency to the people affected. Once again, the President is wrong.

The needs of the survivors of Hurricane Katrina think it is an emergency, and so does any person of conscience in our country who cares about the victims of Katrina. That millions of children are about to lose their health insurance is an emergency for them and for our country. America's farmers, devastated by natural disasters, think it is an emergency.

These situations remain emergencies because the President and the last Congress, the Republican Congress, refused to act. So now we must. So they have made it even more of an emergency.

Today, the President faces consequences of his own making. This is the seventh supplemental for the war in Iraq. Certainly somebody was planning something at the White House and could have put over the years the funding necessary for this war into the budget. Instead, the President did not do that. I don't know why. Maybe they didn't want the American people to see the real cost of this war in dollars. Certainly we know the price that we have paid more seriously in lives, in health, in reputation, in the readiness of our military and in probably $2 trillion now for this war.

The President claims that this legislation infringes upon the powers vested in the President by the Constitution. The President is wrong. Congress is exercising its right as a coequal branch of government to work cooperatively with the President to end this war.

By voting ``yes'' to override, Congress sends a strong message:

To support our troops. They have done everything that has been asked of them, and excellently. They deserve better.

To rebuild our military, which has been seriously strained by this war in Iraq.

To honor our commitment to our veterans, our heroes.

And to demand accountability.

With passage of this bill, we then can refocus our energy on the efforts against terrorism by bringing the war in Iraq to an end, bringing this war in Iraq to an end.

The President said there are real enemies out there. Yes, we know that, Mr. President, and we are prepared to make that fight. We will do whatever is necessary to protect the American people.

The war on terrorism was in Afghanistan. We took our fullest attention from Afghanistan to go into Iraq, and now Iraq is a magnet for terrorists. The war in Iraq has made matters worse in the war on terrorism.

What we have to do is work together, Democrats and Republicans, with the President of the United States, to bring stability to that region.

Now into the fifth year of a failed policy, this administration should get a clue. It is not working. This is the fourth surge they have proposed. When they proposed it in January, they said in 60 to 90 days we will know. It is 120 days, and now they are saying September. And then they say maybe by the end of the year. So what is this? We will be into another whole year of this war, far longer than World War

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the beginning of a year-long centennial celebration for the United States Army Reserve and to pay homage to all Army Reserve soldiers who, in the past 100 years, have answered the call to defend our Nation and to protect the freedoms and liberties we cherish.

The legacy of volunteer ``Warrior Citizens'' is rooted in colonial America with the soldiers of the revolutionary militia who fought for our freedom. At the birth of our Nation, President George Washington relied on the militia to build up his Continental forces for major campaigns. Later, Washington and Alexander Hamilton proposed a contingency force to support the Army that would be centrally controlled by the Federal Government.

On April 23, 1908, Congress established the Medical Reserve Corps to provide a reservoir of trained officers in time of war. The Secretary of War could order these officers to active duty during time of emergency. Four years later, a provision of the Army Appropriations Act of 1912 created the regular Army Reserve, a Federal Reserve force outside the Medical Reserve Corps. This new component of the United States Army, the first Federal Reserve force was expanded into a Federal operational force in 1916 and again in 1920.

Army Reserve soldiers have trained and served with excellence-- through World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the cold war, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and in support of the global war on terror during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Today, this reserve force has grown from its beginning strength of approximately 360 medical professionals in 1908--to a community based, Federal operational force with an end-strength of 205,000 Warrior Citizens providing complementary capabilities for joint expeditionary and domestic operations in support of the United States Army.

As we begin this year-long celebration of the Army Reserve's 100th anniversary, the men and women who serve with the Army Reserve continue to play a vital role in our county's homeland security and our national security affairs abroad.

Since 1990, Army Reserve soldiers have been deployed to support every American military operation, as well as peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. In 1997, when the Red River crested 26 feet above flood stage, and more than 60,000 residents of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota, had to be evacuated, Army Reserve water purification units responded with purified water for flood victims. Army Reserve soldiers answered the call for recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina slammed into Louisiana and other gulf coast States in 2005, by providing vehicles to supply fuel, Chinook helicopters for lift operations and cargo trailers for hauling debris.

Army Reserve units and individual soldiers immediately responded to the attacks of September 11 and carried out a host of missions to support rescue and recovery operations and to secure Federal facilities nationwide.

The Army Reserve has mobilized more than 166,000 troops in support of the global war on terror. These brave men and women are providing key support for combat operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and 18 other nations.

The centennial observance began on April 23, and it began appropriately with a reenlistment ceremony on the west front steps of the United States Capitol for 38 Army Reserve Soldiers from across the country.

Beginning with this inspiring ceremony, Army Reservists in thousands of communities throughout our Nation will join their neighbors in celebrating the contributions of this exceptional Federal force, an American institution.

Let us express our appreciation to the United States Army Reserve and the Warrior Citizens who serve with dedication and distinction as they begin their year-long centennial celebration.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his exceptional leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I also acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Murtha and Mr. Skelton for all that they are doing to make our country safer and to support our troops.

Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is the greatest ethical challenge facing our Nation. This is so because our troops are being sent into battle without the training, equipment. And the strategic plan for success because the administration is not honoring our commitment to our veterans and because the Iraqi war has strained our military, and therefore weakened our ability to fight the war on terrorism.

By placing an unacceptable strain on our military, this war is undermining our ability to protect the American people. Instead of making the American people safer, the war in Iraq has weakened our ability to protect our Nation from the threat posed by international terrorism, I repeat.

As Major General Petraeus said, right now we are not prepared. We are not prepared for the threat this Nation faces here at home. And, because in this business you cannot be half ready or half prepared, you are either ready or you are not.

We have put our citizens at greater risk. We have put their lives at greater risk, their property, our economy, our way of life, and that is just unacceptable.

Instead of strengthening our hand, the President's policies in Iraq have weakened our reputation in the world and diminished our ability to lead the international effort against terrorism, which again is the real threat.

With U.S. focus on Iraq, the war in Afghanistan has intensified because of the resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda in the absence of the fullest effort on our part there.

As Major General John Baptiste said, Here is the bottom line. Americans must come to grips with the fact that our military alone cannot establish a democracy. We cannot sustain the current operational tempo without seriously damaging the Army and the Marine Corps. Our troops have been asked to carry the burden of an ill-conceived mission. End of quote, Major General John Baptiste.

Our troops have done everything that they have been asked to do and excellently. We salute them for their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifices they and their families are making. Instead of being honored as the heroes they are when they come home, our wounded veterans are being forced to cope with a system that is not equipped to care for them. Preparation was not made.

Americans have been shocked by the revelations of the appalling care at Walter Reed. As Senator Max Cleland, a great patriot, a decorated Army veteran, said, Walter Reed is the ugly face of the Iraq war. It is a face that the American people need to see because this administration from the beginning never planned to deal with casualties, never planned for the consequences of this war.

Last fall, the American people voted for a new direction in Iraq. They made it clear that our troops must be given all they need to do their jobs but that our troops must be brought home responsibly, safely and soon.

The President responded to this clear call for winding down the war in Iraq with a policy of escalation in Iraq that has been tried three times previously and failed and, additionally, has burdened our already strained military.

The problems addressed in this bill are problems of the President's own making. From the start of the war, the President has failed to recognize and to request in his budget the funds needed by our troops serving in Iraq, as has been indicated by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey.

This is the seventh emergency appropriations bill that Congress has had to pass to make up for the President's failure, seven emergencies. What is the surprise? Why aren't they understanding the cost of this war in lives and health, in reputation, in dollars, and the readiness of our military?

Furthermore, the President's budgets have failed to provide adequately for the medical needs of our troops wounded in Iraq and for other veterans. This bill supports our troops, honors our commitments to our veterans, rebuilds our military, and holds the Iraqi government accountable. It winds down the war by providing for the responsible redeployment of our combat forces based on benchmarks endorsed by the Iraqi government and by President Bush. They are his own benchmarks.

Oddly, though, even though they are the President's own benchmarks, holding the administration accountable to benchmarks has been criticized by the administration. They are criticizing their own benchmarks. Yet both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and retired Major General Paul Eaton, formerly in charge of training of Iraqi security forces, have noted the value of timelines in persuading Iraqis to make the political compromises needed to end the violence.

Secretary Gates noted, we are all familiar with this, it bears repeating, ``The strong feelings expressed in Congress about the timetables probably has had a positive impact . . . in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment.''

General Eaton said, ``This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group.''

My colleagues, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II and resulted in the lowest level of American military readiness since the Vietnam War. It has cost thousands of American lives, tens of thousands, scores of thousands of Iraqi lives, plus tens of thousands of our soldiers to suffer grievous injuries, and will cost well over $1 trillion if the war ended today.

The sacrifices borne by our troops and their families demand more than the blank check the President is asking for, for a war without end. The sacrifices demand a plan for bringing the war to an end. This bill contains that plan and provides the President for every dollar he asked for the troops, and, indeed, thank you, Mr. Murtha, much more.

I urge my colleagues to support it. I urge the President to sign the bill so that we can focus on winning the war against terrorism, which is the real threat to the American people. That is our responsibility, and we fully intend to honor it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Science Committee and the ranking member for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor with strong bipartisan support. This is indeed a great day for the Congress because we are here to talk about the future. I always say to people when they come, You visit Washington, you see all these monuments to people who lived a long time ago; but when you come to the floor of the Congress, what we are here to do is to make the future better for the next generation.

Central to that is a strong economy for our country. We have had a bipartisan commitment to an innovation agenda, a commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one. We know that innovation begins in the classroom, and that is why the legislation on the floor today is so important.

For some of us of a generation when I was a student, President Kennedy talked about putting a man on the Moon. It seemed impossible at the time.

When he said it, when he made his announcement, he said the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we are first, and therefore we intend to be first. Our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves and others as well, all require us to make this effort. It was with that our country made a strong commitment to science and technology, and within 10 years a man was on the Moon and safely returned.

Here we are again in this new century, all these many years later, recommitting to an innovation agenda. We have to talk about how we grow our economy to create new jobs here at home for the 21st century. We certainly have a commitment to trade, and that is important to us.

We can only succeed in the international global economy if we are competitive and if we innovate. We cannot innovate without the investment in education, the investment in science and technology.

Our effort for an innovation agenda began nearly 2 years ago outside of Washington, meeting all over the country with leaders and CEOs in many fields, whether it was biotech, high-tech, the academic community, venture capital, entrepreneurs, young people and telecommunications sector people who are creating jobs for the 21st century. We held forums in Silicon Valley, in Seattle, and in Boston, in Chicago, northern New Jersey, North Carolina's Research Triangle, El Paso, Texas, to name a few.

Using the expertise and advice that we heard from the outside, emphasizing a focus on public/ private partnerships, emphasizing a focus on the entrepreneurial spirit that is the hallmark of our country, we adopted an innovation agenda that will help create a new generation of innovators, an educated skilled workforce in the vital areas of science, math, engineering and information technology.

Thank you, Chairman Gordon, for your extraordinary leadership in this area and bringing this legislation to the floor. I also want to commend Chairman George Miller for his leadership and focusing on STEM as well.

The agenda will help to make a sustained Federal research and development commitment that promotes private sector innovation, spur affordable access to broadband technology, achieve energy independence, strengthen our national security, protect our planet by developing emerging technologies for clean and sustainable alternatives, and provide small businesses with the tools they need to engage and encourage entrepreneurial innovation and job creation throughout our economy.

This is what was important to us. Again, pointing out the importance of education to all of this, I am very pleased to come to the floor to support the legislation that is on the floor today.

Once again, I want to thank Mr. Hall for his leadership in this area. I take special pride in the fact that this effort is bipartisan. The President has spoken on any number of occasions, in his State of the Union addresses or in other settings, about his commitment to this investment in the future.

Hopefully we can move these pieces of legislation along to his desk for his signature and on to better public policy to promote the United States as

number one with an innovation agenda for the future.