Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York, our ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, for yielding me the time. I thank you and our colleagues on the committee on the Democratic side for the excellent work you did in putting forth the Democratic alternative today. You have made an excellent case for your substitute and indictment against what the Republicans are doing.

Let us talk about what is happening here today. A few weeks ago, right before Thanksgiving, there was a bill on the floor which was the Republican budget bill. So bad was this bill in terms of it not representing the values of our country that the religious community gathered in the rotunda of the Capitol of the United States, and they prayed that this Congress would make the right decisions and reject the Republican budget proposal.

They asked some questions about why we would be giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country while taking food out of the mouths of America's children. They said they were going to draw a moral line in the sand because a budget should be a statement of our national values, and what we care about in our country should be reflected in that budget.

Today, we are talking about a tax bill which is hand-in-glove part of the reconciliation that the Republicans are putting forth. So embarrassed were they by their own budget and so embarrassed were they by this tax bill that they had to have 3 weeks come between the two of them so that the American people would separate the cause and effect of what they were doing with their budget bill that was poor in its values, poor in its priorities and increasing our deficit because of this tax bill today.

Yesterday, they engaged in another sham, which was to pretend that they were giving alternative minimum tax relief for middle-class families in America. If they cared about middle-class families in America, they would have put that in this bill today which has the full protection as it goes over to the Senate. They know that that bill they passed yesterday has no weight in the Senate. It does not have the protection of the parliamentary process on the Senate side, and the same applies to what they did to try to give the illusion that they were helping our men and women in combat so that they would qualify for the low-income tax credit. If they cared about them, they would have them in the bill today.

This budget, as I said, should be a statement of our national values; and while we talk about that, let us talk about what those values are.

America has always cherished the value of opportunity, and one place where that is possible for more Americans is in the issue of education. Taking these two bills together, we are giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America while we are putting a burden on our young people by saying that they will pay $5,800 more in their student loans so that we can give tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year. That is not a statement of our national values. That takes from our children their opportunity when we should be expanding it.

Fairness. Fairness has always been a cherished American value. Fairness. We see that during the last 5 years, these 5 years of the Bush administration, 7 million more people in our country go to sleep hungry, without adequate food, because they cannot afford to buy food. Seven million more people, an increase of 12 percent, and what does this combination of reconciliation in order to give tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year, that cuts food stamps and takes many tens of thousand of children off the school lunch program do? As the religious community said, how can we as a country give tax cuts to the wealthiest and take food out of the mouths of our children? That is not about fairness. Fairness is an American value.

Community. America has always been about community. Alexis de Tocqueville said it about the origins of our country, and community means safe neighborhoods, the safety of our people, homeland security and the rest. We are not putting adequate resources to COPS on the Beat or anything else in order for us to give these tax cuts at the high end. That is not about community. That is totally unfair, and it is diminishing opportunity.

Let us take the value of responsibility, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, which should be the order of the day in this conversation here. The combination of their tax bill and their budget bill in reconciliation, which I do not blame them for separating by 3 weeks because it is a total embarrassment with that, they are increasing the deficit. They are increasing the deficit by $20 billion in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. They are putting the burden of debt on America's children, individual debt with their student loans and fiscal debt in terms of our national debt and what our kids will be burdened with.

It is just totally irresponsible and at the same time increases the deficit. Democrats support pay-as-you-go. No deficit spending. If something is important to you, figure out how to pay for it, but do not make my children and grandchildren have to pay for it or anybody's children and grandchildren have to pay for it.

Every opportunity I get I want to sing the praises of the Clinton administration. Coming out of that administration we were on a trajectory of 5.6 trillion with a TR, dollars in surplus. In the years of the Bush administration, that has been almost fully reversed, over $4 trillion in deficit, a swing of around $10 trillion, an incredible burden on the future, a tax on our children's future.

And this is the party of fiscal responsibility? Republicans have completely abdicated that. The Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. We showed we can do it then. We can do it again. We should not today be catering to this appetite for deficits that the Republicans cannot seem to get over. It is just absolutely immoral, immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children.

I want to commend my colleagues on the Democratic side for what they have done and put into their proposal. The House Democrats are committed to an America that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.

Our Democratic substitute reflects the values of community by shielding the middle-class Americans from the alternative minimum tax in a bill that really counts, not in some suspension of yesterday that has no weight in the conference with the Senate; and it provides tax relief, the Democratic alternative does, for our soldiers in combat in the bill. That really matters as well.

The Democratic substitute demonstrates fairness by not adding to the deficit; and it creates opportunities, spurring economic growth, generating jobs and supporting our small businesses.

Our Democratic members on the committee have eloquently made an indictment against this budget which is immoral because of the $70 billion in tax cuts, mostly for America's wealthiest. The Republican budget decimates the very initiatives that middle-class Americans rely upon to get ahead. The poor suffer, the rich benefit, the middle class is paying the bill.

The number of people without health insurance has increased 4 years in a row. People are hungry, a 12 percent increase. The number of people who do not have health insurance has grown. They are cutting $45 billion in Medicaid, a health insurance program that is mostly for America's poor children, many of them Katrina survivors.

Alexis de Tocqueville talked about community in America. He wrote back to the French: ``America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good,'' he concluded, ``America will cease to be great.''

This is a moment that no one in this body wants to hasten. We all want America to be great and America to be good. Together, we can do better by returning to our fundamental values to maintain America's goodness by rejecting this immoral tax bill.

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 thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for allowing me to speak out of turn. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to a great friend and great American, Peter E. Haas, Senior, for a lifetime of leadership. Peter Haas, who, with his brother Walter, led the renowned blue jean empire Levi Strauss, died at the age of 86 on December 3 in San Francisco. His extraordinary life will forever serve to enrich the lives of all of us living in the San Francisco Bay Area. Known for his integrity, honesty and modesty, Mr. Haas was distinguished in the business world for his unyielding commitment to corporate ethics and for championing blue collar workers.

Mr. Haas was born in San Francisco in 1918 to Elise Stern Haas and Walter A. Haas, Senior, the third generation of his family to lead the family business. Mr. Haas' great granduncle, Levi Strauss, created blue jeans as working pants for gold miners in the 1850s.

Mr. Haas graduated from UC Berkeley in 1940 with a bachelor's degree in economics and from Harvard Business School in 1943. In 1945, he joined his brother Walter at Levi Strauss, commencing a 60-year career. In 1953, Time magazine named the two brothers Leaders of Tomorrow. Peter Haas focused on the company's operations and finance, while his brother Walter focused on marketing and advertising. Peter Haas served as president of the company from 1970 to 1981 and chief executive officer from 1976 to 1981. In 1981, Financial World magazine named Mr. Haas Chief Executive Officer of the Year. Under their leadership, the Haas brothers' leadership, the company experienced massive growth and expansion. As the baby boomers hit their teenage years, they capitalized on the growing popularity of blue jeans.

With the first Levi Strauss manufacturing plants in southern States, Mr. Haas took a stand against segregation, refusing to allow separate working areas for black and white workers and demanding equal treatment for all employees. His ethics did not hinder the company's success. In 1945, Levi Strauss consisted of three small factories in the San Francisco Bay Area and $2 million in denim sales. By the time Mr. Haas left his position as board chairman in the late 1980s, sales had reached $3.1 billion in 50 countries.

Mr. Haas used his business sense and financial success for public service, working with numerous foundations and service organizations, including the San Francisco Foundation, the Jewish Community Federation, and the United Way. Through the Miriam and Peter Haas Fund, he contributed millions of dollars to the arts, public policy programs, and health and human services. The Haases gave millions to provide high-quality, early childhood development programs to low-income families.

Peter Haas served as a UC Berkeley Foundation trustee for 12 years and was the university's most avid donor and fund-raiser. He and Walter built the Haas School of Business in honor of their father, Walter Haas, Senior. In 1996, Peter Haas received the Berkeley Medal, the school's top honor, and was named Alumnus of the Year. Mr. Haas never missed a home football game or basketball game. He was preparing to attend a UC Berkeley game Saturday when he fell ill.

San Francisco is forever indebted to Peter for his immeasurable contributions. It is with great personal sadness that I offer my deepest sympathy to his wife, Mimi; his sons, Peter and Michael; his daughter, Margaret; his stepsons, Ari and Daniel Lurie; his four grandchildren, Jennifer Haas-Dehejia, Daniel, Bradley, and Nicholas; and one great-grandchild, Maya Cady Haas-Dehejia. I hope that it is a comfort to Peter's family that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Curtis McClain, a champion of the trade union movement and trailblazer for racial equality, who passed away November 6 after a long battle with cancer. Friends and colleagues will gather on December 3 to pay tribute to his lifetime of service to the working men and women of America.

Born of humble means in Akron, Ohio, World War II provided Curtis passage to a new life. After his discharge he relocated to San Francisco to find work. He found it in ILWU Warehouse Local 6 working at Schmidt Lithography. He said, ``I went into the paper seasoning department where work was sweaty, hot and dusty. Although it was the last place I wanted to work, I needed the job so I stayed for 14 years.''

Curtis became frustrated by post-war discrimination against African- Americans in the labor movement. Being passed over repeatedly for promotion due to race inspired Curtis to form a group of African- Americans in Local 6 called the Frontiersmen. Their encouragement and that of International and other local officers drew Curtis into leadership positions. In 1960, Curtis became in the first African- American to be elected Business Agent for Local 6.

By 1969, Curtis was an important labor leader in San Francisco and was elected Local President, followed 2 years later by a position on the International Executive Committee of the ILWU. In 1977, he broke another racial barrier when he was elected ILWU Secretary-Treasurer, the position he held until retirement in 1990.

Curtis served with ILWU International President Jimmy Herman. Together they fought for a democratic and diverse trade union and guided their membership through turbulent times.

Longtime Local 6 leader LeRoy King, who helped found the Trailblazers with Curtis, remembers: ``He was a natural leader. He helped lead the efforts to break the color line, not only in the ILWU, but in other unions and in the community. He was an outstanding negotiator and union officer. And he took care of business for the members.''

Curtis was a tireless advocate of working people. He helped form the alliance between the Teamsters and the ILWU that created the Northern California Warehouse Council, whose influence stretched to the Oregon border. Curtis was also instrumental in the civil rights movement, opening up employment opportunities to people of color in San Francisco's auto and burgeoning hotel and tourism industries.

Curtis McClain also led in movements for social justice, peace, and disarmament. Mayor Jack Shelly appointed him to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, and Mayor George Moscone appointed him to the San Francisco Fire Commission where he served for 12 years.

Curtis McClain reminded us what can be accomplished with determination and belief in the person working right beside you. His hard work for social justice and workers' rights broke barriers and deepened the ties of our wonderfully diverse community. Our thoughts are with his family and friends as they gather to remember him, and we thank them for sharing Curtis with us.

Mr. Speaker, as the very proud representative of the city of San Francisco in the Congress of the United States, from northern California where we have more veterans than any other part of the country per capita and we treat them with respect as the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not being treated as a distinguished veteran with respect here.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day for the House of Representatives. Just when you think you have seen it all, the Republicans have stooped to a new low, even for them. They have engaged in an act of deception that undermines any shred of dignity that might be left in this Republican Congress. But deception has been the order of the day throughout the entire Iraq engagement.

Mr. Hunter's resolution is a continuation of that deception. It is a political stunt, and it should be rejected by this House.

The Republican deception today is a disgrace. It is a disservice to our country and to our men and women in uniform. They and the American people deserve better. It is an insult to the integrity of Jack Murtha, one of the most distinguished Members to ever serve in this House of Representatives.

As has been said, Jack Murtha is a decorated war veteran: two Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star for his combat service, the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry, 37 years of active and reserve duty in the marines. His lifetime motto has been Semper Fi; and yet our Republican colleagues call him a coward and accuse him of cooperating with the enemy.

As a senior Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Committee, he is known and respected for his bipartisanship. That is why this Republican attack on him is so dishonest.

Mr. Murtha has dealt the mighty blow of truth to the President's failed Iraq policy. The American people have rallied to Jack Murtha's message of truth. But you cannot handle the truth. Why are the Republicans so afraid of the facts?

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Senator from Ohio, Robert Taft, who would become the Republican leader of the Senate said, ``Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any democratic government.'' Indeed, Mr. Murtha's courageous action to speak truth to power is a great act of patriotism.

As one who has always had the interests of America's men and women in uniform as his top priority, Mr. Murtha has acted as he always does: in their interests. Let us all join him in saluting our troops for their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifice that they are willing to make, and thank Jack Murtha for his loyalty to them.

Mr. Speaker, how much longer will it take for the Republican leadership to pass this terrible attack on America's children?

Mr. Speaker, how much longer will you hold this vote open?

Mr. Speaker, how many Members have not yet voted?

Mr. Speaker, is the vote being held open to change votes or are there Members who have not voted?

I hope we will not be waiting too much longer, Mr. Speaker.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. PELOSI (during the vote). Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, is it not a part of the rules of the House for Members who wish to change their votes for them to come to the well to change their votes and not keep the machines open to do that?

Mr. Speaker, is it not further part of the usual procedure of the House for the Chair to announce the changes as they come in?

Mr. Speaker, up until now I think we have had a very civil debate here this evening on a very important matter to the American people, a matter that consumes a great deal of the time of the Congress, the blueprint for what we do in the year, the budget.

Tonight, the Republicans are launching an attack on America's children and America's families; and they are also launching an attack on America's middle class, all of this to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in our country.

This budget is a sham, and it is a shame. Democrats believe that together America can do better.

I am so proud of my Democratic colleagues tonight because they have stood proudly for fiscal responsibility.

I am so proud of the Blue Dogs and how they led this debate tonight for pay-as-you-go, for no deficit spending, for fiscal soundness so that future generations will not have to bear the brunt of the fiscal irresponsibility that the Republicans are continuing to present to the Congress.

I am proud of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his tremendous leadership as our ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. He, indeed, has put forth an alternative budget, a Democratic budget, that would eliminate the deficit in 2012, was balanced in terms of its values, its priorities and in addition to its funding.

Mr. Rangel led the way from the Ways and Means Committee in terms of tax fairness in our country. Mr. Dingell spoke in and his members spoke so eloquently about what would happen to Medicaid in this Republican proposal, and Mr. Miller, of course, was relentless in his advocacy for America's students.

I have heard my Republican colleagues talk about those who disagree with their budget priorities as hypocrites and demagogues. Well, let me introduce some others to this debate who might fall into that category by our Republican colleagues' characterization.

Let me start with the National Council of Churches USA. They have written to every Member of Congress and very carefully dissected this budget, and this is what they say: ``The role of government is to protect the people and work for the common good. This is not the time for the budget reconciliation process to create greater hardships for those who are already experiencing great suffering. To do so is not only unjust; it is a sin. It violates all the fundamental Christian principles of loving thy neighbor, caring for the poor, and showing mercy. As religious leaders, this is a violation that is unacceptable to us.

``How is it that we show mercy for oil millionaires and not hurricane survivors? We urge you to change this destructive course of action for the sake of our Nation and for generations to come.''

I submit this for the Record. But first I want to read a list of those who signed the letter so that they perhaps will be labeled by our colleagues on the Republican side as hypocrites and demagogues.

The National Council of Churches USA, the Alliance of Baptists; the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America; the Evangelical Lutheran Church

in America; Friends United; Philadelphia Religious Society of Friends; Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America; International Council of Community Churches; Moravian Church in America; National Baptist Convention USA; National Missionary Baptist Convention of America; Polish National Catholic Church of America; Presbyterian Church USA; Progressive National Baptist Convention; Swedenborgian Church; United Church of Christ; General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church.

I am very proud, also, that we have a letter from Catholic Charities. And Catholic Charities says that it is our ``tradition that teaches us that society, acting through government, has a special obligation to consider first the needs of the poor. Yet the proposed budget cuts put a disproportionate burden on the poor, those that can least afford it.''

``We urge you to oppose these proposed cuts.''

And that letter I wish to submit for the Record because it carefully goes into every detail of this budget and urges opposition. And, in fact, leaders of the faith community, indeed, came to the Capitol Rotunda to pray that Congress would make the right decision. On November 3, they said that the House Republicans seem to be saying that they literally want to take food out of the mouths of children to make rich people richer. They said budgets are moral documents and they reflect our national priorities and values. In the name of social conscience, fiscal responsibility, equality of opportunity, protecting our communities, and the very idea of the common good, they said that the faith community is drawing a moral line in the sand against these provisions in this budget.

Democrats will join the faith community in drawing a moral line in the sand, because we know that together America can do better.

My Democratic colleagues have eloquently made an indictment against this budget, which is immoral because, with more than $70 billion tax cuts which mainly benefit the wealthiest people in America, this Republican budget decimates the very programs that millions of middle class Americans rely upon to get ahead. As the number of people without health insurance has increased for 4 years in a row under the Bush administration, Republicans are charging ahead with billions of dollars in cuts in Medicaid, the health insurance program that provides medical care to America's poorest children, many of them Katrina survivors. Republicans give new meaning to the words ``suffer little children.''

The number of people in America go to sleep hungry because they cannot afford to buy food has risen by 7 million people in the 5 years of the Bush administration. Seven million more people go to sleep hungry because they cannot afford to buy food. That is a 12 percent increase. Republicans are slashing food assistance for America's poor children; slashing funds for preventative services and foster care for abused and neglected children when more help, not less, is needed; drastically reducing funding for child support enforcement programs, which could result in billions in reduced child support from delinquent dads for their children.

And how about this one: For our troops serving in combat zones in Iraq, they are prevented from fully accessing the low-income tax credit. How is that for honoring our men and women in uniform?

The Republicans, as the people of faith said in their document, are literally taking food out of the mouths of children to give tax cuts to America's wealthy. This is not a statement of American values. In their years in the majority, Republicans have turned budget surpluses into seas of red ink. These budget deficits are the result of misplaced Republican priorities, a refusal to join Democrats in putting forth fiscally responsible budgets, Pay-As-You-Go, no deficit spending, and shared sacrifice in spending cuts. Democrats believe that together America can do better.

And we did. I want to join my distinguished colleague from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip, in singing the praises of the Democrats. In August of 1993, Democrats passed an economic package that led to historic growth in our economy, and we did so without one Republican vote. As Mr. Hoyer said, in the Clinton administration, we had zero deficits. In fact, we had surplus for the last several years of the Clinton administration. We were on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And then the Bush administration began and that all reversed. They have taken us on a trajectory of over $4 trillion, a swing of about $10 trillion, the largest swing from surplus to deficit in our history by far, and a disgraceful one at that. The surpluses were based on Pay-As-You-Go, no deficit spending, and they were implemented with not one Republican vote for fiscal soundness.

The Republican Congress wants to give tax cuts to the rich, to subsidize oil companies which are enjoying obscene profits while American consumers are paying an increased price at the pump and an increased price for their home heating gas and oil. As the religious community said, why are we giving relief to the oil companies and not the people? They are increasing taxes on the middle class. Nineteen million middle-income Americans will have their taxes increased under this bill.

This is not a values-based budget. It is not worthy of our support. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution that will increase our swollen budget deficits by another $20 billion, hurt our most vulnerable citizens and the middle class. Again, together, America can do better with a budget that would help Katrina and Rita survivors, veterans, students, working families struggling to fill their gas tanks, heat their homes, and afford medical care.

Democrats are proud to join the faith community in rejecting this immoral budget. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and I thank her for her leadership on this very important matter. I want to join Congresswoman Millender-McDonald in applauding the Speaker for making this accommodation so the legislation could move quickly and be enacted into law and that the statue hopefully soon will be standing in Statuary Hall and so that this law can be passed in time for the 50th anniversary of Rosa Parks' courageous action which occurs in December.

I want to join Congresswoman Millender-McDonald in commending the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) as well and our distinguished colleague, Mr. Jesse Jackson, Jr., who was the author of this legislation. By the time we all got to Rosa Parks funeral, we already had over 100 cosponsors of the bill and this action tonight will deliver on the promise that many of us made at that funeral. I considered it a great privilege to speak there. On behalf of the Democrats and the Republicans in the Congress, I said that we would soon have a promised statue in the Capitol. Congressman John Conyers of Detroit has been a godfather to all of this effort and he deserves a great deal of recognition and credit for this.

I said at the time that Rosa Parks loved young people. That was her focus. While we were all praising her for her past actions, she was always concerned about the impact on the future for America's children. She was the mother of the modern civil rights movement. She was the mother of modern society because she made such a change in America with her courage. She came to the Capitol to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. It was a proud day for all of us. She brought luster to that award by accepting it. She came here, as was mentioned, to lie in state, the first woman to lie in state in the Rotunda of the Capitol and she will return to the Capitol in a statue to be an ongoing inspiration.

We in Congress think we have a special relationship with Rosa Parks. She will live here with us as a constant inspiration of her courage and inspiration to future generations. When they visit the Capitol they will be sure to see, observe and be inspired by the life, the courage and the incredible contribution of Rosa Parks. I commend all of my colleagues, Congresswoman Millender-McDonald, Congressman Conyers, and Congressman Jackson for their role in making this possible. It is an honor to be part of this effort. I look forward to the day when all of us can converge on this Capitol for the unveiling of this magnificent statue.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join my colleagues in paying tribute to our former colleague and friend, Congressman Ed Roybal.

Many people who are in Congress now did not have the privilege of serving with him. They serve with his very distinguished daughter, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, but the legacy lives on. I wish everyone in this Congress could have seen the outpouring of love and support and devotion to Ed Roybal at his magnificent funeral at the Catholic Cathedral in Los Angeles. We know how respected Ed Roybal is in this body. It was wonderful to see the love of the people he was closest to in California. Many of us went there, and we told his many friends and his family and those close to him of the respect in which he was held here.

Mr. Speaker, I knew Ed Roybal very well for many years. I was a big fan of his when he was doing work with the farm workers organizing in California. He was a legend in our State. And then he continued his leadership for our country in the Congress of the United States.

When I was first named to the Appropriations Committee, Ed Roybal was my chairman. We were in the majority at the time. He was my chairman on the Treasury Postal Subcommittee. So, on a daily basis, I saw firsthand his command of the policy, of the issues, the power of his advocacy and his determination to help all Americans.

Ed Roybal had no time for government of the few. He was about the many. When others in Washington turned their backs on seniors, the disadvantaged, and the poor, Ed Roybal was there. He was the first Member of Congress to appropriate funds for HIV/AIDS, and that sounds very remarkable and commendable now. It was very courageous at the time. He then was a leader. He fought the good fight with courage. He had a special grace about him and a dignity and a twinkle in his eye.

In recognition of his leadership on public health, the Campus of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta was named in his honor. Ed Roybal probably has more buildings in California named for him than any other politician ever in California. But at the CDC,

at the Centers for Disease Control, they named an entire campus for him, if that gives Members any idea of the respect and the gratitude that they felt for Ed Roybal.

Fiercely proud of his Hispanic roots and deeply patriotic, the two went hand in hand. Ed Roybal loved America. He helped found the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Caucus's Institute and embarked on a mission to provide scholarships to needy Latino children and expand opportunities for all Americans.

Through his work as founder emeritus of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, he contributed to the advancement of Latino political power first in Southern California and then in the Nation. Hundreds of Latino elected officials have since followed in his footsteps, all knowing that they stand on his shoulders. By his courage and his determination to open the doors to minorities, Latinos have become much more active in politics and all facets of American society. Indeed, in our State of California, we are now a minority majority State, so we see regularly and firsthand the magnificent contribution of the Latino community to our great country, and Ed Roybal was very much a part of facilitating all of that.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, Eddie Roybal loved his country and he loved his family, speaking with pride of them every day that he served here. Tonight we bring the deepest sympathy of this Congress in which he led and served and indeed the sympathy of our entire country to the family he loved, he adored. I hope it is a comfort to Ms. Roybal-Allard's beautiful mother, Lucille, her name is Lucille as well, and his three children, our colleague Lucille, her sister Lillian and Ed, Jr., that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

With the life and leadership of Ed Roybal, God truly blessed America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the many years of service of House parliamentarian, Muftiah McCartin, who completes her excellent work in this body later this week.

Ms. McCartin joined the Parliamentarian's office in 1976, and has served during the tenure of six Speakers of the House, and six Presidents.

In 1991, she became the first woman to be appointed a Parliamentarian. As someone who understands the importance of breaking glass ceilings, I am particularly honored to acknowledge her outstanding work.

Muftiah has always had a wonderful smile and a warm demeanor on the House floor. As we know, it can get pretty heated in debate and very partisan.

But Muftiah has always been a calm and rationale presence to Members of both sides of the aisle and their staff who seek parliamentary advice. She has brought a keen mind, and a clear understanding of House rules that has served this institution very well.

In addition to the long, grueling hours that she has spent on the House floor, Muftiah McCartin has managed to raise four wonderful children: Marissa, Elaine, Sandra, and Luke. I'm sure she will welcome spending the extra time with her family and her husband, Terry.

Muftiah, today we thank you for your service to this great institution and wish you the very best. You have been a tremendous asset to the work that we do every day. And we will miss you.

Thank you again for your many years of commitment toward making this House of Representatives a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership on this bill which is so important to the City of San Francisco but, more importantly, to our country because it is part of our country's history.

I want to extend my gratitude as well to my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle who have made this a very bipartisan effort. As was indicated by the gentlewoman from New York, we have 291 co-sponsors. That is why we were able to come to the floor. I thank Members so much for their help.

I am proud to rise in support of the San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act, my bill to authorize the issuance of commemorative coins in 2006 honoring San Francisco's Old Mint. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that was the year of the great earthquake in California, so the history is very meaningful to our area. H.R. 1953 will help ensure that this building exists for many generations to come.

Congress established the San Francisco Old Mint, as others have referenced, in 1852. This was immediately following the Gold Rush in 1849, and it

was affectionately known as the Granite Lady.

The Mint is the oldest stone structure in San Francisco. Its architect, A.B. Mullet, also designed the United States Treasury Building, and we all know how beautiful that is, and the Old Executive Office Building here in Washington, D.C.

In 1906, disaster struck the City of San Francisco in the great earthquake of that year; and next year will be the 100th anniversary of the earthquake that leveled much of San Francisco. With infrastructure destroyed and lines of communication severed, the city was unable to respond when a subsequent fire spread to anything that would burn. The blaze raged for more than 3 days and destroyed more than 28,000 buildings. More than 3,000 people died and more than 225,000 lost their homes. This was a huge number considering the population of San Francisco at the time.

Yet, as much of the city crumbled in one of the worst natural disasters in our Nation's history, the Granite Lady stood strong. Mullet's architecture let the Mint float on its foundation, allowing it to survive the earthquake and the fire. Treasury Department employees worked with the United States Army with only one hose connected to two wells on the property to save this building and the $200 million in gold that was stored in its vaults. It was the only functional financial institution after the quake in San Francisco and was used as a relief fund treasury. The coin's 2006 issuance, 100 years later, will honor the Mint and its role in San Francisco's recovery.

The Old Mint operated until 1937. It played a pivotal role in the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad and the economic development of the western United States. At one time, the Granite Lady produced more than half of the United States coinage; and by 1934 it held a third of the Nation's gold supply. The Mint produced many rare coins, some worth more than $1 million, Mr. Speaker. Coins minted in San Francisco bear the S mint mark, which is very significant.

In 1961, the Mint was designated a National Historic Landmark but slowly fell into disrepair, to be closed in 1994 due to structural concerns. Since that time, I have worked with our two senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer, to give the recognition to the Old Mint, the Granite Lady, that she deserved.

The National Trust For Historic Preservation lists the Mint as one of the most endangered American structures. Today, with this bill, we can help declare the Old Mint endangered no longer.

The American Numismatic Association has partnered with the City of San Francisco and the City of San Francisco Museum and Historical Society to establish a special coin museum. When completed, the Mint will be one of the Nation's largest museums devoted to telling the story of our country's coinage from colonial times up to the present. Along with our rich history comes a responsibility to preserve and protect it for future generations.

I am very, very proud of the history that the Old Mint, the Old Granite Lady, represents. It is about the founding of our city in San Francisco in Gold Rush times. The Mint almost corresponds to that date, and it has been part of our history and that of our country ever since. I urge my colleagues to join us in commemorating the 100th anniversary of the 1906 earthquake and fire and to honor the landmark of national significance with a vote for H.R. 1953.

Again, I thank our colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, for their cooperation on this bill which is very important to our country's history.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.

I am pleased to join the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in saluting our troops. Wherever they are serving, at home or abroad, we owe them a deep debt of gratitude for their courage, for their patriotism, for the sacrifices they are willing to make for our country. We are very, very proud of them, and when they come home, we want to honor their service by giving them what they need as veterans, and those needs will be large.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). We must provide those we send in to fight in Iraq with everything they need to serve, to keep them safe and so that they can return as safe as possible.

It is tragic that more than 2\1/2\ years after the invasion of Iraq, that long a time, we are still encountering such appalling needs in the area of force protection. History will not treat kindly those who embarked on a war of choice without making sure that our troops were properly equipped. Not enough body armor, not enough jammers for protection against explosive devices, not enough armored vehicles, not enough overhead cover systems, the list goes on and on.

Once again, Congress must deal with the consequences of the Bush administration's bad planning. We have had to do it before in the appropriations bills, and we are doing it here today with the gentleman from Wisconsin's motion to instruct.

Congress has a responsibility to find out why so many things about Iraq have gone so terribly wrong. This Republican cover-up Congress has never lived up to the oversight responsibility to ask the questions.

One of the essential elements of the force protection, for example, is good intelligence. Our Nation spends billions of dollars each year on intelligence programs and activities, and when they do not produce timely and reliable intelligence, we make the American people less safe, and Congress has a duty to find out why.

The intelligence used as the justification for the administration's decision to go into war in Iraq was wrong. That Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, that was wrong. I said at the time that the intelligence did not support the threat that the administration was describing, but, nonetheless, the intelligence that they were using was wrong.

Given the enormous consequences of that decision, more than 2,000 American soldiers have been killed; more than 15,000 wounded, many of them permanently; more than a quarter of a trillion dollars spent; and enormous damage done to the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the world. The cost of lives and limbs and taxpayer dollars and reputation is enormous.

Congress has an obligation to identify and correct the problems that led to the production of false intelligence. Our troops are at risk until that is done; and yet, as we address other force protection issues, there is no sense of urgency to undertake a thorough review of what went wrong with the intelligence. Neither the issue of the quality of the intelligence nor the equally important issue of whether intelligence was politicized have been investigated by this Congress.

That is why shortly I will offer the House a chance to do more for force protection than provide the $50 million in this motion to instruct, as important as that money is.

Democrats have continually asked for investigation of pre-war intelligence, and those requests have been repeatedly denied. The same is true for requests to investigate the other matters related to the war in Iraq: The prison abuse scandals, the no-bid Halliburton reconstruction contracts, the misuse of classified information to discredit administration critics.

Each of these matters has national security implications that need to be examined, particularly on the issue of going to war and the conduct of war. Congress has an obligation to make sure that decisions were made properly and that these decisions are based on truth and trust.

Until the Congress examines fully issues like whether intelligence was politicized, we have failed in a fundamental way to protect our troops and maintain a level of trust with the American people.

I urge the House to support both the Obey motion to instruct and my subsequent resolution on Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, because the Republican-led Congress has not conducted any investigations of abuses by the Republican administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, and because the over 2,000 American soldiers have lost their lives and more than 15,000 have been wounded, therefore, pursuant to rule IX, I rise in regard to a question of privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution.

Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not hear an objection to my motion.

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate some of what I said in the motion to instruct.

For the past 2\1/2\ years since our country has gone to war, we have paid a big price for a bad policy based on faulty intelligence which was wrong, based on a false premise without proper planning and putting our young people at risk. In that period of time, that 2\1/2\ years, over 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Every single one of them is precious to us, but, as the toll mounts, the grief does as well. Over 15,000 of our young people have lost their limbs, 15,000 have been injured, many of them permanently, many with loss of limb and sight, at a cost of over $250 billion, a quarter of a trillion dollars, to the taxpayer and just endless cost to our reputation in the world.

I think it begs the question, are we safer in America because of this war? What is this war doing to the preparedness of our troops? I think that the answer to both of those is negative, and I think it calls for an examination of what the intelligence was to get us there in the first place. Was it manipulated? Why was there no plan for us to go into Iraq, a post-war plan for after the fall of Iraq, as well as an exit strategy?

The American people love freedom for ourselves and for people throughout the world, but we have to examine what the cost of this war is and why even the Republican Department of Defense has said----

Mr. Speaker, I thought there was no objection and that we were just speaking on the resolution. Is that a mistake? My impression from what you said when you yielded to me was that there was no objection, and did I wish to speak on the motion.

Mr. Speaker, then I will just conclude by saying, can the Chair please explain why it is not in order to discuss on the floor of this House, of this great democratic institution, a situation where our young people are in harm's way, the death toll mounts, the injuries mount, the cost to the taxpayer mounts, the cost to our reputation mounts, and we have a cover-up Congress that will not investigate, will not ask any questions about the intelligence which was wrong, which got us into war in the first place and the lack of a plan providing for our troops, what they need to serve and to come home safely and soon? Why is that not in order on the floor of the House?

Mr. Speaker, is it not appropriate for a Member to speak on a point of order? Is it not appropriate for the gentleman from Wisconsin to be able to speak on a point of order that was lodged by the other side?

Mr. Speaker, I think it brings shame to the House for this Congress to be engaged in a cover-up when it comes to reviewing what is happening in Iraq, and I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the legacy of John H. Adams, co-founder and president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In 1970, with a small group of lawyers, he created the non-profit NRDC to protect the planet's wildlife and wild places, and ensure a safe and healthy environment for all living things. As NRDC celebrates its 35th anniversary, Mr. Adams prepares to step down as its president and continue as a senior advisor, pursuing special projects on those issues about which he cares most passionately.

Mr. Adams brought together lawyers, scientists, and policy experts to help build, enforce and reinforce the solid foundation of federal statutes that have provided a legal basis for protecting the environment. Mr. Adams' tenure with the organization encompasses the creation of pioneering laws like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, as well as more recent battles over global warming and energy security.

Nationally and internationally, NRDC became a leader in the fight against acid rain, water pollution, and urban smog. The organization has fostered stronger protections for our oceans, coasts, natural landscapes, forests, and wildlife. Under Mr. Adams' guidance, the New York-based NRDC has become one of the world's most effective advocacy organizations, with more than 1 million members and activists and a staff of nearly 300.

Along with his efforts as president of NRDC for 35 years, Mr. Adams taught for 26 years as an adjunct faculty member at New York University Law School, where he created the NYC/NRDC Environmental Law Clinic. He is chairman of the board of the Open Space Institute, created for the protection of land in New York State. He also serves on boards of the Woods Hole Research center, League of Conservation Voters, Centers for American Progress, American Conservation Association, and the Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.

In addition to his great professional success and public service, Mr. Adams is fortunate to share his life with his wife Patricia, to whom he has been married 40 years. Together, they have three grown children.

I commend John H. Adams for his 35 years of protecting the environment, safeguarding our natural resources and protecting our public health. He has created an environmental legacy that will serve to benefit the citizens of the United States for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to allow the American people to pay their last respects to Rosa Parks in the United States Capitol. This unique honor befits and does justice to the life led by Rosa Parks.

In honoring her legacy in this way, we are reminded that the power of one person, acting with a singularity of purpose, driven by the ideals of justice, is infinite. And as we grieve the loss of Rosa Parks, we recommit ourselves to her lifelong struggle to create an America that reflects the hopes and aspirations of all of its citizens.

The Capitol Rotunda has been used for this honor only 28 times since 1852, and Rosa Parks will be the first woman ever accorded this honor. She joins the esteemed company of Presidents Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson, General Douglas MacArthur and the remains of several unknown soldiers. It is, without question, a fitting mark of respect.

Rosa Parks changed history through the quiet rebellion of refusing to be refused. In honor of this remarkable woman and her indomitable spirit, we must recommit to rooting out injustice wherever it takes harbor, even if doing so comes at great personal cost.

As House Democratic Leader, it is a privilege to join all my colleagues in tribute to Rosa Parks, and to offer the American people an opportunity to pay their respects to her extraordinary life.