Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill. I say reluctant, because I along with many of my colleagues in the House have a proud tradition of supporting it.

I salute the distinguished chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee. The gentleman from Ohio follows a tradition of excellence on both sides of the aisle in the leadership of this committee. Before him, our committee was led by John Porter of Illinois who acted in a very bipartisan way addressing the needs of America's families. Before that, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) chaired the committee. Before that, Mr. Natcher who chaired it for a long time. Mr. Natcher again acted in a very bipartisan way. He used to say of this bill, this is the people's bill. He knew full well that this is the one piece of legislation that addressed the aspirations of the American people, that tried to allay the concerns that kept them up at night, the economic security of their families, meaning the security of their jobs, the security of their pensions, the health and well-being of their families as well, and, of course, the education of their children, our investment in America's future.

So it is very sad to see the place that we are today. And why are we here? We are here because a very, very skimpy, in terms of investments in America's future. And generous in terms of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, budget placed us in a place where the allocation for this subcommittee was one that made decisions very difficult. We say of this bill that it is ``lamb eat lamb.'' There is no way you can go into the bill and say, well, if we want to spend more money on education, we will just take it out of what? Children's health? Pension security? There is no good place to take money from in order to try to improve the situation or mitigate for the damage that has been caused by the cuts. Imagine, as our population growing and with inflation, this bill is about $6 billion effectively in cuts over last year; and, without even those considerations, $1.6 billion over fiscal year 2005.

Economists will tell you, and we all know just because we can observe it

ourselves, that one of the best investments we can make for America's future, for America's competitiveness and for the self-fulfillment of the American people and our children is our investment in education. In fact, economists will tell you that nothing brings more money back to the Treasury or grows the economy more than the education of the American people, early childhood education, K-12, higher education, postgraduate and lifetime learning for our workers. All of that is considered in this bill. All of that is shortchanged in this bill.

For one example, No Child Left Behind legislation. By the President's own legislation, not my figure, President Bush's figure, this bill for the fourth year straight cuts No Child Left Behind in terms of the authorization. We are now $40 billion in shortchanging No Child Left Behind, leaving millions of children behind. How can that be right? And children in title I, children who need special help in terms of reading, many of these children, 3 million of these children will not get help with reading and math that they were promised because this bill gives it $9.9 billion less than it deserves.

Remember, these are investments. How are they paid for? They pay for themselves because they return to the Treasury more than any tax cut and any kind of tax credit, any other instrument you can name. Educating the American people is a very wise investment.

The list goes on about the problems with the underfunding in terms of education. But the point to be made is in these cases, we have given the States a mandate to do a particular job, to reform education, and we have fallen $40 billion short in the money to match the mandates. No wonder people are squawking about No Child Left Behind. The money was not there to match the mandate.

And then on the issue of health care, there are so many examples of where this bill falls short. I will just focus on one, the National Institutes of Health. Many of us were part of the challenge to double the National Institutes of Health funding through the nineties. It seemed like a big task. We were determined to get it done. We realigned our priorities so that it would happen. We had a cooperative President in the White House, and it has happened.

But now in this bill, it will receive the lowest increase, .05 percent; but that represents a cut when we take into consideration inflation, and what it translates to is over 500 grants, since 2 years ago, 500 fewer grants will be able to be made.

People look to the National Institutes of Health with almost a reverential approach. They have the power to cure. Research is the answer for so many families in America. Every one of us, every family, is just one telephone call away from receiving a diagnosis or learning of an accident, which necessitates research at the National Institutes of Health.

And yet we are shortchanging the National Institutes of Health, which also has a pragmatic, practical aspect to it because, in order to be preeminent and excellent in science, we must be number one; and we cannot be number one if we must compete with a shortchanged budget for the National Institutes of Health. The list goes on, these disparities, whether we are talking about the cut in the bill that trims 84 percent, or $252 million taken from the health professions training.

This is one place where we can address health disparities in our country because by doing this, we will reduce the number of minority students who can enter the health professions. We will reduce the number of students, medical students, who will become primary care physicians. We will reduce the number of physicians who will be able to attend to the health needs of rural America, which is a very important aspect of the life of our country.

The bill cuts funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, we all know, by $100 million. It underfunds Head Start; freezes child care moneys; fails to raise the Pell grant by $100, as promised; freezes funding for most Ryan White programs to combat AIDS; and slashes the Community Services block grant in half. The list goes on and on. That is opposed to what this committee used to do and what this bill used to do.

In the late 1980s and the 1990s, especially in the 1990s, this subcommittee rose to the challenge of HIV/AIDS as it was making its assault on our country, with increasing the research, care, and prevention program initiatives in the bill. It has risen to the occasion by increasing funding drastically for breast cancer research and prostate cancer research and the rest. And now what are we doing but effectively giving a cut to the National Institutes of Health.

No bill better illustrates, I think, how America is great, because America is good, than this bill, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, because we met the needs of the American people. We did before, but not today. No bill illustrates how out of touch our budget priorities are, how completely out of touch the Republicans are in terms of meeting the needs of the American people. The bill should be about crucial investments in the future of America. They are grossly underfunded.

Mr. Chairman, this bill does not meet the needs of America's children. It does not meet the needs of America's workers. It does not meet the needs of America's seniors. It does not deserve our support.

Madam Speaker, the preamble to the Constitution tells us that one of the first responsibilities of the Federal government is to ``provide for the common defense.''

My 10 years on the House Intelligence Committee have given me an appreciation for the vital role the men and women in our intelligence agencies play in doing just that.

Many of them take extraordinary risks on a daily basis in an effort to gather the information policy makers and military commanders need to make sound decisions. They are deeply dedicated to preserving our country's security, and each of us is grateful for their hard work and sacrifice.

They need an intelligence system that is as strong, smart, and competent as they are, and this bill takes several strong steps towards making sure we have that system.

I want to commend Chairman Hoekstra and Ranking Member Harman for their leadership and hard work in making sure that this legislation addresses not only the immediate needs of the intelligence community, but helps plan for the future as well.

However, it would be a mistake for us to pass this bill and declare that our work is done and that we have fulfilled our responsibility to the intelligence community and the American people.

It has now been more than 1,700 days since the September 11th terrorist attacks changed our Nation, and laid bare the holes in our intelligence gathering system.

It has been 11 months since the independent 9/11 Commission issued its findings and made its recommendations about how to close those gaps.

It has been nearly a year since the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that our intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities was fundamentally flawed--a conclusion that was recently confirmed by the Presidential Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In part, this bill provides the resources the intelligence community needs to prepare for the future by learning from mistakes made in the past. However, these recent reports--notably those of the 9/11 Commission and the Robb-Silberman Commission--point to the need to do far more than simply fund the intelligence community.

These two commissions made many recommendations for significant change in the way the intelligence agencies operate and are overseen by Congress, the way the intelligence community is managed, and in other matters associated with better protecting the American people from the threats posed by terrorists, particularly terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction.

It was an intelligence authorization bill that established the 9/11 Commission, and it is therefore appropriate that in the context of the debate on this authorization measure, and with the first anniversary of the release of the Commission's report and recommendations fast approaching, we reflect on the recommendations that have been implemented, and on those that have not.

The Commission concluded that more centralized management of the intelligence community was needed, and that the manager had to have considerable power over people and money. The first Director of National Intelligence, Ambassador Negroponte is now in office. He faces a daunting task. We all hope he is successful in it.

That is why it was so surprising and regrettable that the Intelligence Committee, over the objections of Congresswoman Harman and the other Democratic Members, chose to welcome him with an effort to restrict his power. What a terribly negative message that provision sent about the commitment of the majority to intelligence reform. This bill is much improved with that provision removed, as the rule has done.

The impetus for this ill-advised action reportedly came from officials in the Department of Defense. We created the position of DNI to help address the interagency squabbling that leads to intelligence failures. This is simply no place for power grabs or bureaucratic self- protection and preservation on the part of the Pentagon.

Just as it was an intelligence authorization bill that created the 9/ 11 commission, I had hoped that this intelligence authorization would include Mr. Waxman's proposal to create a commission to investigate the prisoner abuses in Afghanistan, at Abu Ghraib, and at Guantanamo.

That will not occur as a result of actions taken by the Republican majority on the Rules Committee. For our international standing, our sense of fairness and decency, and to establish more effective means of intelligence gathering, these abuses must be examined.

As former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, attorney Floyd Abrams, and our former colleague Bob Barr wrote in The Washington Post on June 7: ``This is a time when we should be making extra efforts to reach out to Muslims and to ask them to work with us in the war against terrorism. Instead, our failure to undertake a thorough and credible investigation has caused severe resentment of the United States.''

Some of those who opposed most strongly an independent investigation of the 9/11 attacks also oppose an independent investigation of the prisoner abuse scandal. That is unacceptable.

But just as the American people would not accept the initial refusal to establish a 9/11 Commission, so too will demands continue for an independent commission to investigate the prisoner abuses in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere.

Our country's standing in the eyes of the world depends on getting to the bottom of the prisoner abuse matter--a fact that will ultimately force the majority of this House to stop placing obstacles in the path of a full and independent inquiry.

Unfortunately this is not the only initiative this Congress has failed to act on. Despite the unanimity with which they were adopted and the near universal acclaim they have produced, some critical recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission have gone unfulfilled. For example, Chairman Kean pointed earlier this month to the failure to allocate more of the broadcast spectrum to first responder communications as ``almost a scandal.'' Congresswoman Harman has been a leader in trying to resolve this problem and I congratulate her for her efforts.

Chairman Kean also emphasized what has long been known to Members of the Intelligence Committee: the greatest danger facing the United States is a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction, and the best way to address that is to safeguard or destroy WMD components, especially nuclear material, at its source.

Intelligence plays a huge role in efforts to combat proliferation of nuclear material and technology, but money is needed to better protect or acquire these materials in the countries where they were developed. We are simply not providing enough resources to this effort.

Finally, the 9/11 Commissioners have been clear in their assessment that, unless Congress overhauls the procedures by which it oversees the work of the intelligence agencies, intelligence reform will not be successful.

The House has not undertaken the kind of comprehensive review of the oversight process that the Commission believes to be necessary. I have let the Speaker know, repeatedly, that Democrats are prepared to work cooperatively on this review. It is imperative that we begin this task soon--we have already waited far too long.

This bill enjoys broad bipartisan support from members of the Committee, and I intend to support it. In doing so, however, I urge that the House dedicate itself to finishing the job begun last fall with the adoption of the 9/11 intelligence reform bill and address completely all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that a point of order was raised, but I do want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his outstanding leadership to protect our country. He is a champion for national security, a champion for our troops. I respect him enormously. I wish he had not raised this point of order.

I want to commend the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who is in the Chamber right now, for his distinguished leadership on behalf of America's troops and on behalf of our national security. They have worked in a bipartisan manner with our distinguished ranking member, former chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). By working together with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in the last session of Congress and on an ongoing basis with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), they have really tried very hard to provide our troops with what they need to do their job and to come home safely and soon.

I also want to recognize the outstanding leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee, former chair of the committee. I think these four gentleman have worked very closely together, removed the doubt in anyone's minds that we understand our obligation under the Constitution to provide for the common defense and they help us honor that commitment. I thank them all.

The legislation that we are considering today contains in it another $45 billion for the war in Iraq that has already consumed nearly $200 billion, ended the lives of over 1,700 of our troops, and thousands more Iraqis, and changed forever the lives of tens of thousands more who have been wounded in that war.

They were sent into the war without the intelligence about where they were going, what they were going to confront, without adequate equipment to protect them and without a plan for what would happen after the fall of Baghdad.

As I referenced earlier, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have fought hard, especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) last year in the defense Committee on Appropriations to correct the inadequacy of the equipment they had.

Many of us have visited with soldiers in Iraq. Some of them are on their second tour of duty. I conveyed to these brave soldiers, as I have to soldiers in hospitals here and abroad, how grateful the American people are to them for their valor, for their patriotism, for the sacrifices they are willing to make for our country. They have performed their duties with great courage and skill, and we are deeply in their debt.

Disagreement with the policies that sent our troops to Iraq and which keep them in danger today in no way diminishes the respect and admiration that we have for our troops. Sadly, the level of their sacrifice has not been met by a level of language by the administration, and now the American people agree that this war is not making us safer.

Republican Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, who in time became the Republican leader in the United States Senate, had this to say about our duty in time of war as Members of Congress. He said, ``Criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of a governing democracy.''

He was a Republican. This was World War II. He was a Republican in the Senate. He said that, and he was right.

It is in that spirit that I disagree with those Republicans who continue the course of action that we are on now. When we went into this war, it was a war of choice. President Bush sent us into a war of choice, a preemptive war. When you have a war, you have to go in with the preparation that you have. But when it is a war of choice, you have an increased responsibility to be prepared and to have a plan for what happens after the fall of, in this case Baghdad, but we have not.

Vice President Cheney at the time said that our troops would be met with rose petals. Instead, they were met with rocket-propelled grenades.

Under Secretary Wolfowitz said that this is a country that can easily afford its own reconstruction and soon, and the U.S. taxpayer is still paying the tab.

This is a war that each passing day confirms what I have said before and I will say again, that this war in Iraq is a grotesque mistake. It is not making America safer and the American people know it.

Early on, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) said what a Democratic, what a bipartisan proposal should be as far as going into Iraq, that with the fall of Baghdad, we should move quickly to Iraqtize, to turn the security of Iraq over to the Iraqis. We should internationalize, that we should form the diplomatic alliances in the region for the Iraqi government so that our troops could accomplish their goals militarily with the help of diplomacy. It simply cannot be done alone.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), in leading our House Democrats on this issue, said that we should energize, we must turn on the light, we must have reconstruction in Iraq, and because of some of the poor planning or lack of planning, the reconstruction has taken much longer, is much more costly, and again, the security is making it almost impossible.

You cannot go forward with the social services and the rest unless you have a secure Iraq. You cannot have it be secure and bring our troops home unless you turn over that security responsibility to the Iraqis.

So we go to a place where we should expect the least Congress should do is to insist that the President provide the details on how it will be determined when the responsibility for Iraq's security can be turned over to the Iraqis and how Iraq's economic and political stability will be assessed. That is what my amendment would have done, would do, if it were made in order.

The failure by the President and his administration to plan adequately for the conduct of war to date has made it all the more imperative that Congress ensure the planning be done competently for bringing our troops home. If our troops are to leave when the mission has succeeded, we need to know how success will be defined.

Despite the manner in which the administration has chosen to fund the war, relying totally on supplemental appropriations up until now, as though it was a surprise that keeping hundreds of thousands of military personnel in and near Iraq would have a cost, our commitment in Iraq cannot be open-ended. Congress should have insisted long ago that the limits on that commitment be publicly shared and well understood.

The Iraq money in this bill is described as a bridge fund. Congress and the American people have a right to ask: A bridge to what? A bridge to where? The report required by my amendment would have built on the report request in the recently enacted supplemental appropriations bill and help answer that question, and that request was agreed to in a bipartisan way. This is really an endorsement of that, taking it from report language, putting it into law and raising its profile so the administration knows that it must answer those questions in the supplemental.

Republicans apparently prefer to keep their heads in the sand and continue to provide money for the Iraq War with no questions asked.

Congress did not discharge its responsibility to oversee these policies at the start of the war, and it has not done so since. The American people deserve better. More importantly, Mr. Chairman, our troops who serve in harm's way deserve better. They are owed more by those who sent them there than lack of planning.

We must do everything in our power to honor our obligation to our troops. Only then will we be fulfilling our responsibility.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I do have a question to follow up on the distinguished gentleman's point of order, and that is, almost the same language was contained in the supplemental that passed the House a few weeks ago, and I do not know why the criteria that he establishes here for my amendment would not have then applied then and if that, in fact, does not serve as a model for us now.

Mr. Speaker, I know how close the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) was to our former colleague, Congressman Rodino, and I am very honored he would yield to me to speak about him.

I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and say how impressive it is to see him; the Chair of our caucus, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez); and all of the members of the New Jersey delegation; along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) of the Committee on the Judiciary, all who served with Mr. Rodino or served under his legacy, or are just proud to speak out this evening. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for organizing this Special Order.

First, I join the gentleman in expressing heartfelt condolences to the entire Rodino family, to his wife, Joy, daughter Margaret, and of course his son, Peter. I hope they find comfort in the proud legacy he leaves. I hope it is a comfort to them that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them.

A man of integrity and humility, Peter Rodino was a great American who served our Nation with great dignity and honor. He was truly a historic figure and consequential leader who changed the course of history for the better.

Many years ago, President John Kennedy spoke of ``the high court of history'' by which public officials will be judged. History will treat Peter Rodino very well.

By conducting the Watergate impeachment hearings with fairness, Peter Rodino ensured that the rule of law prevailed during one of the greatest constitutional crises in our country. He spoke before this House when the Watergate impeachment hearings and said, ``Whatever the result, whatever we learn or conclude, let us now proceed with such care and decency and thoroughness and honor that the vast majority of the American people, and their children after them, will say: `That was the right course. There was no other way.'''

He did all that and more. His contribution was immeasurable. Americans will be forever grateful for his courage and for his defense of the Constitution.

Though most renowned for the service he rendered during the Watergate impeachment hearings, Peter Rodino left a lasting imprint as a distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, an author of significant legislation, ranging from civil rights to immigration to protecting consumers. A Seton Hall law professor, Paula Franzese said at his funeral, ``He was a champion for the underdog. He was a speaker for those who had no voice.'' What a magnificent compliment, and still understates the contribution he made.

Peter Rodino was a main sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1966 and authored the extension of the Voting Rights Act in 1982. He reformed immigration quotas and promoted fair housing laws, and he was one of the authors of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act that protects consumers by preventing anti-

competitive mergers. He was a legislative and legal giant whose work continues to have a profound impact on the lives of Americans.

Peter Rodino's passing is a personal loss to who all served with him. It was an honor to call him colleague. Though a giant in Congress, he was always kind to newer, more junior Members who looked to him for guidance. He was of course a great source of pride and inspiration for all of us in the Italian-American community. I had a special bond with him in that regard. He was, as Father Nicholas Gengaro noted at the funeral, ``a household God, patron of the good name and respect'' of Italian Americans.

He was always proud of his heritage. As a Congressman, one of his notable achievements was sponsoring the bill that made Columbus Day a national holiday, a day that commemorates the contributions of Italian Americans.

After serving in Congress for nearly 40 years, Mr. Rodino did not retire, he returned to his beloved Newark and continued his public service until his passing. He found a new and noble calling as an educator and law professor at Seton Hall Law School, and he shared his lessons with new generations of students so they could learn from his example and so that the lessons of Watergate will never be forgotten.

As he said in an interview a year ago, ``People today just do not know what happened, and they should.'' And they did learn more when he passed away because so many compliments were extended to his family for his incredible leadership. Because of Peter Rodino, the rule of law prevailed. He stood for truth and accountability and fought against abuses of power and corruption.

His legacy is a reminder it is our constant duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, the rule of law and our civil liberties. That is the oath of office we take and we must never, never let our guard down on it. Tonight as we recall the life of Peter Rodino, we must honor his legacy by conducting ourselves and all of our public duties with integrity and fairness, and we must honor his courageous legacy by upholding the rule of law as he did so much to advance, and defending the Constitution he did so much to protect.

Again, I offer my condolences to the family. It is a great loss for so many reasons, but he had a wonderful smile and a twinkle in his eye and he was just a great and wonderful person. You could see the spark of divinity in him, and his generosity of spirit and kindness to so many people, and the greatness of his intellect.

I offer my condolences to his family for their personal loss. As a Nation, we give thanks for his life, a life that enriched and ennobled all who knew him, and a life of dedicated and courageous service. We shall miss him greatly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for calling this Special Order to commemorate a giant of the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, this is an instance in which both the proponents and opponents of the Lantos substitute share the same goal: reforming the United Nations. We differ over the best means to accomplish that goal, and that disagreement is fundamental.

The committee bill embodies a go-it-alone, take-it-or-leave-it approach to dealing with the United Nations that is entirely inconsistent with the tenets of an international organization founded on the belief that nations should be respectful of each other's views.

With the United States having so recently suffered the debacle of dealing with U.N. members in an imperious way before the invasion of Iraq, and then being surprised by the U.N.'s reluctance to join us on the course we had pre-determined, one would think that the Republican majority in the House would have learned a lesson about the kind of approach likely to produce international cooperation. This bill is evidence that they have not.

The committee bill mandates the withholding of dues if certain reforms are not implemented, dictates the scope of the reforms, and provides precious little time to have them agreed to and put in place. The bill creates a system designed to fail, and then imposes draconian consequences for the failure. Not only have eight former U.S. ambassadors to the U.N. come out strongly in opposition to the bill, but Secretary of State Rice has been noticeably silent about it.

The Lantos substitute fashions a better way to achieve needed reform at the U.N. without imperiling American interests in peacekeeping and other activities. That way is to provide the secretary of state with the maximum flexibility to employ diplomacy to expand the number of countries sharing our views on reform so that a broad-based mandate for reform is produced. By holding out the possibility that U.S. dues would be withheld if reform is not achieved, but not making withholding mandatory, the substitute creates the conditions for diplomacy to work effectively.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the interest that the United states has in a strong and effective United Nations, and to weigh carefully whether the steps we take in this bill will strengthen that institution or weaken it. Reform is the right way to go and the right way to achieve it is to adopt the Lantos substitute. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to action taken by the Committee on Rules last night when they refused to grant a waiver for my amendment, which I will describe in a moment.

First, I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for their patriotism, for their hard work on behalf of the safety and security of our country and the well-being of our troops. I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) congratulations and thank you for what you have done.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) is not in the room at the moment, but I want to acknowledge his great leadership, as well as that of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member of the full committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the new chairman of the full committee. They have all had a strong commitment to our national defense, to our men and women in uniform, to the safety and security of our country. They help us honor our oath of office which calls for providing for the common defense.

I would have hoped that in this legislation that comes before us we would have had an opportunity to give an accounting to the American people as to the conduct of the war in Iraq.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, this Sunday is Father's Day, and many fathers, young fathers, will be away from their families. They will be in Iraq. They will be in Iraq, just as many mothers were on Mother's Day. These brave young mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, and many others are fighting a war of choice in which we sent our young people in harm's way without leveling with the American people. They were sent into a war without the intelligence about what they were going to confront, without the equipment to protect them and without a plan of what would happen after the fall of Baghdad.

I, as well as many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have visited with soldiers in Iraq and many of whom are on their second tour of duty there. I have conveyed to those brave soldiers, as I have to the wounded in military hospitals in the United States and overseas, how grateful the American people are for their valor, their patriotism and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. They have performed their duties with great courage and great skill, and we are all deeply in their debt.

Disagreement with the policies and the conduct of the war that sent our troops to Iraq, and which keeps them in danger today, in no way diminishes the respect and admiration that we have for our troops. Sadly, their level of sacrifice has not been met by the level of the administration's planning, and now the American people agree. This war is not making America safer.

This unnecessary, preemptive war has come at great cost. More than 1,700 of our troops have lost their lives, and thousands more have suffered wounds, many of them, many thousands of them, suffering permanent wounds. Since the war began more than 2 years ago, Congress has appropriated nearly $200 billion for the war in Iraq, and the United States has suffered devastating damage to our reputation in the eyes of the world. The cost in lives and limbs, the cost in dollars, the cost in reputation has been enormous.

Then-Republican Senator from Ohio, Senator Robert Taft, soon to become the majority leader, the Republican leader in the Senate of the United States, had this to say about our duty in time of war. He said, ``Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government.'' He is a Republican. That was during World War II, and what he said was right, ``Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government.''

Each passing day confirms that the Iraq War has been a grotesque mistake. We are here today considering a rule for a defense appropriations bill that will provide another $45 billion for that war, in addition to the hundreds of billions of dollars already appropriated, and the end is not in sight. This money has been spent in Iraq without question by Congress, without accountability by the administration and without success.

Today we must also finally, if belatedly, heed the admonition of Senator Taft and pose questions. The questions are long overdue, about the policies by which the Iraq War is conducted. Congress did not discharge its responsibility to oversee the policies at the start of the war, and it has not done so since. The American people, particularly our troops who are serving in harm's way, deserve better.

If we defeat the previous question on this rule, this is a technicality inside a baseball process here, but if we defeat the previous question on this rule, we can consider my amendment, which says to the President: ``Within 30 days of enactment of this legislation, Congress expects an accounting from you as to what the strategy for success is. What security and political measures have you established that will bring our troops home?''

Specifically, my amendment would require the President within 30 days of enactment, as I mentioned, submit to Congress a report identifying the criteria that will be used to determine when it is appropriate to begin to bring our troops home from Iraq. It does not require that the troops be brought home by a particular day. It requires only that the means for judging when they may be brought home be shared with the Congress.

This is not new language. Under the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), even more expanded, more detailed criteria were set forth in the supplemental bill, which was agreed to in a bipartisan way. I believe the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was a party to that agreement with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

So this is just raising the profile once again of that requirement, and I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for his leadership, for his attention to the detail of all of this, for providing some questions for much-needed answers for the American people.

It is long time past due that the President level with the American people and tell them what the plan is for our troops to complete their work in Iraq. Before any more money is provided for this war, Congress must insist that this information be shared.

I hope that the administration will honor the request, the bipartisan request, in the supplemental. This appropriations bill, which has even more money for Iraq, is an appropriate place for us to make that request as well.

This is an enormous issue in our country. Our troops are in harm's way. Their actions there, again, have been marked by their patriotism, their skill, their love of our country and their courage, but we have to let them know what the goal is and when we have accomplished it so that they can come home.

I hope that we will have bipartisan consensus for a strategy for success in Iraq.

Regrettably, the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules refused to make my amendment in order. Therefore, opposing the previous question on the rule is the only way that we can force this issue on the defense appropriations bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on that vote and to ``yes'' for accountability for a safer America.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for his time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Maloney) for yielding me this time and for her leadership over the years on this issue that is very important for America, to speak out in terms of reducing the number of abortions that take place throughout the world.

Mr. Chairman, I came to the floor because I listened with interest to the statements that were being made here, especially by a couple of speakers ago about China, including my distinguished friend, the gentleman from New Jersey Mr. Smith. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I have worked together over the years to speak out against China's coercive family planning, as they call it, policies. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I have fought together against the human rights abuses in China. We spoke against them when there was a Democratic President. We spoke against them when it was the policy of a Republican President. We never hesitated to criticize Presidents of our own party for their coddling of the Beijing government while they were repressing their people.

None of us takes second place to anyone in our denunciation of the regime in Beijing for its inhumane treatment of its own people. The list is a long one that we could go into, but we do not have time for that now.

Where the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I part company is on their characterization of the role of UNFPA. Certainly, I think without any question, every person in this body would denounce the coercive abortion policy of the Beijing government. Certainly we want fewer abortions to take place. The best way to do that is to have family planning. For some reason, there has been a campaign against UNFPA, because they have been effective in promulgating family planning information to women in need so that they will not find themselves in a situation where an abortion is an option.

When I was ranking member on the Committee on Foreign Operations Appropriations a number of years ago, we put forth a compromise where the money would go forth for UNFPA, but none of the funds would be used in China. It was a compromise. I was not happy with that, because it made certain concessions, but it was a compromise, and each side had to yield something on it.

I just want our colleagues to know that a vote for the Maloney amendment is not a vote in support of any organization that would be sympathetic to the coercive abortion policies in China. It simply is not so.

UNFPA has done very, very valuable work. We go through this year in and year out. I remind my colleagues that in 2001, President Bush, our new President, sent a team to China who certified that UNFPA had nothing to do with China's coercive policies, and they were not in violation of Kemp-Kasten, and $21.5 million went forward.

Since 1999, there have been 60 delegations and 145 diplomats from around the world who have visited UNFPA's China program. None of them have found any evidence to suggest that UNFPA is doing anything other than making the situation better. Family planning reduces abortions. It is that simple. Even after President Bush's first certification, Secretary Powell was part of reviewing the activities there as well and came back with the same result.

What we are talking about here today is, let us reduce abortions, let us denounce the Beijing regime for what they do not only in this area, but in other areas, and not look the other way from that, because that is in my view, a crime against humanity, the way they treat women.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) knows chapter and verse. There is probably nobody in the Congress who knows better than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) how coercive their abortion policies are. He has tried to move to give some opportunity to people who have been victims, and I salute him for that. But I disagree with the gentleman when he says that UNFPA is a part of any of that, and that they have done anything other than make the situation better in China.

So I hope that our colleagues will understand these distinctions and support the very important Maloney amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 140th anniversary of Juneteenth. On June 19, 1865, General Gordan Granger of the Union Army arrived in Galveston, Texas with news of the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War. Although President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect on January 1, 1863, it took almost two and a half years for the Proclamation to be enforced throughout all of the United States.

The 140th anniversary of Juneteenth is a significant milestone in American history. Juneteenth is a reference point from which to appreciate the progress made by African Americans in our society. The 140th anniversary coincides with the 50th anniversary of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 and the 40th anniversary of Congressional enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

I would like to congratulate Representative Danny Davis of Illinois for his resolution recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth. As Representative Davis says, ``History should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the future.'' As we look back and honor the past, let us celebrate the progress we have made as a Nation.

The Voting Rights Act, arguably the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever, is set to expire in 2007. Congress and the President must reauthorize the act to ensure fairness in our political process and equal opportunity for minorities in American politics. Congress must also address the unfortunate disparities facing African Americans, which persist in every aspect of daily life. I congratulate my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus who have created an agenda to address these inequalities. We as Americans must work to eliminate injustices and move toward the goal of full equality.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership, he and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), for bringing this important bipartisan initiative to the floor. What we are discussing today is compassion, and that is a bipartisan value. I am grateful for their leadership on this issue that is critical to many in my district and across the country who are suffering from debilitating illnesses and to those who care for them.

Before I proceed with my comments, though, I want to acknowledge the tremendous leadership of the Chair of this subcommittee of appropriations, the subcommittee that has such a long name now, but we all know it is the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). He knows, and every chance I get, I want to tell others, of the high regard that I have for him. It is a privilege to call him colleague and to serve with him in the Congress of the United States. Again, every chance I get, I want to acknowledge his tremendous leadership, especially for respecting the human rights of every person on the face of the Earth.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) as well for their leadership on this important subcommittee.

This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is especially timely coming on the heels of the Supreme Court decision last week. The Court's decision makes clear that Federal regulatory and statutory changes are needed. For that reason, I strongly support the proposed legislation of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) that would change Federal laws to permit medical marijuana pursuant to State law. Make sure you know that what we are talking about here is in regard to States passing their own laws or initiatives and what would happen in this initiative, which is needed because we do not have a Federal law to respect States' rights specifically in terms of medicinal marijuana.

This amendment is necessary because it would prohibit the Justice Department from spending any funds to undermine State medical marijuana laws. It would leave to the discretion of the States how they would alleviate suffering of their citizens. This is a States rights issue. I have been a longstanding advocate for allowing States to make medical marijuana available to patients under a doctor's recommendation to alleviate painful suffering. A doctor's prescription is needed for a substance that is not otherwise legal. Doctors write prescriptions every day for that purpose, and they should be able to do so if their States allow it in the case of medical marijuana.

In my district in San Francisco, we have lost more than 20,000 people to AIDS over the last two decades. Twenty thousand people. I have seen firsthand at the bedsides of these patients the suffering that accompanies this dreadful disease. Medical marijuana alleviates some of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting syndrome and nausea. It is not confined to AIDS, but also cancer and so many examples that our colleagues will point out. This is just the compassionate way to go.

The previous speaker says he knows of no scientific or medical institution that has said anything positive about this. I beg to differ. The fact is this has

been supported by science. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a report that had been commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The study found that medical marijuana would be advantageous in the treatment of some diseases and is potentially effective in treating pain. Medical journals and other recent articles attest to the fact that active components in medical marijuana inhibit pain. Other proven medicinal uses of marijuana include improving the quality of life, as I mentioned before, for patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis and other severe medical conditions. That is why many medical associations support legal access to medical marijuana, again, if the State allows it with a doctor's prescription, including the American Academy of HIV Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association and the AIDS Action Council.

In addition, more than 10 States, including my own State of California, have adopted these laws since 1996. Most of these laws were approved by a vote of the people. Numerous polls indicate that three- quarters of the American people support the right of patients to use marijuana with a doctor's prescription. A recent AARP poll showed that 92 percent of America's seniors support the use of medicinal marijuana with a doctor's prescription in the States where it is allowed.

Religious denominations also support legal access to medical marijuana, including the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the National Council of Churches, the National Progressive Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and the United Methodist Church.

We must not make criminals of criminally ill people. Excuse me. We must not make criminals of seriously ill people. My slip of the tongue may tell the tale. It is not a crime to be ill. If we need to have access to pain relief, the people who seek this therapy should be able to receive it. It is long past time to base our policies on science and not on misguided politics. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment affects the health and well-being of so many Americans, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

I also want to commend again the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) for their courage in bringing this important bipartisan, compassionate legislation to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Vermont for his leadership in protecting our Constitution and our civil liberties. I also commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his important work in that regard and, of course, the distinguished chairman of the full committee. Again, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), my compliments, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) as well.

But I am rising in support of Mr. Sanders' amendment. The amendment reaffirms the fundamental principle of our history, our Constitution, and our jurisprudence that our civil liberties that must be protected, that any intrusion must be narrowly tailored and contain strong safeguards, and finally, that the executive branch must be accountable through vigorous congressional and judicial oversight.

In his famous dissent in the Olmstead decision in 1928, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the right to privacy ``the right to be left alone, the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.'' As he wrote: ``The makers of our Constitution sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the fourth amendment.''

Against these deeply embedded values that underlie our Constitution, the President has called for Congress not only to extend and again rubber-stamp all of the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but also to provide the FBI with additional and unprecedented powers to seize American citizens' records without the approval of a judge or grand jury.

The 9/11 Commission, however, last year recommended a full and informed debate on the PATRIOT Act, and placed the burden of proof on the President for extending the PATRIOT Act's provisions by demonstrating that they are actually needed, and that there is adequate oversight to ensure protection of civil liberties. These conditions have not been met.

Instead of a full and informed debate, we witnessed all kinds of other intrusions into the privacy of the American people and silencing of voices in our country.

When Congress voted for the PATRIOT Act, Members clearly understood that it would be accompanied by a strong congressional oversight so that the implementation would not violate our civil liberties. That oversight has not occurred effectively.

The Attorney General has admitted that the information has not been forthcoming to the Congress in a timely manner. But for the sunset provisions and the requirements for the inspector general reports, there is little doubt that Congress would not even receive the insufficient information it has received to date.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act permits the government to obtain library and bookstore records without any showing of specific facts that particular individuals are involved with a foreign power or with terrorism. The only requirement is a statement by the FBI that the records are sought for an authorized investigation, and the judges have no authority to deny the application.

As written, the statute would permit records of innocent and unsuspecting American citizens to be caught up in dragnets and fishing expeditions without notification. Finally, the statute has a gag provision that prohibits the recordholder from talking about the searches, thereby preventing the public from any information that the government is abusing these powers.

By itself, section 215 is problematic, and it is sweeping, but this provision and others are even more problematic when measured by the policy of the Bush administration which point to an absence of safeguards. These include the seizure and detention of more than 1,000 noncitizens in the United States without providing them access to counsel.

In particular, increased surveillance of political and other groups was made possible by the decision of the Attorney General, Attorney General Ashcroft, in July 2002 to effectively end what are known as the Levi guidelines. These guidelines were written in response to constitutional violations committed by the Nixon administration. The Levi guidelines prevented the FBI from monitoring political and religious activity in the absence of specific and articulable facts justifying a criminal investigation. Attorney Ashcroft, however, effectively ended these guidelines and permitted the FBI to monitor political and religious activities without the ``special care'' and supervision that the Levi guidelines required. And we saw the results of that policy: According to the New York Times, in November 2003, the FBI collected information on antiwar demonstrators.

Proponents and the Justice Department claim that section 215 will not be used solely on the basis of citizens' exercise of the first amendment, but can we be assured of that, given the effective revocation of the Levi guidelines and the reported monitoring of political groups, and the fact that section 215 does not require specific and articulable facts? Where are the safeguards?

Oversight, at least by this Republican Congress, has not worked. It is against that backdrop that we consider this amendment today. It is essential that we pass this amendment to let the world know that we will protect and defend this Nation, and, as we do so, that we will protect and defend the Constitution and the civil liberties contained therein. The amendment would not preclude law enforcement from obtaining the records of individuals that they need upon a showing of probable cause through their other authorities.

What we choose to read and the books we buy goes to the heart of our innermost thoughts and our liberty in a free society. These rights must be defended.

As we look to the future, rather than giving further unchecked powers without proper justification and safeguards, Congress should look at the measures to restore the Federal judiciary's role to make sure that law enforcement agencies do not conduct broad and indiscriminate searches.

We should not simply extend all of these provisions, but we should have extensive hearings on the PATRIOT Act, vigorous oversight and modifications to prevent abuses of our civil liberties.

Unfortunately, these essential objectives are not being met by the Republican leadership. Instead, they have sought to silence those who seek to protect our civil liberties and to protect and defend our Constitution.

We can and we must keep the American people safe without threatening their civil liberties. Our Founding Fathers knew well the balance between freedom and liberty. Let us honor their legacy and vote for the Sanders amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are halfway through the first session of the 109th Congress and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has yet to begin its important work; and because the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct refuses to obey the rules of the House and provide for a nonpartisan staff; therefore, pursuant to rule IX, I rise in regard to a question of the privileges of the House and offer a privileged resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my Colleagues to join us today in defeating the previous question so that we can bring back a rule that will allow us to debate an amendment that would increase funding for research and development for new energy technologies by $250 million.

Yesterday, Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz of Pennsylvania, requested a waiver from the Rules Committee so that she could offer this amendment on the floor, but she was denied that opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, for 4 years now, the Republicans in Congress have brought us an energy policy bill that provides billions in subsidies to traditional energy industries already reaping record profits. According to the New York Times, the top 10 biggest oil companies earned more than $100 billion last year, and their combined sales are expected to exceed $1 trillion, which is more than Canada's gross domestic product.

Just a few weeks ago, Republican leaders brought to the House floor an energy bill that devoted 93 percent of its tax incentives to oil, gas and other traditional energy industries, and only 7 percent for renewable energy and investments in new technologies.

It is time for a new direction. A Democratic energy plan would set us on a faster course toward energy independence by investing more of our valuable resources in clean, renewable energy resources, promoting new emerging technologies, developing greater efficiency and improving energy conservation.

Today, we are fortunate to have a number of promising technologies that offer new ways to generate energy and improve energy efficiency. But these investments are just a beginning, and will need our commitment in future years to sustain the innovations and investment levels needed to truly establish a sound energy economy for the 21st Century.

The hydrogen economy may be a worthy goal, but its benefits may not be realized until mid-century. And while hydrogen may eventually play a major role in replacing gasoline in our cars and trucks, the sources of energy to generate hydrogen must begin accelerated development now.

The Schwartz amendment would not choose any particular type of technology. Instead, it would distribute resource across multiple technologies and use them to generate multi-year development and deployment projects, support research and development competitive grants, and increase deployment of existing and new energy conservation measures.

For example, the National Academy of Sciences examined the possible benefits of an aggressive investment in solid state lighting. Today, lighting constitutes 30 percent of all energy use in buildings in the United States. The Academy study found that an investment of $50 million a year for 10 years would result in a $50 billion savings between now and 2050. That is a return of 100 to one for the U.S. economy.

Another excellent example--fuel cells--offer potential benefits in vehicles and stationary applications. Fuel cells are essential to a hydrogen energy economy and also have a vital role to play in other areas. Again, the National Academy of Sciences study found that a sustained investment of roughly $500 million over the coming decade is likely to produce benefits as much as $40 billion through 2025.

The government has an essential role to play in research and development. Unless a business can make a reasonable return on its research investment, it cannot afford to invest in R&D. And unless the business is a monopoly, this requires the R&D to lead to a patent on a device or a process that can be marketed. Applied research yields benefits that are too diffuse to be captured by anyone company.

So the federal government collects funds from a broad base of beneficiaries--the taxpayers--and invests in research and development that otherwise would never happen. Almost all such funding is through appropriation bills--the Energy and Water bill being one good example.

Mr. Chairman, we are the world leader in technical innovation.

From the light bulb to the space program to the Internet, the U.S. has led the way. We have built the world's largest economy on the inventiveness of our citizens and our willingness to make the investment needed to advance our society. The fundamental nature of our free society has always been the key to our achievement.

Science, engineering, and technology have enabled us to build our modern nation, and now we need to use these tools aggressively to increase our energy security, improve the lives of our citizens, and power us in the 21st Century.

I call on Members to defeat the previous question so we might consider an alternative rule that would allow Congresswoman Schwartz to offer her amendment during the debate on funding energy priorities today.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important day for us in Congress. I myself am deeply indebted to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for their great leadership and courage in bringing this legislation to the floor. I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

This is important legislation because every family in America, every family in America is just one phone call away, one diagnosis, one accident away from needing the benefits of stem cell research. We want all of the research to proceed, the umbilical cord research that we talked about this morning, and adult stem cell research. That is all very important. But we must have the embryonic stem cell research if we are truly going to have science have the potential it has to cure diseases.

I served for many years, probably 10, on the Labor-HHS subcommittee which funds the National Institutes of Health. So I have studied this issue over the years. What we are doing here today is recognizing the miraculous power to cure that exists at the National Institutes of Health and in other institutes of excellence in research throughout our country. We are recognizing the miraculous, almost Biblical power that science has to cure.

And what we have said, what we are saying here today is nothing that should not be considered of value. What we are saying is when these embryos are in excess of the needs of in vitro fertilization, rather than be destroyed, they will be used for basic biomedical research.

It is interesting to me because when I first came to the Congress, some of the same forces out there that are against this embryonic stem cell research were very much against in vitro fertilization. It is difficult to imagine that now, but they were against in vitro fertilization and considered it not to be on high moral ground.

The research is going to occur with Federal funding or without. It should not occur without high ethical standards that the Federal funding can bring to it. In order for our country to be preeminent in science, we must have the most talented, the most excellent scientists. They will not be attracted to a situation which limits scientific inquiry. As we all know, in science as in business, talent attracts capital, the capital to build the labs and all that is needed to do the research, and those labs in turn attract the excellent scientists, and that makes us first in the world, preeminent in science. We cannot allow this important endeavor to go offshore.

I am particularly proud of my State of California where the people of California in a bipartisan way, as we are doing today, voted a commitment of resources to invest in embryonic stem cell research. We in California will become the regenerative capital of America, indeed, probably of the world. But this should be happening all over the country, and it should not depend on the local initiative of the State. That is good, but it should be coming from the leadership of the Federal Government with the ethical standards that go with it. We have ethical standards in California. They should be uniform throughout our country.

To some, this debate may seem like a struggle between faith and science. While I have the utmost respect, and the gentlemen know I do, for those who oppose this bill on moral grounds, I believe faith and science have at least one thing in common: both are searches for truth. America has room for both faith and science.

Indeed, with the great potential for medical research, science has the power to answer the prayers of America's families. I believe strongly in the power of prayer; but part of that prayer is for a cure, and science can provide that.

Many religious leaders endorse the Castle/DeGette bill because of their respect for life and because they believe science, within the bounds of ethics and religious beliefs, can save lives and improve its quality. Groups as diverse as the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America all support this bill.

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America says the traditional Jewish perspective emphasizes the potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of valuing human life.

The Episcopal Church in its letter in support of this legislation says: ``As stewards of creation, we are called to help men and renew the world in many ways. The Episcopal Church celebrates medical research as this research expands our knowledge of God's creation and empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer from disease and disability.'' This is what they wrote, and much more, in support of this legislation.

It is our duty to bring hope to the sick and the disabled, not to bind the hands of those who can bring them hope. I believe God guided our researchers to discover the stem cells power to heal. This bill will enable science to live up to its potential to again answer the prayers of America's families.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, thank all of our colleagues on both sides of this issue for their very dignified approach to how we are dealing with this legislation today, but

also say that today is a historic day, that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) have given us the opportunity to move forward, again to answer the prayers of America's families, to meet their needs, to allow the science to use its Biblical power to cure; and for that I am deeply in their debt.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stupak/Bishop/ Sanders amendment and commend them for bringing this important amendment to the floor.

Before speaking on it, though, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water for the very dignified way the gentleman has dealt with the legislation, and to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), our ranking member on the subcommittee. They strive to work in a very bipartisan way on this important legislation.

I rise in support of the Stupak/Bishop/Sanders amendment, which, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has explained, would immediately stop the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while gas prices are so high.

Mr. Chairman, all over the country people are crying out for relief at the

rising price at the pump. Small businesses and families are feeling the pinch, and the consequences are very substantial. Under current estimates, a family of four will spend $423 more on gasoline this year than last year and almost $800 more than 2 years ago. Consumers have paid the price for rising prices over the last year. Gas prices have remained at record levels for the past 2 months at over $2.12 per gallon nationwide with some States, my own State, the State of California, more than $2.53 a gallon.

This means that gas prices have risen 35 cents per gallon since the beginning of the year. The Department of Energy predicts that gas prices could average over $2.25 nationwide this summer. The Department of Energy also has said, their report also has said that the energy bill passed by this House a few weeks ago would increase the price at the pump.

Imagine that we are legislating on the floor of Congress measures that would increase the price at the pump instead of giving consumers the relief that they need. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) have a better idea.

This idea, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) explained, would stop filling the SPR so more oil was in the market, supply increases, and then the price should go down. This is what happened when it was done before.

When President Clinton was President, they released oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2000 and gas prices were reduced by 14 cents a gallon, $6 a barrel. When President Bush released Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil in 1991, the price of oil per barrel dropped $10.

There was bipartisan support for this in the Senate in March 2004, and in the House in 2004 bipartisan initiatives urging the President to suspend oil deliveries in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This has worked for us before, whether it was releasing oil from the reserve or stopping oil from coming into the reserve.

Under current estimates, a family of four would pay so much more. As Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com said recently, ``Each 1-cent increase in gasoline costs consumers $1 billion a year.''

It is no wonder that gas prices are the top concern of the American people, and record gas prices are starting to have a ripple effect in the economy. The airline and trucking industries are feeling the pinch. For 5 years, Republicans in Congress have pursued an energy policy to give away billions of dollars in subsidies to special interests that are already profiting from record-high gas prices. They have turned Washington into an oil and gas town when this is supposed to be the city of innovation, of fresh new thinking and ideas about our energy policy and the impact it has on the pocketbooks of the American people and on the environment and the air they breathe.

The President's own Department of Energy found the provisions in the energy bill actually increased the price of gasoline 3 cents, and our dependence on foreign oil is projected to increase 85 percent under the proposed policies of President Bush. During consideration of the energy bill, Democrats offered an amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) that called on the President to immediately urge OPEC to increase oil production and also to stop the filling of the SPR. It would have taken steps to protect the American people from price gouging and unfair practices at the gasoline pump and increased public information on prices. Unfortunately, the amendment failed.

How do Members figure that amendment would fail when it was in the interest of America's consumers? Well, if the public interest is not served and the special interest is, then it would follow that the consumer is not served. But we have another chance today. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to immediately stop filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while gas prices are so high. Give the American consumer a break; vote for this important amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 606, the Angel Island Immigration Station Restoration and Preservation Act.

For 30 years, between 1910 to 1940, Angel Island served as the first point of entry into our country for immigrants from around the world hopeful for the promise of America. While the history of Ellis Island, which served as a processing center for immigrants coming in from across the Atlantic, is well known, the story of Angel Island is one that is often lost between the pages of our nation's history.

While it was open, 1 million immigrants were processed on Angel Island, including immigrants from Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Central and South America. It would be the first, and sometimes only, American soil that many of these people, who hoped to call this country their home, would walk upon.

Among these stories are the unforgettable voices of more than 170,000 Chinese immigrants, who sacrificed everything to come to what they referred to as the ``Gold Mountain,'' a land of unparalleled freedom and opportunity. While many found new life, others encountered discrimination, disappointment, and sometimes, despair.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prevented many Chinese from entering the United States. Those allowed to enter were held in detention on Angel Island. Segregated and separated into barracks, the detainees faced stark living conditions, humiliating medical examinations, and grueling interrogations, while their detentions dragged on from days to months, and even years. All this while they awaited a decision on whether they would be permitted to enter the United States or sent back to China. While the detainees would eventually leave the Island and the Immigration Station would later close, they would leave behind their powerful testaments, inscribed as poetry, on the walls that confined them.

Today, more than 100 of these poems are still visible, etched on the barrack walls. Together, they capture the fears, sadness, and longing felt by the immigrants. Despite the extreme hardships faced on Angel Island, many of these poems also reflect the timeless legacy of the hope that is shared by all who are drawn to and believe in our country.

In 1940, Angel Island Immigration Station was closed after a fire destroyed the administration building. The U.S. Army used the Island during World War II, departing when the war was over. Angel Island became incorporated as a part of the California State Park system in 1963.

Abandoned and neglected, the structures fell into various states of disrepair and were scheduled for demolition in 1970, when a park ranger rediscovered the poetry carved on the walls. Although the buildings were spared from being torn down, more resources are needed to restore this unique and significant landmark.

This legislation would authorize $15 million, to be matched by state and private funding, to restore the buildings at Angel Island Immigration Station, and ensure its preservation for future generations.

Understanding our past is key to our nation's success and strength, today and in the future. Preserving Angel Island ensures that the collective voices of past immigrants live on in the proud immigrant heritage we all share.

I urge my colleagues to support this significant piece of legislation.

Madam Chairman, I rise to express my deep concerns about the FY06 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill.

This bill epitomizes the Republican plan; hand out lavish tax breaks to the wealthy while slashing crucial domestic programs.

In this bill, there are painful cuts to a wide range of valuable programs, from EPA enforcement to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Among them all, the cuts in clean water funding stand out as a prime example of what's wrong with the Republican budget.

Nothing is more essential to human health than clean water. If we follow down the path the Republicans are leading us, there will be water, water everywhere, but not a drop of it to drink.

More than three decades ago, Americans rose up in outrage, appalled by our filthy rivers and lakes. Congress responded to the clarion call for clean water with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which evolved into the modern Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act set the goals of zero discharge of pollutants, and achieving water that is clean enough to be ``fishable'' and ``swimmable.''

When upstream communities fail to clean up their sewage or prevent polluted runoff, downstream communities pay the price. Beaches must be closed to protect swimmers from harmful bacteria and virus. Fish cannot be eaten, and shellfish cannot be harvested. Water must be treated more thoroughly before it can become drinking water.

We have made enormous progress since the infamous day the Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969. For three decades, the federal government has been an essential partner, working with the states to pay for clean water infrastructure.

The key federal program today is the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which provides funding for wastewater collection and treatment, correction of combined sewer overflows, and control of storm water and non-point source pollution. These funds also create good jobs for engineers, contractors, skilled laborers, and manufacturers.

But our work is not done. About 45 percent of water bodies in the U.S. that have been assessed do not meet our water quality standards.

Our wastewater infrastructure is aging, and our population is growing. The Environmental Protection Agency's estimates funding needs range between $300 billion and $400 billion over the next 20 years.

This bill turns back the clock on clean water, slashing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for the second year in a row. Cuts for this program total $500 million in this two-year period.

This is the wrong thing to do, and the public agrees. A recent poll showed Americans want clean water to be a national priority--67 percent say they prefer spending for clean and safe water over tax cuts.

Madam Chairman, I also wish to state my support for the Stupak amendment on sewage blending. ``Sewage blending'' is a euphemism referring to the practice of allowing some sewage to bypass the secondary treatment phase, the phase in which toxic chemicals, viruses, parasites, and other pathogens are removed.

The amendment would not block current practices needed to cope with heavy rains or snowmelt, but it would prevent EPA from expanding the use of sewage blending.

Furthermore, I intend to support the Andrews-Chabot amendment to stop wasteful and destructive logging in the Tongass National Forest, and the Hastings amendment to promote environmental justice. It is unconscionable that minorities and low-income communities are subjected to worse water and air pollution than other Americans.

Madam Chairman, clean water is precious and must be treated as such. For the sake of our children, and our grandchildren, let us take care of this most basic of needs: clean water.