Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and his recognition on this very important legislation that is before us today. I am very proud of the work of the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), our Member of Congress, a very distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for his initiative and leadership in presenting to the Congress today an alternative that makes sense to the American people, that is fair to America's families.

The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) speaks with authority on the issues that impact rural America, small business, and America's families and certainly America's family farms. He has their interests at heart. He knows firsthand what their challenges are. That is what makes his proposal so wise, and we all appreciate his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, in the 20th century, in the early part of the 20th century, our country made a decision to honor our American value of fairness by moving forward toward a progressive system of taxation. But under 10 years of Republican rule, this Congress has consistently passed legislation that has moved away from a progressive Tax Code. Republican tax policies have rewarded wealth over work. In its analysis of the President's budget, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the tax rate on wage income is nearly twice the rate of capital income, unearned income. And now today Republicans have come to the floor with an estate tax bill continuing their harmful approach.

The Republican estate tax bill again rewards extreme wealth. The Republican approach would hurt more people than it helps by increasing taxes and administrative burdens on more than 71,000 estates. And it comes at a staggering cost of nearly $1 trillion over 10 years once it takes full effect.

Democrats want to be fair to all Americans, and we support being able to pass a better life on to our children and our grandchildren. But we cannot support putting the luxuries of the super-rich before the needs of America's families. The difference between the Democratic and Republican bills is that Democrats take a more responsible, indeed, a responsible approach that gives immediate tax relief to small businesses and farmers across the country.

The Pomeroy substitute would provide relief to 99.7 percent of estates in America, 99.7 percent; and .3 percent of estates would not be covered under the bill. That is a small percentage, but a huge amount of money being deprived from the National Treasury. The savings achieved by pursuing the more fair and targeted approach put forth by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) would cover about one half of the long-term shortfall facing Social Security.

Think of it: if we pass the gentleman from North Dakota's (Mr. Pomeroy) bill, the savings would cover one half of the shortfall in Social Security down the road. It would strengthen Social Security for generations to come. That is the choice we are facing today. Do we want to put the wealthiest .3 percent of estate holders ahead of millions of American workers who have earned their Social Security benefits with a lifetime of work? Do we want to continue reckless Republican tax policies or return to a fair system of taxation?

This is a remarkable choice before us, and I hope that the American people can avail themselves of the information to understand what is at stake here. Basically, it all comes back to our deficit, to our budget, and whether we have fiscal soundness in our budget or not. What the Republicans are proposing is saying to average working families in America every day they go to work, and every paycheck money is taken from their paycheck for Social Security. What the Republicans are doing today is putting their hand into that pot and saying we are taking that money and we are going to subsidize the super-rich in our country, the largest, wealthiest estates in our country, .3 percent.

Mind you, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) has covered 99.7 percent, which is most, of course, 99.7 percent of the people in America. So anyone listening to this is not, odds are, affected in any positive way by what the Republicans are proposing. In fact, they will be hurt because of what it does to Social Security and what it does in terms of capital gains for over 71,000 families in America.

So I think the choice should be clear, to choose to reward work. We respect wealth. The creation of wealth is important to our economy. But that does not mean we take money from working families to give more money to the wealthiest families in America. And this at the same time as the tax cuts that the administration has proposed to make permanent, that would give people making over $1 million a year over $125,000 in tax cuts.

Who are we here to represent? This is the reverse Robin Hood. We are taking money from the middle class and we

are giving it to the super rich, and not only the super rich but the super, super, super rich.

So let us come down and vote for America's workers, let us come down in favor of America's families, and let us recognize that everybody, the wealthiest as well as those not so wealthy, everyone in America benefits when we have fairness in our Tax Code, where we have balance in our budget in terms of our values and in terms of our fiscal responsibility.

I urge our colleagues to support the very responsible Pomeroy resolution and vote no on the irresponsible and reckless Republican proposal.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my fellow California Representatives Mike Honda, Barbara Lee, Doris Matsui, and Pete Stark, I rise today to pay tribute to a true champion of the civil rights movement, Fred Korematsu. Mr. Korematsu passed away on March 30, 2005 at the age of 86.

As a Japanese American facing internment during World War II, Fred Korematsu challenged government authorities by standing up for his rights as an American citizen and refusing to back down. He has earned a place in American history among our most determined fighters for justice. We will miss him greatly.

Born in Oakland, California in 1919 to Japanese immigrants, Fred Korematsu's early life was similar to many other hard-working Americans. He held a job as a welder in the San Francisco shipyards and had dreams of getting married and starting a family. Two months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, however, his dreams were suddenly taken away.

Under baseless fears of Japanese American disloyalty, Executive Order 9066 was signed, authorizing the removal of more than 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent from their homes along the West Coast to guarded camps in the interior of the United States. It displaced families and uprooted entire communities.

On May 30, 1942, Fred Korematsu was jailed for evading authorities. He was sent to Topaz Internment Camp in Utah for 2 years. He bravely filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, and took his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, unjustly declared that the internment of Japanese Americans was necessary in a time of war and that allegations of racism by the government were unfounded. Mr. Korematsu, though, did not give up, and, 40 years later, he was vindicated in a ruling by the Federal District Court in San Francisco.

Mr. Korematsu's dedication to protect civil rights did not end with his own exoneration. His courage prompted lawmakers to right the wrongs committed against Japanese Americans during World War II, and in 1988, an official apology and reparations were issued by the government. His work was recognized in 1998 when President Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Korematsu continued to fight the backlash against Arab, Muslim, and Middle Eastern communities, recounting his own struggle against discrimination.

Today, we honor Fred Korematsu for his courage and recognize him as a symbol of justice, determination, and the true American spirit. His passing leaves the Asian American and Pacific Islander communities with a profound sense of loss.

I hope it is a comfort to his family and friends that so many people share their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Deanne Fitzmaurice of the San Francisco Chronicle for winning the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography. This award, the most prestigious in American journalism, is presented to only one photographer every year for a distinguished example of feature photography.

Deanne Fitzmaurice earned this award for her moving photo essay on an Oakland hospital's effort to mend an Iraqi boy nearly killed by an explosion. Her powerful photographic narrative captures the story of this young child as doctors strive to give him a chance at a new life. With the accompanying articles written by Meredith May, these poignant photographs tell an overlooked but significant side of the Iraq war.

Deanne has worked at the San Francisco Chronicle for the past 16 years. Her work has been featured in numerous publications including TIME, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report. She was named the Bay Area Press Photographers Association's Photographer of the Year in 2002.

Deanne's collection is indicative of the high quality of work at the San Francisco Chronicle. The Chronicle is committed to excellence in journalism, as evidenced by Deanne's photography and its fine reporting. Congratulations to Deanne Fitzmaurice and the San Francisco Chronicle on this magnificent honor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time and for his kind words. It is indeed a privilege to be part of a delegation to the funeral of the Holy Father. I also thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. I know how much he respected and admired the Holy Father. I thank him for his leadership in helping us express our condolences as well.

Mr. Speaker, my mother used to always say of John Paul II, ``He is a saint walking the Earth.'' Indeed, he was. It is in that spirit and with deep sadness at his passing but with great thanks and joy for his life of good works that I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Pope John Paul II.

Pope John Paul II was one of the great spiritual and humanitarian leaders of our time. His deeds, his words and his indomitable spirit of love were a blessing to this world, and the entire world mourns his passing.

Again, I am very honored to be part of the congressional delegation to the Pope's funeral on Friday, and I hope that our delegation can help convey the thoughts, prayers, and deep sympathies of the American people on his passing. We will be pleased to join our President in doing that.

Pope John Paul II was a man of God, and he was a man of the people. He was passionate in his commitment to doing God's work here on Earth. St. Francis of Assisi, who was the patron saint of my city of San Francisco, said, ``Preach often, sometimes use words.'' The life of John Paul II was a sermon he preached every day by example. His ministry fed the hungry, cared for the sick, and invited the stranger. He was a champion for the poor, promoting justice and economic development around the world. His work built on the legacy of Pope Paul VI, not his immediate predecessor, except for 33 days his predecessor, who believed, ``If you want peace, work for justice.'' Pope John Paul II helped to bring justice and healing to the relationship between Catholics and Jews, and I know how important that is to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). His commitment to nonviolence and to peace on Earth was heartfelt and steadfast.

With a concern and caring for all of God's children, John Paul II reached out to people of all ages, nationalities, and faiths. As we all know, he traveled to so many countries in his service as Pope, and he spent more than 2 years in his papacy outside of Rome. I like to say that he was aptly named John Paul: John, the Apostle of love, and Paul, who preached the Gospel to such a wide range of people in the earliest days of Christendom. In doing so himself, Pope John Paul II brought the redemptive message of the Catholic Church to places it had never been, and he inspired millions of individuals who saw in his conviction and in his example the light of God.

He had a special bond with the youth of the world. I remember when I met him in San Francisco when he came there, and it was so exciting for us to welcome the Holy Father, and when he landed at Crissey Field in a helicopter, it was so dramatic. And when I met him, our Archbishop, Archbishop Quinn, said, as we were chatting, ``Your Holiness, I have confirmed the Congresswoman's children.'' And he said, ``That's good, that's good.'' And he said, ``Your Holiness, I have confirmed the Congresswoman's five children.'' And he said, ``That's very good, that's very good.''

And as I said, he had a special bond with the youth of the world. He spoke with them as a spiritual leader, but also as a teacher and as a friend. The guidance he offered to today's youth will benefit the world for years to come.

Likewise, his influence on world events will be felt for generations. John Paul II played an enormous role in the fall of communism and ending the Cold War, and that has been mentioned here. He was a man of peace. As a priest in Poland, he waged a persistent struggle for nearly three decades against the Communist Government over the building of churches and the right of his people to worship as they choose. He continued that work as Pope, inspiring the Polish people and the Solidarity movement, and offering spiritual strength to others working to free themselves from Communist regimes.

In his later years, the Pope offered the world a very different but significant form of inspiration. Suffering from Parkinson's disease and with failing health, he struggled until the end to share God's word. He taught us about the dignity of every individual and showed us that we must always seek to make a difference on this Earth.

It is written in the Book of Genesis, ``Thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.'' John Paul II is with our Father now. We were blessed that he preached peace in this world for so long.

As we honor his memory, as we sing his praises, we must also heed his message. The Catholic Church recently gave us a guide, the compendium of Catholic social justice, for how we can address some of the issues the previous speaker talked about, addressing the needs of the poor, the vulnerable, and the weak. President Bush mentioned that when he gave His Holiness the Presidential Medal of Freedom, he mentioned that he had championed the

work for the poor, the vulnerable, the needy, he said, and the weak. We must do that in our work here. It would then be an appropriate honor and remembrance for the life, leadership, service, and holiness.

My mother said, as I said in the beginning, he is a saint walking this Earth. Anyone who was ever in his presence knew they were in the presence of a holy man. Because he lived and we observed him, we have a responsibility to follow his lead.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his great leadership in putting together a budget that is a statement of our values, that is balanced in terms of our priorities and balanced fiscally. He has always conducted the process of creating a budget in a way that has informed Members, has done so with great dignity and great fairness and great respect for all points of view. I wish we would all join in acknowledging the great leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina, our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, in 1994, the first item in the Republicans' Contract with America was the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Republicans pledged ``to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.'' More than 10 years later, an out-of-touch Republican majority has taken fiscal responsibility to a new low. It is clear that in the 10 years the Republicans have become addicted to deficits.

The budget deficit for this year is a record $427 billion. The February budget deficit, my colleagues, of $114 billion for the month of February, a deficit of $114 billion, is the highest monthly deficit ever and the first time it ever went over $100 billion in one month. In 2001, President Clinton left President Bush with a projected $5.6 trillion in surplus. In just 4 years, President Bush has turned that record surplus into a record deficit of nearly $4 trillion, a $10 trillion swing in the wrong direction.

Make no mistake, these deficits are the direct result of Republican policies, huge tax cuts for the wealthy, a refusal to pay as you go, poor planning for a war of choice in Iraq. The list goes on and on and on. America is awash in red ink because of Republican budget irresponsibility.

Tragically, this Republican budget is yet another missed opportunity to return to fiscal discipline. Not only is this budget fiscally irresponsible; the Republican budget is dishonest. It does not cut the deficit in half as Republicans claim. In fact, it makes the deficit worse. Republicans leave out the realistic cost of the war, the cost of expiring tax provisions, the true cost of fixing the alternative minimum tax and the cost of any changes to Social Security. The budget is dishonest in another way: it fails to show any deficit figures at all after 2010.

In our New Partnership for America's Future, Democrats have made a commitment to honor the value of accountability, including eliminating deficit spending and holding those in power accountable for their actions with a high ethical standard. Democrats support honest, accountable budgets that pay as you go. The Democratic alternative offered by the gentleman from South Carolina achieves balance by 2012. The Republican budget never reaches balance. It heaps tons of debt onto our children and grandchildren, and it will eventually lower our standard of living. We cannot let that happen to our country. And on top of all of that, the Republican budget undermines the solvency of Social Security.

While Republicans ignore the real crisis of ballooning budget deficits, the President falsely claims there is a crisis in Social Security. But just because the President says it does not make it so. He is simply wrong. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security's trust fund will grow every year until a high of $8.3 trillion in 2032 and continues to be solvent until 2052.

I want to call your attention to this chart, my colleagues. The left bar represents the deficit in the general fund between now and 2035, a staggering $15 trillion. The Bush administration has taken us onto a trajectory of reckless budgeting that will take us to $15 trillion in deficit in 2035. From 2006 to 2035, $15 trillion in deficit.

This bar here, the second bar, Social Security, 2006 to 2080, twice as long, more than twice as long, the Social Security deficit is $2 trillion. It is clear that there would be plenty of money to deal with the Social Security trust fund if the President were not using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America. Instead of doing that, we have a moral and legal obligation to pay back to the trust fund the money the President has taken out. We cannot let the President do this.

By running enormous deficits, the Republicans want to force the government to break its promises to the elderly. How on Earth are they going to pay the Social Security trust fund back if they have gone broke on the other side by running up these deficits in the general fund? Democrats will keep America's promises to our seniors. Democrats have done it before, and we will do it again. When Bill Clinton was President, we had 3 years of surpluses.

And with the surpluses, imagine, think of it. Zero deficits. $427 billion in deficit for this year, over $100 billion in deficit for the month of February alone, this year. And when President Clinton was President, the 3 years at the end of his term, we had zero deficits. And with the surpluses that were produced he was able to pay nearly $400 billion off of our indebtedness, strengthening the solvency of Social Security.

Likewise the Democratic alternative that was offered today included pay-as-you-go rules that would block new tax or spending legislation that is not paid for.

Not only is the Republican budget fiscally reckless and dishonest, it is morally irresponsible. The leaders of five Protestant denominations, the Episcopal Church USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church recently called President Bush's budget unjust. They reminded us of the words of the prophet, Micah, who said, ``What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God?'' Does this budget do justice for Americans? You be the judge. Is it doing justice to our children to give tax cuts to

people making more than $500,000 a year, while underfunding Head Start, No Child Left Behind, student loans and grants and other education initiatives by $2.5 billion? Is that doing justice to our children? Is it doing justice to our communities to give tax cuts to the wealthy while funding for community police and local fire fighters who are vital to our homeland security by cutting them by $280 million? Is that justice? Is it doing justice to those who serve in uniform to give those tax cuts while underfunding health care benefits for veterans by $14 billion short of what is needed over the next 5 years? Is that justice for our veterans? And is it doing justice to give tax cuts to the wealthy while launching a shameful attack on the poor? This budget cuts $20 billion from Medicaid, a cut that Governors, on a bipartisan basis, oppose, and which the other body today has just rejected.

Let us hear it for the other body. It undermines the Community Development Block Grant Initiative with all considered restructuring and a massive 35 percent cut. It makes huge cuts to the earned income tax which takes 2 million children, lifts 2 million children out of poverty. But this budget, the Republican budget, makes cuts there. No. The Republican budget does not do justice, it does great damage to our country. Instead of being a statement of our values, the Republican budget is an assault on our values. And it is a blueprint for financial disaster.

I urge my colleagues to return to fiscal discipline, to honor our values and to oppose this disgraceful Republican budget. Thank you, my colleagues. Vote ``no'' on this budget.

Mr. Chairman, in a few days we will mark the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and the start of a war that, in my judgment, did not need to be fought. At the time, the war was rationalized on intelligence estimates of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction capabilities that were wrong, and on suggestions that Iraq was somehow connected with the September 11 al-Qaeda attacks on our country that were never true.

The President now says that the war is really about the spread of democracy in the Middle East. This effort at after-the-fact justification was only made necessary because the primary rationale was so sadly lacking in fact.

The one constant in 2 years of combat has been the courage, dedication, and skill of the men and women of our Armed Forces. For more than 1,500 of our troops, service in Iraq required the ultimate sacrifice. That is a loss for which our country mourns each day.

Thousands more have been wounded--their lives, and the lives of their families changed forever by this war. Similar losses have been experienced by families in Spain, in Italy, and, of course, in Iraq.

The bill before us provides another $75 billion for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This enormous sum was not requested through the normal budget process, not subjected to any hearings, and not counted against our massive budget deficits. In fact, this will be the third largest appropriations measure this year.

And this $75 billion will be on top of the more than $200 billion previously appropriated, mostly by the supplemental appropriations process, for these military operations.

How much of this cost would have been unnecessary had the administration taken the time and the care to plan adequately for a war of choice? We will never know. But we do know--because these supplementals are evidence of it--that our troops were sent into combat without the equipment they would need for a protracted insurgency operation.

Our responsibility now is two-fold. First, to ensure that our troops have what they need to do their jobs effectively and as safely as possible. And second, to develop a strategy for success that will contain clear benchmarks by which the American people can measure progress toward the time when our forces will be brought home.

That strategy for success must include an aggressive plan for transferring responsibility for their country's security to the Iraqis, an improved plan for Iraq's reconstruction, and an intensification of diplomatic efforts in the region.

Other countries--the Netherlands and Italy among them--are making plans for the return of their forces. The United States does not need to adopt their timelines, but we do need clear criteria for judging certain fundamentals, including the capability and willingness of Iraqi security forces to deal with the insurgency and protect the country.

Somewhere between an open-ended U.S. commitment to Iraq and a timetable for withdrawal must be a strategy for ending our military involvement. That fact was the heart of the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran, which this House adopted yesterday.

The President owes it to the American people and this Congress to develop such a plan, clearly describe it, and provide an assessment of how much it will cost and how long it will take.

I understand and share the frustration that will lead some to vote against this bill. We are being asked, again, to clean up a mess that many of us argued strongly against creating.

Putting aside our frustration with this administration so that we can provide our troops what they need does not, however, mean that we will forget the mistakes, miscalculations, and misrepresentations that brought us to the point where these billions are necessary.

The time is long past due for an accounting for those failures. We in Congress understand our responsibility to provide for the common defense. The administration must understand its responsibility to use the money this Congress provides effectively, and with a transparency that can withstand scrutiny.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time, and I, more importantly, thank him for his tremendous leadership, for his leadership on the Committee on the Budget. He has presented budgets that are statements of our national values, that are balanced in terms of their priority and balanced in terms of their fiscal soundness. He has been a great teacher to the country and the Congress on this issue. We are indeed blessed by his exceptional leadership.

Mr. Chairman, with today's vote on the previous question, Republicans told their constituents exactly where they stood on Social Security. They want to privatize it. Defeating the previous question would have ensured that payroll contributions of millions of Americans are protected and are not diverted away from Social Security to fund private accounts, but Republicans voted unanimously to undermine Social Security with private accounts.

Even though Social Security privatization is the President's number one priority, the Republican budget hides the cost in and the harmful effects of Social Security privatization by refusing to include any details on the plan in the budget.

The Republican budget also continues the Republican raid on the Social Security Trust Fund by spending every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund over the next 10 years, totaling $2.6 trillion.

The previous speaker or colleague the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) referenced that when President Bush came into office he came in at a time of surplus. Indeed, for the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, there was zero deficit. In fact, there were surpluses, and that tightening of the government's budget under President Clinton enabled the Clinton administration to pay back over $350 billion of our indebtedness, reducing the national debt. We were on a course of action in the budget of being debt free by the year 2008, debt free for our country, and what that means in terms of the budget and the debt service is remarkable.

Yet, President Bush came into office with his reckless tax cuts for the superwealthy. Not all of them were for superwealthy. We supported those for the middle class, but because of the size of the tax cuts for the superwealthy has driven us deeply into debt to the tune this year, if we include the supplemental, of about a half a trillion dollars in debt for 1 year, this is unconscionable.

The course of action that the Republican administration is on makes it nearly impossible for them to pay back the Social Security Trust Fund, the money they have taken from it to date.

Secondly, the private accounts and the transition costs of around $2 trillion for the transition over the next 10 years, is huge and, again, undermines Social Security.

So the deficit in the budget is directly related to undermining Social Security. It is essential that the President be stopped in creating these private accounts which drain money out of the Social Security Trust Fund, thereby weakening Social Security. It is essential that the President and the Republicans be stopped from their reckless deficit spending, their raid on the Social Security Trust Fund and their further deficit spending with their tax cuts for the superrich that will make it impossible for them to pay back the money to the trust fund.

This is money that the American workers have placed into the trust fund, that American businesses have matched by placing into the trust fund for retirement insurance. This money belongs to the American people. It is not a slush fund for President Bush to give tax cuts to the superwealthy at the expense of working families in America.

Democrats are committed to addressing the challenge which faces Social Security down the road. The first step towards strengthening Social Security is ensuring that Social Security contributions are used only to pay for the guaranteed benefit that American workers have earned through a lifetime of work, for retirement; for disabilities if, God forbid, that happens, a tragedy befalls their family; and again, for survivors and families who have lost a loved one.

Privatization makes the challenge facing Social Security worse by slashing benefits by more than 40 percent for future retirees survivors, the people with disabilities, if what we know of the President's plan, indexing to prices rather than wage, is proceeded upon, saddling our children and grandchildren with massive debt and jeopardizing the retirement lifeline provided by Social Security's guaranteed benefit.

Rather than diverting trillions with a T-R, trillions of dollars from the trust fund to fund risky private accounts, Democrats are committed to strengthening Social Security. Once privatization is off the table, Democrats want to work with Republicans in a bipartisan way to make any adjustments to keep Social Security solvent.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the issue is what we do about Social Security from the year 2050 to the year 2100. Contrary to what the President has put out there, there is no crisis facing Social Security. There is a problem down the road. We have time to deal with it in the right way, in a way that does not slash benefits, that does not increase the deficit, does not rob our trust fund of its funds and does not burden our children with all of that debt.

So we will go to the table and say, with the amount of money that should be in the trust fund, and if the administration honors its moral and legal obligation to pay the trust fund back the money it has taken out, then the trust fund and interest on it should take us well into 2050. And after that, the benefits would be at 80 percent, and that is what we have to deal with. We can deal with it soon. We can deal with it in a bipartisan way. Just as President Reagan did working with Speaker Tip O'Neill in 1983, we can work it out in a bipartisan way to strengthen Social Security.

Some say that the private accounts are an end in themselves. There are people who believe in private accounts. Others believe that the private accounts are just a decoy, just a Trojan horse that looks appealing to people because it is a new idea, that once they get it past the gates of the city that rotten underbelly of huge deficits will destroy Social Security.

Either way, private accounts have got to go. They take money out of the trust fund, and this administration has no visible means of paying that money back.

Today, again, the Republicans said with their vote that they want to undermine Social Security by privatizing it, while Democrats voted unanimously to strengthen Social Security for future generations. Let us honor our responsibility to future generations, to our children, also to America's workers. Morally and legally we are bound to give them the promise of America to pay their insurance; their retirement insurance; and, if in time of tragedy, their disability and survivor insurance as well.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, offer a privileged resolution that I noticed, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as the Members know, all of us in our country want to have our troops to have what they need when they go into harm's way. Sadly, that was not the case in the last 2 years. I hope that the $82 billion in this bill will redress some of those shortcomings, shortfalls, that our troops have had to suffer because they did not have the proper equipment. Never again should America send our troops into harm's way without the equipment they need to keep them safe and to bring them home as soon as they have finished their job.

I rise, Mr. Chairman, to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for putting forth a very critical amendment to appropriate funds for a select committee to study the awarding and carrying out of government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I said, we want our troops to have what we need. We must be sure that the taxpayer's dollar is spent wisely.

In their bipartisan work, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) have made clear that accountability in government is not a partisan issue. Their leadership has set the right tone for this vital debate.

In 1941, Mr. Chairman, Senator Harry Truman got in his car and drove all across the United States, making unannounced visits to defense plants and corporate offices. The people running the plants did not recognize then Senator Truman. They did not bother to hide the corruption and waste that characterized their operations.

This was at a time when Senator Truman was in a Democratic-majority Senate, there was a Democratic majority in the House, there was a Democrat in the White House, and our country was in a world war. But when he came home to Washington, Truman called the trip ``an eye opener,'' and he soon

introduced a resolution to create the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program. I repeat, at a time of a Democratic House and Senate and White House, this Democratic Senator said we must subject this spending to investigation. It was estimated that by spending only $400,000 at the time, this Truman committee saved $15 billion. And it earned Senator Truman the gratitude of the entire Nation.

Today we are considering whether to appropriate another $80 billion to the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in addition to the more than $200 billion that has already been made available. Spending of this magnitude demands strict accounting.

Today it would be impossible to walk into a defense plant unannounced, of course; but while security measures have changed, our American values of accountability have not. There are honest differences about defense policy, but we should all agree in a bipartisan way that taxpayer money should always be spent efficiently and effectively.

Sadly, the stories of abuse on contracts in Iraq are everywhere:

Nearly $9 billion spent on Iraq reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management.

The Pentagon's own auditors have now concluded that Halliburton overcharged by more than $100 million under its no-bid Iraqi oil contract. $100 million.

A firm was paid $15 million to provide security for civilian flights into Baghdad, even though no planes flew during the term of the contract. This is a disgrace.

This may be just the tip of the iceberg, though. We simply do not know. That is what we want to find out. We do know who has paid the price for this waste and corruption: American troops and American taxpayers.

Our first priority must always be to force protection; yet sloppy contracting has meant that money has been wasted that could have been spent to provide our troops the equipment they need to do their jobs and protect themselves.

Recently, we learned that a contract for bulletproof ceramic plate inserts was awarded to a contractor who had no practical means of producing them. It took 167 days for troops in Iraq to start receiving the insert, 167 days. How many injuries? How many deaths? We do not know.

For taxpayers, every dollar that is wasted on corruption, and that is what this is, profiteering on the war is corruption, and incompetence, is one less dollar to pay down record deficits or to make Social Security solvent.

Harry Truman led the way for a Democratic Congress to conduct oversight of a Democratic administration. In doing so, he created a bipartisan consensus that gave the public confidence in the war effort. We can and we must do the same today.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) would allow Congress to monitor the contracting process better, to meet the needs of our troops better, and to safeguard taxpayer dollars better.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and in doing so to support accountability in government spending and to stop the profiteering on the war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 46th Anniversary of Tibetan National Uprising Day. We honor the many brave Tibetans who sacrificed their lives fighting for freedom, and we demand that the Chinese government release all prisoners of conscience including Tenzin Delek Rinpoche and the 11th Panchen Lama. I am proud that my constituents in San Francisco organize a peace rally and march commemorating this day every year.

When China's People's Liberation Army invaded Tibet in 1949, Tibet was an independent state. The Chinese government imposed an agreement on Tibet recognizing Tibet's autonomy over its internal affairs. But, as the Chinese government consolidated their control, they repeatedly violated the treaty and open resistance to Chinese repression grew.

On March 10, 1959, the people of Lhasa assembled together and called for the Chinese to leave Tibet, thus marking the beginning of the uprising. The Chinese crackdown was harsh. An estimated 87,000 Tibetans were killed, arrested, or deported to labor camps.

In the years since the People's Uprising, more than 1 million Tibetans have been killed and more than 6,000 monasteries and irreplaceable jewels of Tibetan culture have been destroyed. We know that Tibetans are routinely imprisoned and tortured for nonviolently expressing their views. Beatings, prolonged exposure to extreme heat and cold, electroshock, sleep and food deprivation, and forced labor are among the techniques used to torture Tibetan political prisoners.

Last month, the U.S. State Department published its annual ``Country Reports on Human Rights.'' The section on Tibet states that ``[Chinese] authorities continued to commit serious human rights abuses, including extra-judicial killing, torture, arbitrary arrest, detention without public trial, and lengthy detention of Tibetans for peacefully expressing their political or religious views.''

The Chinese government has not won the hearts and minds of the Tibetan people. Tibetans are as devoted to their traditional beliefs as ever, and the bond between His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people is fundamental and unbreakable. Attempts to drive a wedge between the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people have failed and have been counterproductive for the Chinese government.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the key to peace and stability in Tibet. Envoys of the Dalai Lama have traveled to China and Tibet three times in recent years to continue discussions with Chinese authorities on a permanent negotiated settlement. While open dialogue is a positive first step, it is time for the Chinese government to follow through with substance and not just process. It is time for China to take a step forward into a modern, open and free society.

The survival of the Tibetan identity is an issue of urgent U.S. and international concern. If we are not committed to meeting the challenge of Tibet then we cannot be consistent when we talk about human rights in any other place in the world.

As we honor the brave and heroic Tibetan people, we must heed the guidance of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. He is a constant reminder that the crisis in Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the world. We have not forgotten the people of Tibet in their struggle. Troops can crush a protest, but they can never extinguish the flame of freedom that burns in every human heart.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 10 years, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has helped protect women in this country from violence, abuse, sexual assault, and sexual predators. This landmark piece of legislation was achieved in part by the bipartisan efforts of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, of which I am proud to be a member.

VAWA has provided improved access to services and resources for victims of violence and their families. It has made a real difference in the lives of women and children, who no longer suffer in silence.

Community programs funded through VAWA aid law enforcement officers and prosecutors, encourage arrest policies, stem domestic violence and child abuse, establish and operate training programs for victim advocates and counselors, and train probation and parole officers who work with released sex offenders. VAWA has also led to the creation of battered women's shelters, rape prevention and education programs, the reduction of sexual abuse of runaway and homeless street youth, and community programs on domestic violence.

Despite the success of this legislation, we still have much work to do.

One out of every four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime. Equally alarming is that women ages 16 to 24 experience the highest per capita rates of intimate partner violence.

VAWA is up for reauthorization in this Congress. We must come together to put forward a bill that strengthens and improves our efforts to combat violence against women, including doing more for violence prevention. An essential component of prevention must be to increase outreach to young people.

We must also encourage adequate funding of VAWA initiatives. Unfortunately, each year we fall further behind in fulfilling the promises made in the authorization of VAWA. This year alone the Bush budget is more than $163 million short of the goal.

As we recognize the vital role of the Violence Against Women Act, I urge my colleagues to reauthorize VAWA in a bipartisan way and to dedicate the necessary resources to fulfill its mission.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of Magdaleno Duenas, a World War II military hero who passed away on February 27 at the age of 90.

We honor and thank him for his courageous military service and the sacrifices he made for our nation, as well as his lifelong struggle on behalf of Filipino veterans of World War II. His life is a symbol of the struggle for total recognition of Filipino veterans and a sad reminder of a shameful page in the history of our nation.

Born and raised in the Philippines, Mr. Duenas joined the 101st Infantry in 1941. In 1943, he joined the guerilla forces in the mountains and was captured by the Japanese while procuring food for American soldiers. Under questioning, Mr. Duenas denied any knowledge of the whereabouts of the American soldiers. He escaped, and helped 10 U.S. soldiers escape the Japanese POW camp.

Mr. Duenas came to the United States to claim his U.S. citizenship and military benefits, and fell into the hands of an abusive landlord in Richmond, Calif. He and 16 other veterans were held in captivity, beaten, chained and fed dog food, while their landlord kept their monthly government checks.

After being rescued, his experience received news coverage. It brought public attention to the plight of elderly Filipino veterans who came to America expecting to receive previously promised veterans' pensions for their honorable U.S. military service, but instead learned that Congress had stripped them of those benefits and recognition.

Thousands of Filipino veterans came to the U.S. seeking equity and have waited 60 years for the promise to be honored. After fighting for more than half a century for their right to U.S. citizenship, other issues related to their health and recognition remain to be addressed. Many live alone in poverty. It is a national tragedy to see our veterans suffer from neglect, despair and hopelessness.

Mr. Duenas moved to San Francisco's Tenderloin district in 1993, where he was vibrant member of our community. This diminutive, gentle man worked tirelessly to improve the experience of Filipino Veterans in the Bay Area.

All these years, he waited for the recognition of the U.S. Government for the services he rendered during WWII. He was featured in two documentaries: Tears of Old and Second Class Citizens. He died still waiting for the full equity bill to be passed by the U.S. Congress. We will not rest until the equity bill becomes law.

Mr. Speaker, we will never forget his struggle on the frontlines of the battlefield and on the frontlines of the fight for equity for Filipino veterans. Mr. Duenas' courage and resolve moves all of us to continue the fight for justice in our country for all people.

We will never forget the sacrifices Mr. Duenas and other Filipino veterans made for our freedom. We must dedicate ourselves as a nation to ensure that America fulfills its moral obligation to those who pay the high price for our freedom.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 27, the Workforce Investment Act Reauthorization.

Today, there are nearly 8 million people who are unemployed and seeking work in this country. There are an additional 5 million workers who want a job but have given up their job search out of frustration. And about one in every five unemployed people--1.7 million Americans-- has been jobless for more than 26 weeks.

These sad statistics make a clear point--access to job training services is critical for Americans across the country.

Job training should be a bipartisan priority of this Congress, but this is the second Congress in a row that Republicans have brought to the floor a partisan bill that undermines our job training initiatives.

This Republican bill puts the funding for job training services at risk by consolidating them into a block grant. This is at a time Republicans have already cut funding for job training initiatives under WIA by $750 million since 2002.

The Republican bill eliminates targeted job training for workers who need it the most--those who have lost their jobs to outsourcing and the downturn in our economy.

It allows the states to rob from Adult Education, Veterans' Reemployment, and job training programs for individuals with disabilities to fund more bureaucracy. This would severely jeopardize services to our most vulnerable populations.

Most troubling, this bill sends the message that discrimination will be condoned in federal, taxpayer-funded job training programs.

We all recognize and appreciate the work of faith-based organizations in their service to communities in need. But there is absolutely no evidence that the current law protections have hampered the full participation of faith-based organizations in providing job training services.

This bill, however, would allow religious groups to discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring or firing staff for federally-funded job training initiatives.

It would permit those seeking jobs funded by the federal government to be judged solely on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices, not on their qualifications or ability to do the job.

Instead of promoting the good works of religious organizations, this bill unfairly tarnishes them with the specter of discrimination that they have nobly fought so hard against.

The bill's constitutionally dubious provisions will introduce needless uncertainty and controversy. It will subject religious organizations to legally and morally untenable positions.

That is why this bill is opposed by many religious and civil rights organizations.

The Scott Amendment preserves current law, which permits these organizations to provide job training services with federal funds as long as they do not discriminate.

We can support faith-based organizations without breaking faith with our fundamental American commitment to non-discrimination.

And we can do so much more to support job training services for the millions of American workers who are struggling to find work.

I urge my colleagues to support the Scott Amendment and oppose the Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.

Today Republicans are bringing to the floor as their first major legislative action a payback to big business at the expense of consumers. The Republican agenda is to ensure that some Americans do not get their day in court.

Make no mistake that this class action bill before us today is an extreme bill. It is not a compromise bill as some have claimed. It is an extreme bill that is an injustice to consumers and a windfall for irresponsible corporations. Consumers will be hit hard by this bill, Mr. Speaker. It lumps together individual personal injury cases such as those involving Vioxx, which are not class action under current procedures, and forces them into the Federal courts. Doing so will greatly increase the likelihood that such cases will never be heard.

When Americans are injured or even killed by Vioxx or Celebrex or discriminated against by WalMart, they may never get their day in court. Those cases that do go forward will take significantly longer because the Federal courts are overburdened and unequipped for this caseload. That is why the bill is opposed by Federal judges, including The Judicial Conference of the United States. Special interests have even admitted that the real intent of this bill is to clog the Federal courts and, therefore, stop the cases.

To irresponsible corporations, however, the class action bill is a belated Valentine. It is exactly what they have asked for. Powerful corporations will largely be immune from the accountability that currently comes from meritorious State class action cases. For example, this bill would help shield large corporations from any accountability for Enron-style shareholder fraud, for activities that violate employee rights under State law, and for telemarketing fraud targeted at the elderly.

It should come as no surprise, however, that Republicans are seeking yet another way to protect irresponsible corporations.

The Washington Post reported that last year's Republican medical malpractice bill contained special liability protections that would have precluded consumers from suing to recover punitive damages arising for the types of injuries caused by Vioxx and Celebrex. Protecting big drug companies is always at the top of the Republican agenda. We saw that in the prescription drug bill under Medicare. This is yet again another example of Republicans being the handmaidens of the pharmaceutical industry.

This bill also runs counter to the principles of federalism that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim to support. It throws thousands of State cases into Federal courts that are not equipped to adjudicate State laws. For instance, lawsuits involving the enforcement of the State hourly wage laws, which often have greater protections than Federal wage laws, would be forced into Federal courts. In fact, 46 State Attorneys General on a bipartisan basis have requested an exemption so that they can continue to protect their citizens under the State consumer protection laws in State courts. The Republicans have rejected that request while Democrats have incorporated it into our substitute.

Democrats in our substitute support sensible approaches that weed out frivolous lawsuits but not meritorious claims. Our Democratic substitute says that certain kinds of cases must always have their day in court. Physical injury cases, civil rights cases, wage and hour cases, State Attorneys General cases, and others must be heard if we are to remain a Nation that strives for justice for all.

President Harry Truman said it so well. ``The Democratic party stands for the people. The Republican party stands, and has always stood, for special interest.''

I urge my colleagues to stand up to the special interests, to support the Democratic substitute, to listen, to listen to the recommendation of the Federal judges and the Judicial Conference of the United States and oppose this extreme legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a true heroine, Jessica Govea Thorbourne, who passed away on January 23 after a 12-year battle with breast cancer. Throughout her 58 years, Jessica worked tirelessly to improve the lives of immigrant farm workers and to strengthen the labor movement in California, nationally, and in Central America. She was a courageous, effective, and visionary leader, and a wonderful person. She will be sorely missed.

Born in Porterville, California, Jessica began working in the cotton fields at the age of 4. By the age of 9 she was distributing leaflets alongside her father, Juan Govea, a respected leader of the Mexican American community of Bakersfield. He had been recruited by Fred Ross Sr. and Cesar Chavez to help organize local workers for the Community Service Organization, CSO. Her mother Margaret also became a very effective advocate of CSO. At

the age of 12, as the president of the Junior CSO, Jessica led other child farm workers in a successful petition campaign for a neighborhood park.

After graduating valedictorian from Bakersfield High School, Jessica completed one year of college. She made the sacrifice of foregoing college to begin working closely with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, UFW. It was there as a caseworker that Jessica first called attention to the adverse effects of pesticide exposure on farm workers. While most believed that the rashes, headaches and dizziness were from heat exposure, Jessica having suffered the same symptoms herself, believed it to be pesticide poisoning. Her persistence gave fuel to union boycotts and eventually gained national attention when it became the focus of the 1969 Senate hearing on migrant workers.

When she was 21, she was sent to Canada to enlist supporters in the union's fight against grape growers. Her passion and eloquent speaking ability won broad support from students, laborers, and church groups and drew millions of Canadians into the boycott. The success of the boycott gave the UFW the critical leverage it needed to win contracts with the entire California grape industry. Because of her warnings, these contracts contained clauses banning the use of dangerous pesticides. Later, Jessica served as the National Director of Organizing for the UFW and was elected to the national executive board.

Jessica spent countless hours registering voters and turning out the vote for numerous elected officials, including Jerry Brown in his successful bid for governor of California in 1974, and Robert Kennedy in his bid for the California Democratic 1968 presidential primary.

As Chair of the California Democratic Party, I worked closely with Jessica in 1982. She demonstrated extraordinary leadership, energy, and commitment as the head of a crucial state-wide voter registration and get-out-the-vote drive. In 1992, she worked with Fred Ross Jr., at Neighbor to Neighbor, training leaders of SICAFE, the coffee workers' union of El Salvador, and with workers targeted by Salvadoran death squads.

For the last two decades, she continued her work as labor educator at Rutgers and Cornell Universities. At Cornell she directed the Labor In- House Programs in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. There she trained and inspired many organizers including Chinese-speaking health care workers, who with her assistance became activists and leaders in Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union.

Despite her poor health from her battle with cancer, which she believed was caused by exposure to pesticides in the fields, she continued to be an invaluable colleague in the labor movement fighting for economic and social justice.

We thank Jessica for her leadership, her courage, and her dedication to the labor movement and to our nation. Her work will continue in the laborers she empowered and the students she inspired.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Jessica's husband, Kenneth Thorbourne Jr., her mother, Margaret Govea, and her siblings. I hope it is a comfort to them that so many people share their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.