Floor Statements

Thank you very much. So what's this, a Democrat in the Speaker's chair? This is a very friendly group.

Good morning to all of you. Jack, thank you for your leadership and the good work of the Former Members Association. Jim, it is wonderful to see you there. It is wonderful to see all of you here.

Thank you for coming. Thank you for your ongoing interest. You know that we consider you on both sides of the aisle intellectual resources to us in the Congress. We also quote you. We build upon your good work. It is just really a source of great encouragement to us that you continue to have the interest to come back to this place.

All of us who have ever served here who have had the privilege of stepping onto this floor and represent the American people, what a great privilege. It is a banner of honor for life. I come here on behalf of the House Democrats to bring you greetings, to welcome you here, to thank you for being an ongoing source of inspiration to us, and also to say that, as I have said before, all of us who serve here consider ourselves colleagues of people that we never even served with before because we have all shared this great honor.

On their behalf, I am privileged to say what a privilege it is for us to call you colleague. I am glad that we are also joined by our distinguished minority whip, Democratic whip, I always use the name Democratic, Democratic whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland. I see so many friends here again on both sides of the aisle. I look forward to chatting with you individually but also look forward to what comes from your meeting here. It will be very important to us.

Thank you again for being here.

Mr. Speaker, we are about to vote on a rule for a so- called lobbying reform bill that The Washington Post has said ``is simply a joke.'' ``Or more accurately,'' it goes on to say, ``a ruse aimed at convincing what the leaders must believe is a doltish public that the House has done something to clean up Washington.'' A ruse. That is what this is.

And to the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, if you think that what is being proposed today maintains a high ethical standard for this House, either your standards are too low or you have no interest, no interest, in cleaning up the culture of corruption that the Republicans have in this House of Representatives.

This Republican leadership so-called Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act holds no one accountable and provides little transparency to the activities of lobbyists or anyone else. It is an embarrassingly trivial response to the culture of corruption that has thrived under the Republican Congress.

And this corruption has a cost to the American people, as others of my colleagues have said. This corruption has come at great cost to the American people in terms of prices at the pump, a Medicare prescription drug bill that does little to lower the cost of spiraling health drug costs, and waste and fraud in the gulf coast and in Iraq.

This bill is a missed opportunity, a missed opportunity. As House Democratic Leader, I would have hoped that we could have worked together with the leadership of this House of Representatives to put forth something

that truly threw up the windows and pulled back the shades to let in the fresh air. But that didn't happen because of this ruse.

I wouldn't even think of yielding to you. You have all the time in the world.

I come to this floor with great sadness. I come here as one who has served on the Ethics Committee for 7 years, at a time when we worked in a bipartisan fashion to maintain a high ethical standard. I take very seriously our responsibility to the American people to do their business here, not the business of the special interests of the lobbyists.

That is why it is such a pity that we really don't have transparency in this rule and in this bill, where we can come to the floor with an open rule, where all points of view can be considered and all positive initiatives can be considered and voted up or down. Let's leave that up to the debate.

We certainly can do better than this. That wouldn't be difficult.

Democrats are offering a motion to recommit that breaks the link between K Street lobbyists and the Congress of the United States. It says it ``bans.'' It is unequivocal. It is unambiguous. It bans gifts and travel from lobbyists and from organizations who employ lobbyists. It prohibits use of corporate jets for official travel. It just prohibits it. You can't do it. It shuts down the K Street Project, in which lobbying firm jobs are traded for legislative favors. And it shuts down the revolving door. What a disgrace, this revolving door that is spinning so fast. It prohibits Members, senior staff and executive branch officials from lobbying their former colleagues for 2 years after leaving office. Two years. I think it should be longer, but that is a compromise.

Today, the Republican majority brings forth a rule that is itself an abuse of power. The Republican Rules Committee has refused to let this House debate bills that 165 Democrats cosponsored. The Republicans have refused to let this House debate even Republican serious proposals directed at cronyism and corruption in government contracting. The Republicans have refused to let this House debate any serious attempt to end the culture of corruption.

They call this bill the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act? The Washington Post calls it a joke. The sad thing is, it is not a very funny joke, because, once again, the American people are paying the price.

My colleagues have listed some of the abuses of power. Mr. Waxman in particular talked about what the impact is on the American consumer from some of those abuses of power.

Imagine that the person managing the bill on prescription drugs left this House and soon was representing the pharmaceutical industry for $2 million a year in salary. How much does it cost to sell the seniors down the river? Well, about $2 million a year, if you are the manager of the prescription drug bill. That is why Americans, middle-income seniors, will be paying more at the pharmacy because of the corruption that was involved in writing this bill, a bill where the pharmaceutical industry insisted that there be a prohibition in the bill against the Secretary of HHS for negotiating for lower prices. It was in the bill because the pharmaceutical industry insisted upon it. They had their representatives at the table. America's seniors did not. Who do you think came out on top in that bill writing?

We have talked about a time when the American taxpayer has the burden of that, plus paying a price at the pump because of the corruption in writing the energy policy for this country, behind closed doors, refusing to reveal what went into writing that legislation.

And that legislation, do not take it from me, the Republican Department of Energy stated at the time that the energy bill proposed and passed by the Republicans in this Congress would increase the price at the pump. They said it at the time.

So not only are the consumers paying the price at the pump and an increased cost in their home heating oil and cooling oil as we go into the summer months; they gave a gift, they, the American taxpayers, we gave a gift to the oil companies.

That same bill that increased the price at the pump that people are now paying nearly $3 a gallon for, they, those oil companies, those same oil companies got subsidies of $12 billion in the energy bill. They got royalty relief, royalty holidays of several more billion dollars.

And to make matters worse, in the most recent tax bill that is being prepared to come to this floor, they will get $5.5 billion more in tax breaks. What are they taking the American taxpayer for? What are they thinking of? It is such an insult to the intelligence of the consumer and the taxpayer.

Wait a minute, at a time of record, of record profits, historic and obscene profits, these companies are paying enormous fees. The CEO of Exxon is getting a retirement package of $400 million. Record profits. High subsidies from the taxpayer, and high prices at the pump, a very raw deal for the American consumer.

All of it born from the culture of corruption in this House of Representatives. We must break that link. We are here for the interests of the American people, for the public interest. The Republicans are here for the special interests. They are the handmaidens of the pharmaceutical industry. They are the handmaidens of the energy companies. They do not know any other way to do it.

And that is why we get not only bad policy, not only corruption in this House, not only a cost of that corruption to the taxpayer and to the consumer, but we have a ruse of a bill that tries to masquerade as reform on this House of Representatives.

I feel really sad about this. I feel sad for the American people. They expect and deserve better. And we can give that to them in our motion to recommit that I talked about earlier. It bans the gifts and travel. It breaks the link. It stops the revolving door. It also says that if you are convicted of a felony in the performance of your duties as a Member of this House, you do not get your pension. You do not get your pension.

And as I said, again, this whole thing about jet travel and the rest, our motion to recommit would prohibit corporate travel for official purposes. So I hope that our colleagues will understand that we certainly can do better and that the American people are watching; that we can present substantive reforms, some that we should be debating today. I can assure my colleagues that these reforms, that if we have these reforms, we will end this culture of corruption. I also assure you that if the Democrats win the Congress next year, they will be implemented on the first day, the first day of the first session of this next Congress.

So let us start fresh with this. The American people, as I say, expect and deserve better. We can clear the slate by rejecting, all-out rejecting this ruse, this pathetic, pathetic little tiny step that is a missed opportunity for a high ethical standard and is an excuse to keep the culture of corruption that is here.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and if the opportunity presents itself, to support the Democratic motion to recommit. I want to in closing commend the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, Congresswoman Slaughter. She has been a relentless crusader for a high ethical standard in this House for not only lobby reform and all kinds of other reform, but for injecting a level of civility into how we should have debate on the floor of the House that respects the views of Democrats and Republicans, because we respect the people who sent all of us here, not just having Republicans heard and Democrats blocked out.

So Congresswoman Slaughter, I commend you for your leadership. I thank you for your courage. I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lantos, our distinguished ranking member on the International Relations Committee, also a cochair of the Human Rights Caucus. Thank you for your great leadership on fighting for human rights throughout the world. You have a long history of that. You have personal experience in terms of being the only Member of Congress who escaped the Holocaust, and you have brought that conviction, your ideas, your courage to this fight once again in helping the people of Darfur.

And I want to commend Mr. Chris Smith. He and Frank Wolf have been such leaders on this issue for so very many years, and all of us who are concerned about Sudan, in particular now, Darfur are deeply in your debt.

I join the gentleman in commending Henry Hyde, as well as Mr. Lantos and Donald Payne, our colleague, who have brought this issue to the forefront in the Congress of the United States. I thank you for authorizing this legislation, for your steadfast leadership in calling attention to the crisis in Darfur.

Mr. Speaker, I bring to the floor a picture of the children, a picture of the children of Darfur. All of us on our trip that Mr. Lantos mentioned, who visited Darfur, 11 members of a bipartisan delegation, all of us wanted to take these children home with us, but that wasn't possible. There were so many of them. And it wouldn't be right anyway, because they wanted to go home. They wanted to go home to their homes which no longer existed.

When we were there, we visited with them. And after a day in the refugee camp, our bipartisan delegation traveled to Khartoum to meet with Vice President Taha. He asked us, he said, ``The Sudanese people want to know, why are you so interested in Sudanese domestic affairs? I know the American people are free-thinking people, but maybe your free- thinking does not create a clear understanding of the facts in my country.''

Vice President Taha was denying what we had seen with our very own eyes that day, refugee children struggling in the heat without shade, without adequate clothing and sleeping in make-shift tents that were made, some of them, from USAID food bags stitched together.

The Darfuris are forced to walk miles outside the camps for firewood and water, with the constant fear that they may be attacked.

As Vice President Taha was denying all of this, we could not help recalling the stories of villages torched, women raped, children kidnapped and men tortured and killed. But even in the horror of all of that, we saw hope in the bright and playful eyes of the toddlers. That hope, however, was diminished in the eyes of the older children. They had really seen too much. They had seen too much.

The camps we visited were homes to over 100,000 people. That was just what we saw when we were there. There are many more. That is just a fraction of the staggering toll of the violence in Darfur. But you can see these camps, and you can see that some of them are made out of USAID food bags.

According to the United Nations, 3 million people are in need of assistance. Two million Darfuris have been displaced, pushed out of their homes and their villages, and nearly 200,000 people have been killed thus far, and that is a conservative estimate.

Furthermore, the full human toll is yet to be exacted. Concentrated in camps with deplorable conditions, when the rainy season comes, Darfuris are now vulnerable to further death from disease. Sicknesses like cholera and dysentery could take tens of thousands more lives.

We have seen variations on this ``problem from hell,'' most recently in Rwanda. And at that time, that short time ago, we promised never again. We have heard never again over and over again.

The humanitarian disaster in Darfur challenges the conscience of the world. It is the systemic destruction of a people. It is genocide.

While we were in the Sudan, back home President Bush reaffirmed that this is, indeed, genocide. When some of us, Mr. Payne, Mr. Joe Wilson and Mr. Clyburn and I met with the President at the White House to thank him for his leadership and report on our trip, we also asked him to appoint a special envoy, special U.S. envoy for the Sudan. This envoy would signal that bringing peace and stability to the Sudan is a priority of the United States, and it is a part of this legislation that is on the floor today. This envoy, U.S. special envoy, is necessary because it will help stop the violence, bring the parties to the negotiating table, and get humanitarian relief to the people who need it.

Essential to stopping the violence is stopping the Janjaweed. I heard Congressman Smith talking about the Janjaweed in his remarks, and after persistent questioning in our meeting with Vice President Taha, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, in a very diplomatic but persistent way, questioned him about the Sudanese government's support of the Janjaweed, which he first denied but later admitted that they had supported the Janjaweed in the past. This was the first admission that we had seen.

Before we went into Darfur, the U.S. military briefed us that the Janjaweed is an extension of the Sudanese military, and they are engaged in state sponsored violence. This must end.

The African Union is to be commended for its efforts to protect Darfur. We saw the AU's camps there where people were getting at least something to eat and perhaps some medical attention for the first time. But so much more needs to be done.

So that is why this legislation on the floor today is so important, because I don't even know if these children are even alive 1 month after we came home, these beautiful children.

Many people in our country have been actively involved in the effort to get more support and humanitarian assistance on the ground. The United Nations dollars for Darfur were running out in March.

Humanitarian workers in Sudan are harassed, their convoys diverted and attacked, and some of these workers have been kidnapped. Humanitarian workers bring no political agenda or no destabilizing intentions to the Sudan. They carry with them hope and sometimes health. They must be protected. Their supplies must not be diverted, and their volunteers must not be detained.

So that is why I am very pleased that we were able to pass, in the supplemental, the President's request for $439 million, and that Mr. Capuano's initiative to add $50 million for assistance was accepted by the House. We hope it will be considered in the Senate.

So this legislation, as was spelled out by Mr. Lantos and Mr. Smith, so I won't go into it again, contains very, very important initiatives to help make matters better. Stop the violence, bring the parties to the table, get the humanitarian assistance to the people.

This brings us back to Vice President Taha's question, why is the United

States so interested in Sudan? The answer is that genocide is not the domestic affair of any nation. It concerns the world. And as our colleague, Joe Wilson, said to him, Americans care about people. Our care is reflected in the working done for the people of Darfur here in this Congress, in State legislatures, in corporate board rooms, on college campuses, even on high school campuses and yes, indeed, even in the White House.

This care was spurred by our religious communities which have taken the lead in our efforts. I salute many of the religious leaders who have taken the lead on this. And on April 30, many people will converge, thousands will converge on Washington, and there will be events around the country put together by the Save Darfur Coalition.

Each day that the genocide continues, and each day that we wait, the hope we saw in the eyes of the youngest children can disintegrate into disease, despair and death.

Again, on April 30, Americans of conscience will come to Washington to echo the call, never again. These citizens will demonstrate on behalf of the children of Darfur and demonstrate that, not only is America great, but America is good. And this legislation on the floor today is a reflection of that goodness. I support it, and salute the bipartisan cooperation that wrote it and brought it to floor.

Again, I thank Mr. Lantos for his exceptional leadership on human rights throughout the world and in the Sudan, and Mr. Smith, Mr. Payne and Mr. Frank Wolf for their exceptional leadership as well.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise in regard to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to Brayton Wilbur, Jr., a great San Franciscan and a dear friend. One of our great civic leaders, he made immeasurable contributions to our most treasured institutions. Mr. Wilbur passed away on March 24 after a lifetime of service to the arts, the business

community, his family, and the city he called home.

A native San Franciscan, he was born on October 2, 1935, and was a graduate of Yale University and Stanford Business School. He joined his family's firm, Wilbur-Ellis Co., in 1963, becoming its president and CEO in 1988 and chairman of the Board of Directors in 2000 after overseeing an extraordinary era of expansion. He served as a director of several San Francisco institutions, including Safeway Stores and the Chronicle Publishing Company.

Through his enthusiasm for the arts, Mr. Wilbur eloquently expressed his love for San Francisco. He served as a director of the San Francisco Opera, a trustee of the Asian Art Museum, and as the 15th president of the San Francisco Symphony, presiding over the inauguration of our beloved Davies Symphony Hall in 1980.

I offer my deepest sympathy to Judy, his beloved wife of 43 years, his children, Michael, Jennifer, Edward and Claire, his mother Dita, and his sisters Lolita and Mary. As they have lost a loved one, so the city of San Francisco has lost one of its most distinguished sons.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise in regard to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Walter G. Jebe, a longtime community leader, businessman and historian, who died of leukemia in the Veterans Hospital in Palo Alto on Feb. 25th at the age of 81. The unofficial mayor of San Francisco's Excelsior district, Mr. Jebe was a champion of small business and for his neighborhood and an outspoken advocate and historian. He has left an indelible mark on our city.

Mr. Jebe was born in 1924, raised in the Excelsior District, graduated from Balboa High School, studied photography at Samuel Gompers trade school and was drafted into the Army. After serving our Nation, Mr. Jebe returned to San Francisco and opened Jebe's Cameras on Mission Street. He was a self-taught businessman, and neighboring businesses took bets on how long he would last. He stayed in business for 45 years.

All politics was local to Mr. Jebe, who was a member of the Excelsior Business Association, the Geneva Excelsior Lions Club, the Boy Scouts, and other organizations he felt would improve the Excelsior. He also served on a number of San Francisco city commissions, including the Delinquency Prevention Commission, the Library Commission and the Arts Commission. He helped secure a branch of the public library for the Excelsior, and last year wrote a book about the history of the neighborhood.

Walter Jebe was a respected authority on San Francisco history and taught courses throughout San Francisco. He collected vast quantities of photos and memorabilia on the San Francisco Mid Winter Fair of 1894, the Pan Pacific Exhibition of 1915, the 1939 World's Fair and the 1906 Earthquake and Fire.

As a prominent member of the San Francisco History Association, he headed the task force that negotiated a deal for the Federal Government to turn over the Old Mint at Fifth and Mission streets to a nonprofit organization to become a history museum. The Old Mint is a San Francisco architectural gem that survived the 1906 Earthquake and Fire and played a vital role in rebuilding the city. A member of the Old Mint Advisory Council, Mr. Jebe was responsible for overseeing the restoration project.

With great appreciation for his fine work and service to our city, I extend my deepest sympathy to his wife of 53 years, Vivian Jebe, his son Walter and daughter Vivian, and thank them, for sharing their magnificent husband and father with us. He was a true San Francisco treasure and we are diminished by his passing.

Mr. Speaker, we will soon consider a bill that will provide more than $90 billion for the continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the continued response to Hurricane Katrina. As we debate this bill, we must also put in place measures to ensure that these funds are spent wisely.

As a result of the work of the special Inspector General in Iraq and the General Accountability Office, we know that billions of dollars has been wasted, and fraud and abuse is rife in the Katrina rebuilding and the war in Iraq.

One would presume that after being advised that taxpayer money had been misused, Congress would make certain that similar misuse would not occur in the future. Sadly, that presumption would be wrong. Perhaps no failures have been so regular and so great in the Republican Congress as the failure to do effective oversight.

Today, we have a chance to reverse this record of lax oversight by allowing the consideration of the Kaptur-Sabo amendment. The amendment would add some strength to an oversight process badly in need of it by: establishing a select committee modeled on the World War II Truman Committee and ensuring that Congress would have a vote on the adequacy of the national security review done on any proposed acquisition by a foreign entity of a business involved in interstate commerce in the United States.

The Truman Committee taught two important lessons--especially in war time--contractor performance needs to be closely scrutinized, and that scrutiny can be provided without partisanship.

Reports that $9 billion in money intended for use in Iraq cannot be accounted for should be reason enough to create a Truman-like committee, as envisioned by Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Leach. Evidence that money that was supposed to relieve suffering in the areas devastated by Katrina has been misused offers a strong endorsement.

Our recent experience with the Dubai Ports World acquisition should have convinced us that Congress has a role in determining whether and when foreign entities can safely operate elements of our critical infrastructure. These determinations are simply too important to be left solely to the judgment of the executive branch. Mr. Sabo proposes a workable, common-sense process. We should consider it today.

Mr. Speaker, the American people expect Congress to do more than write blank checks. They expect us to be aggressive in making sure that money is spent responsibly. Uftfortunately, this Republican Congress has failed to meet this expectation. With this amendment we could begin the oversight of taxpayer dollars that should have begun long ago. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and let us adopt the Kaptur-Sabo amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of San Francisco's most admired, beloved and fearless social activists, Mary Helen Rogers, who died March 3, 2006 at her home after a long battle with cancer. She lived an impassioned life fighting for affordable housing and social justice and to restore the vibrancy of San Francisco's Fillmore District. Her activism and courage often made the difference between the survival and the decimation of a community.

During the month of March, Women's History Month, as we honor the accomplishments of our great national heroines, we also recognize women working to strengthen their local communities. This past year we grieved the loss of several remarkable women who struggled for equality and progress, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King and Betty Friedan. I call them the magnificent disrupters. Here in San Francisco we were proud to have our very own magnificent disrupter--Mary Helen Rogers.

During her 40-year fight to protect African American families from being displaced by urban renewal, Ms. Rogers worked tirelessly to tear down the barriers that have prevented fair and equitable treatment of African American families, school-aged children, welfare recipients, minority businesses, and community churches.

When the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency was razing entire blocks of the Western Addition neighborhood, a cultural and business hub of the African American community, she literally lay down on the street in front of the bulldozers. She then co-founded the Western Addition Community Organization which forced the city to help the residents it had displaced.

Ms. Rogers founded the Western Addition Citizens Advisory Committee that continues to provide broad-based community input to publicly funded development initiatives. Her civic activities included serving as secretary/treasurer of the National Tenants Association, founding board member of Westside Mental Health Clinic, board member of Agape Outreach Center, chair of the San Francisco Juneteenth Committee, and parent volunteer at the Raphael Weill Elementary School, later known as Rosa Parks Elementary School.

In addition to her numerous volunteer positions, Ms. Rogers served as a dedicated public servant through her tenure at the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the San Francisco Housing Authority. She has received numerous awards from a host of national and local elected officials.

With great sadness I extend my sympathy to Mary's 9 surviving children: William Cary, Angela McPeters, Dennis Rogers, Patricia Rogers, Michael Rogers, Mark Rogers, Mario Rogers Sr., Eric Rogers Sr. and Paul Rogers. I want to thank them for sharing their magnificent mother with us; she brightened our lives with her strength, her courage and her grace.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this important motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely certain that every woman who served in this body is asked the same question I am as I travel across the country as House Democratic leader. Why did you get involved in politics?

I always respond in the same way. As the mother of five children, and now the grandmother of five grandchildren, I view my work in politics as an extension of my role as mother. All of us as parents want the best for our children. We want to do everything we can to keep them safe. But there are some things that are not in our power. For that we look to government, for clean air, for clean water and for food safety.

Today Republicans in Congress are shredding the food safety net that we have built in our country, and this bill puts our children and future generations at risk. This bill, and the words in it, should be fighting words for moms across the country about the safety of their children.

The debate on this bill gives new meaning to the words ``food fight.'' Mr. Speaker, that is why I am opposing this legislation. The effects of this bill are breathtaking. It undermines the lifesaving laws in place throughout our country, voiding approximately 200 State laws on food safety and labeling. The bill will do away with shellfish safety standards, laws in at least 16 States, milk safety laws in 50 States and restaurant and food service establishments, again in all 50 States. That is why 39 attorneys general, Republicans and Democrats, are opposing this bill, because it increases risks and undermines consumer protections. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the Stupak amendment motion to recommitment.

You be the judge. When you shop for meat or fish, do you want to know how long it has been on the shelf? The motion to recommit would ensure States whether companies could treat packaged meat and fish with carbon monoxide to make them look better.

Mr. Speaker, they say that a picture is worth 1,000 words. With that thought, I will yield back my time, submit the rest of my words for the Record, and urge my colleagues to observe this picture and decide if you want to eat any of that meat. Vote for the Stupak amendment and oppose the underlying bill. Vote for the children of America.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her kind words. I commend the 30 Something women who are here, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez of California, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota.

As I came to the floor, I head the 30 Somethings talking about Title IX. First let me say, I am joining the 30 Somethings as a mother of 30- somethings. But I really want to salute you, Debbie, especially for the lead that you have taken on so many issues on the floor as the cochair of the 30 Somethings, and our colleagues who have joined you this evening for all of their exceptional leadership.

I heard you talking about Title IX when I came to the floor, and I do not know whether you mentioned this, because I was in a meeting before I got here, but in the Title IX fight, you cannot talk about it without saluting the great work of Patsy Mink, our former colleague who was a Congresswoman from Hawaii. It was her life's dream to pass the legislation for all of the reasons that you said, what it means in the lives of young girls and women in our country to have access to athletic and other privileges and rights of Title IX.

And I always like to tell the story that Patsy worked so hard on this, Patsy Mink did, and then it was going to be a very close fight. And at the time it met with great resistance; it still meets with some resistance here. But at the time it met with tremendous resistance in the Congress. But she got a promise from the Speaker that she would have a vote on the floor on it, and it was going to be very close. She could win or lose by one vote.

When she got up that day to come to the floor to fight for the cause, she got word that her daughter was in an automobile accident. So she had to be a good mom, just exactly what her instincts would be, up and left, and they lost by like one vote or something.

But she was so persuasive, and with Patsy you might as well say yes right away, because you are going to sooner or later. The Speaker gave her another vote. That is when the bill was passed, at a later time. But there can be no discussion of it without the determination and the courage of Patsy Mink.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in honor of Women's History Month, a time to celebrate the historic contributions of women that they have made to our Nation. We remember those who fought for our progress. We recognize those who are changing communities today, that being the theme, and we rededicate ourselves to expanding opportunity for women.

We have been so blessed in this Congress with our young women, the 30 Something women who are bringing not only the voice of women, but a voice of their generation to the debate, and they are making the great difference.

In the past year, we have grieved the loss of several remarkable women who agitated and struggled for equality and progress. I call them magnificent disrupters: Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, Betty Friedan. And then just yesterday we lost a person, Dana Reeve, who used her great personal challenge of her husband's paralysis to work so that other families would not have to endure the same pain.

Her fight to fulfill the potential of stem cell research brought these issues from the brink of oblivion now to the cusp, I hope, of success. As Dana said after the passing of her husband Christopher, no less than an American hero himself, today is the right moment to transform our grief into hope.

Even after her loss, and even after she suffered through her own dreadful illness, she fought for the hope that stem cell research gives to millions of Americans. Dana Reeve used the great personal challenge of her husband's paralysis to work so that other families would not have to endure the same pain.

The National Institutes of Health tell us that a range of diseases from Parkinsons and Alzheimer's disease to spinal cord injuries to stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, maybe cancer, could potentially be addressed with this research. Perhaps it will be years or even decades before this potential is fulfilled. I hope not.

But Dana saw no excuse for setting back progress even 1 more day. By bringing hope to the sick and disabled with the miraculous potential of stem cell research, she has helped to continue the mending and renewing of the world that is possible through science.

Today we salute Dana's work and send our prayers to those who loved her, especially her son Will, who is 13 years old; and her two grown stepchildren, Matthew and Alexandra; her father and her two sisters.

I take the time to talk about her contribution because it is significant for all of us, and I know that she would have wanted me to use any time talking about her to talk about the cause. Today we have learned that former Governor Ann Richards of Texas has cancer of the esophagus. She made that announcement herself. I know that she will face this with courage and the resoluteness that is her signature. She never saw something wrong that she did not make right, but this, and so many others, makes clear the need for clear commitment to women's health in this country.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Governor Richards and her family today. I know she will beat this. We were so proud of her when she was Governor of Texas, and she makes us proud every day that she speaks out for the American people, women, children, families and Democrats.

I was fortunate enough to have her daughter Cecile work with me in my office. So I feel particularly, particularly blessed by the contributions that Ann Richards is making to our country.

In recognition of the theme of Women's History Month: Women, Builders of Community and Dreams, we cannot fail to recognize that there are dreams and communities left to build, especially on our gulf coast because of Katrina, Rita and Wilma.

Last week Speaker Hastert and I led more than 30 Members of the House to the gulf coast. There we met women who were telling us about their struggle to rebuild their communities, to rebuild their dreams, the theme of Women's History Month.

Those women represent the thousands more who are struggling to rebuild, without the support they need from the Federal Government, and I hope that after our trip that support will soon come.

Despite the stories of loss, I also saw the spirit at work to rebuild the gulf coast to a region that is healthy, strong and prosperous. Women of the storm are particularly noteworthy in their effort, as a group of 100 Louisiana women who are fighting to rebuild a devastated gulf coast. That means not only Louisiana; Mississippi, Alabama, those affected in Florida, those affected in Texas.

One of the most compassionate members of the gulf coast community is Congresswoman and Ambassador Lindy Boggs, who we had the privilege of seeing when we were in Louisiana. I met with her last week. This week Lindy Boggs is celebrating her 90th birthday. Long before your time, my colleagues, when many of us served here with Lindy Boggs in the House of Representatives, indeed she came to Washington in 1941 with her husband, Hale Boggs, and he was serving, and he became the Democratic whip of the House. Tragically his life was lost in an airplane accident, and she then indeed became a Member of Congress.

A woman of great intellect, graciousness and courage, Lindy Boggs taught all of us who served with her a great deal about politics, a great deal about the future of our country, and a great deal about how to do it in the nicest possible way. It worked for some; it did not work for others of us.

In any case, I can assure everyone that Lindy is as vivacious as always. When she left here, she went to be an Ambassador to the Vatican. And she was very proud to represent our country as the representative to the Holy See.

On the occasion of Women's History Month, I salute her and all of the lessons, thank her for all the lessons she taught Members of Congress and the great contribution that she is making to our country.

As we honor the accomplishments of great heroines who have restored hope in the face of impossible odds, we recognize that women are working to strengthen their communities today. We know their power. Women's History Month reminds us that women can and do change the course of history for all of us.

And today being International Women's Day, I was pleased that on Capitol Hill we had women legislators and public figures from Northern Ireland that I met, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other countries. I just wanted to point out on this that we also received news from Speaker Hastert, and I am very grateful to him, that we will have a joint session of Congress next week where we will hear from the newly elected President and newly inaugurated President of Liberia Johnson-Sirleaf, who will be visiting the United States on a state visit next week.

She will address a joint session of Congress. She is the first woman to ever be elected President of an African country. And I think I only remember one other woman addressing the Congress, a joint session of Congress. So it is very exiting and an appropriate way for us to celebrate International Women's Day and National Women's Month.

With that, again I salute my colleagues for calling this Special Order. More importantly, I salute them for their tremendous contribution to our country at their early ages. Congresswoman Linda Sanchez is the first Hispanic woman, first Latino, ever to serve on the Judiciary Committee. She makes a great contribution to our country from that important, important post.

Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz is on the Financial Services Committee where she fights for consumers and for including everyone in the economic success of our country.

And Congresswoman Herseth and her valuable contribution on the Agriculture Committee, and other committees, on the Veterans Committee where she is already a ranking member of the committee so soon. How wonderful.

Well, I congratulate you all. I thank you and appreciate what you are doing this evening and what you are doing for our country.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Well, I appreciate you saying that, because what we are about here is the future. Everything we do should be about are we honoring our responsibility to make the future better for the next generation? That has been the tradition in America from our Founders until the present. And I hope that we can prevail in this fight to make the future better for the next generation. We owe it to our children. We owe it to the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, as House Democratic leader, I am pleased to rise in opposition to this bill in that capacity, and sorry because of the nature of the rule that we have before us.

But before I get to that point, I want to rise as a mother and grandmother to say something about the underlying bill that this rule is addressing. If there is one thing that America's families look to government for, it is clean air for their children to breathe, clean water for them to drink, and food safety. When I say one thing, I mean what their children intake is very important to their health and well- being.

Today on the floor, we have legislation which seriously jeopardizes the food safety for America's children. It is a bill that I urge all to vote against. And the rule that brings that bill to the floor is, in my view, one that allows us to speak to safety in another way as well.

Yesterday marked the third anniversary of the Homeland Security Department. Yet today, 3 years later, our country is not as safe as it should be. We have a port security system that is full of holes.

The ports are our first line of defense in protecting our country. Yet the backroom port deal that the Bush administration negotiated shines a bright light on the failure of the President and this Republican Congress to secure our ports.

The intelligence community tells us, and we know, that the biggest threat to our security are the fissile materials that are still out there, the nuclear materials in the post-Soviet Union world. They were formerly weapons of the Soviet Union, and now they are out there available, available to terrorists. And the single biggest threat are those weapons in a container coming into our country.

I really cannot explain to anyone why this administration has refused to do what is necessary to protect our ports from that threat.

And it is not only our ports. When these containers come from overseas to our country, they are unloaded onto a truck, onto a train, and drive right through your city, your town, perhaps past your home. So the danger goes well beyond our ports.

Here at home 6 percent of the containers entering our ports are screened. Yet, at two of the busiest terminals in the world, in Hong Kong, 100 percent of the terminals are screened. If Hong Kong terminals can do it, why can't we?

That is why Democrats are proposing that 100 percent of the cargo that comes into our ports is screened in their port of origin long before they reach our shores and into our waterways.

Today, as we debate and vote on another issue of security, food safety, Democrats demand that attention be given to our ports. We will call for a vote on a bipartisan bill that is identical to the King bill, the King-Thompson bill, introduced by a Republican and a Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. King, the chairman of the committee, and Mr. Thompson, the ranking member. It will require a 45- day investigation of the Dubai deal. In addition, we require that both Houses of Congress have an up-or-down vote on whether or not to approve this agreement.

Congress must assert itself. Congress must take responsibility. We take an oath of office to protect the American people, and we take that oath seriously.

Today is the day that the backroom port deal will be finalized. This is our best chance to require a congressional vote on whether or not that backroom deal should go through.

I urge my colleagues to assert Congress' responsibility to protect the American people, to assert Congress' role in checks and balances in our Constitution.

I urge our colleagues to vote against the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise in regard to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, President John F. Kennedy said in his Inaugural Address: ``With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth, God's work must truly be our own.'' I rise today to thank our Catholic schools for doing God's work here on earth for generation after generation.

More than 163,000 educators teach in nearly 8,000 Catholic schools in America, and they educate nearly 2.5 million students every year. My husband and I and our five children have attended over 100 years of Catholic school education. Needless to say, we support our Nation's Catholic educational system.

I can tell you firsthand that Catholic schools provide exceptional education. They contribute to a student's intellectual, ethical and spiritual development. As a devout Roman Catholic and the product of Catholic schools, I rely every day on the values and the sense of responsibility that were deepened for me by my Catholic education.

The theme of this year's Catholic Schools Week is ``Character. Compassion. Values.'' Education is about more than reading, writing, and arithmetic, although it's certainly about that. But it is also about teaching each child to live and work with integrity and in a way that serves others.

My Catholic education helped me appreciate that we all contain a spark of divinity, to recognize that spark of divinity in every person, and to respond to that spark with humility and awe, even when it's found in ``the least of these.''

Catholic schools teach their students that our personal faith means public obligation. Simply put, faith means we have work to do. My Catholic education taught me that to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us. That lesson should inform every debate we have here in Congress, whether it is education, health care, job creation, or the budget, which should be a statement of our national values.

Our Catholic schools truly do God's work here on earth, and they deserve our Nation's gratitude. I join my colleagues in thanking all of the teachers, parents, and students of Catholic schools who bring our Nation closer to the ``beloved community'' it was meant to be.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member on the Rules Committee for her leadership in fighting the fight for a budget that is a reflection of the values and priorities of the American people and her leadership in opposition to what the religious community has called this immoral Republican budget.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and later today we will continue the debate on a resolution honoring and celebrating the life and service and leadership of Coretta Scott King.

One of the stories I like best about the Kings is in the 1950s they traveled to India to learn more about nonviolence, the nonviolence practiced by Mahatma Gandhi, and they brought that back to America and it was a major part of the civil rights movement.

Why I mention it today is because in Sanskrit the name for nonviolence is also translated ``truth insistence.'' Wasn't that what the civil rights movement was about, the insistence on truth in our country? Truth insistence is exactly what is required when we talk about the Republican budget.

Last night in the State of the Union address we heard a great deal of rhetoric about investments the President was going to make in education, research and development, and you name it. But that rhetoric is a far cry from the reality of the budget that the Republicans are bringing to this floor today, which not only does not make those investments in the manner described by the President, it indeed cuts them.

Last night in the State of the Union address the President talked about the importance of educating our children to help keep America competitive. But this budget today tells a different story. The truth is the budget follows the track record of woefully underfunding No Child Left Behind. It increases the cost of student loans to America's families who are struggling to send their children to college. How can that help make America more competitive?

Every time we invest in education, we bring more revenue into the Treasury than any other initiative you can name. No tax cut, no tax credit, no anything, nothing brings more to the Treasury of the Government than investing in the education of our people. So these were not only wrong cuts in terms of competitiveness, they also increase the deficit.

Last night the President said in his State of the Union address, ``A hopeful society gives special attention to children.'' Now I would like to know what kind of attention that the President is giving to the children because the truth is this budget today slashes funding to help care for America's poorest children. It drastically cuts funding for the initiative that enforces the payment of child support. Others have talked about nutrition, and of course good nutrition has a direct impact on the education of these children.

The truth is that this budget is an exact contradiction of the rhetoric that the President presented last night.

Now let us look at the title of it. It is called the Budget Reconciliation Spending Cuts Act. Yet the truth is the policies in this budget will increase the deficit by $300 billion, heaping mountains of debt on our children, and the sad truth is all of this to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest people in our country.

Republicans will try to say to defend these measures, as evidence of their so-called fiscal responsibility, that this is about small government. But the fact is, the truth is, that this is not about small government, this is about small-minded, petty government that does not meet the needs of the American people.

Republicans will try to defend these measures again by calling for fiscal responsibility, and I would like to talk about the $42 billion difference. It has been widely reported that this bill had a chance, there was an opportunity to reduce excessive Medicare payments that the Federal Government makes to big business HMOs because of a loophole in the law. There was bipartisan agreement that this would take place. But in a closed-door meeting the Republicans eliminated that, and they gave a $22 billion bonanza to the HMOs, and this at the expense of America's children and those in need.

We also were going to get better drug prices for Medicaid, and this relates to the children, from drug manufacturers and eliminate a Medicare slush fund for managed care. By doing those two things, we were going to save the taxpayers another $20 billion. So it was a $42 billion difference in this budget, at the expense of children and seniors to the benefit of the industries to whom the Republicans in Congress are handmaidens.

In the conference committee, without a single Democrat in the room because Democrats were not allowed in the room, this $42 billion worth of savings disappeared from the budget. The $42 billion difference, that is the difference between a closed and corrupt Congress and an open and honest Congress.

Since Democrats did not get a seat at the table in the writing of this bill, who did? America's low-income children did not get a seat at the table, and they are paying the price in their education, their health care and child support.

America's seniors did not get a seat at the table because the bill makes it harder for seniors to qualify for long-term care, and even forces some to forfeit their homes in order to pay for long-term care.

The truth is the drug manufacturers, managed care companies and HMOs clearly get a seat. They came up the big winners with the special interest driven Medicare prescription drug bill that was foisted on America's seniors, and they came up big winners in this budget bill. It would be nice if America's children and seniors had a seat at the table instead of big business.

My colleagues, the truth is that, as our friends in the religious community, almost every religious denomination in the country, has been lobbying against this legislation. They call it a budget deprived of spiritual hope and of nourishing resources. That is the truth about the Republican budget and the Democrats insist that the public know it. I am very proud that we will have 100 percent of our Democratic Members voting ``no'' on this immoral budget.