Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deep appreciation for the distinguished and colorful career of Dr. Robert E. Palmer. At the end of this Congress, Bob will retire, having served on the Committee on Science for 25 years. He is retiring as the Democratic Staff Director of the Committee on Science--having served in that position for longer than any other person in the history of the Committee.

Bob began his career with the Committee in the late 1970s as a Congressional Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Rather than return to academia as a research marine biologist--his field of training--Bob elected to stay on the Science Committee staff. For a quarter century, Bob has been a central participant in science and technology policy. Though he has worked largely in the background, he has made significant contributions to our Nation's well-being.

Bob was not a typical scientist. As an undergraduate, he studied psychology at Harvard and served as a Vista Volunteer. He supported himself in such varied ways as moving furniture, playing music and even working as a private detective. He left Massachusetts for the University of Delaware, where he earned a Ph.D. in marine biology. It was after he had completed his graduate work that he started on the Committee as a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) expert. Among his first critical assignments was to help negotiate the transition of LANDSAT from a government program to an operational satellite system in the private sector. This was followed by a leadership role on the Global Change Research Act. That initiative has led to the research that underpins much of our knowledge of global climate change today. He also set up a key hearing on the Search and Rescue Satellite Program that prevented that important international program from being canceled.

In the mid-1980s Dr. Palmer was promoted to Committee management. He first served as the staff Director of the Subcommittee on International Scientific Cooperation and then the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. He played a major role in the staff investigation of the Challenger accident, including studying issues around the fatal decision to launch.

On the I & O Subcommittee he led the investigation into problems with the NOAA-NASA weather satellite program. Without his work, it is likely that the country would have suffered some break in the gathering of real-time, high-quality data regarding emerging dangerous weather patterns. Such a break in coverage would have meant lost lives and increased property damage. Subsequent investigative work by Bob led to the resignation and later indictment and conviction of an Inspector General at an agency in the Committee's jurisdiction. His early work as a private detective ended up serving him well in his role on the Committee.

These are just a few specific examples of Bob's role in the work of the Committee. But he has helped draft numerous pieces of legislation, worked to investigate misconduct, served in many conferences with the Senate as the lead Democratic staffer and worked with Administration figures--regardless of party-to try to insure that policies and programs reflected the intent of Congress. His intelligence, energy, experience and humor have allowed him to accomplish much.

When Dr. Radford Byerly moved to Colorado in 1993, then Science Committee Chairman George Brown choose Dr. Palmer as the natural person to replace Byerly as the staff director of the full Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Bob has continued as the Democratic staff director of the committee for over a decade, serving under three senior Democratic Members from across the political spectrum. Bob has served each with talent and professionalism and all the Members of the Committee hold him in the highest regard.

Unfortunately for the Committee and the Congress, Bob's wife Mary, an accomplished researcher and teacher, has received an academic appointment from the University of Florida. So she is leaving the University of Maryland for Gainesville and Bob will follow her there. In his typically good-natured way, he says that she followed him to Washington 25 years ago and has stayed here for his career advantage; it is his turn to relocate to support her career. We wish you both well in the future. You have served the Committee, the Congress and the country with great distinction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time and for his leadership. He has brought many rules to the floor over the course of many sessions of Congress. Our country, this Congress, and the American people have all been well served, especially the people of Texas who took great pride in his leadership, the dean of the Texas delegation, a diligent and, when it comes to the Committee on Rules, that is part of what one has to be, a diligent and very astute and wise leader for the House Democrats on that committee.

The gentleman's service here will be long remembered. We will all be positively impacted for a long time to come, and I want to thank the gentleman and congratulate him for his service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Weldon amendment, an extraordinary sneak attack on women's rights and a disgraceful display of ideology over health.

This amendment is a radical change in policy that the House has not passed this session and that the Senate has never considered, debated, or voted on. Republicans slipped it into the appropriations in the dark of night when they thought no one was looking. It is entirely outside the scope of this omnibus spending bill, yet it is part of a must-pass bill at the insistence of House Republican leaders.

This language makes a mockery of Roe v. Wade. Under this provision, a woman will not know where her right to choose will be honored or where it will be denied.

This was first advertised to me as an expansion of the conscience clause which we all respect, as a person who served under the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on the Labor-HHS committee and with our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), I knew full well the importance of the conscience clause to Catholic doctors or other faith doctors, but particular mention was always made of Catholic doctors. It was said to me that this was merely an expansion of that from the doctors to the hospitals, Catholic hospitals. But, I say to my colleagues, it is so very much more than that. We all respect a conscience clause, but this goes well beyond that.

If a hospital, a health insurance company, or a doctor opposes Roe v. Wade, they could simply ignore it. They could simply ignore it. This is the law of the land; a constitutional right could simply be ignored. The Weldon amendment

is essentially a domestic gag rule, restricting access to abortion counseling, referral, and information. Health care companies should not be able to prevent doctors from giving medically necessary information.

This language, again, makes a mockery of existing State and local laws, including many State constitutions. Under the Weldon amendment, any law or regulation currently on the books to protect access to reproductive health services is at risk. The term ``discrimination'' in this amendment is so vague that it could be used against any Federal, State, or local government effort to provide reproductive health services.

This language makes a mockery of title X. The title X family planning program provides much-needed reproductive health services that reach millions of low-income, uninsured individuals; and it really is sad because we all want to reduce the number of abortions in our country. That is a goal that we all share, and reproductive family planning is one way to do that.

But under this amendment, clinics could participate in title X programs without providing a full range of reproductive health services. Federal dollars should not be used to deny the federally protected right to choose. Let me repeat that. Federal dollars should not be used to deny the federally protected right to choose.

Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but Republicans are gutting it step by step.

The Weldon amendment will have a major and harmful impact on women's health. This sweeping new exemption from current laws and regulations should not be the law of the land, and it certainly should not be a part of the omnibus appropriations bill.

The Republican assault on women's rights must be stopped. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Weldon amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time and in jest describing the remarks I wanted to make. I want to join him, I know he is a friend of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). The two of them have worked together, despite their differences on some issues, in a very courteous and constructive way for this House.

Mr. Chairman, I want to convey to you not only my personal congratulations and appreciation for your very distinct leadership on this committee but that of all the House Democrats. As a former member of the Committee on Appropriations, I saw firsthand the fairness, the intelligence, and the humor that you brought to the chairmanship. Our Congress was greatly served by your leadership, by your demeanor, by your friendship to each and every Member, and by the respect that you gave us all on the committee. You were a model of bipartisanship where you could be, where it was possible to be, and I think you always gave us the opportunity for that bipartisanship.

I want to again congratulate you, wish you well in whatever the arrangement of chairs is on the Republican side, and to say not only to you but to Mrs. Young, thank you for the attention you have paid to our men and women in uniform, to our troops in battle and when they come back. Again, congratulations. Thank you, my friend, Mr. Young.

I hope that bought you enough time. I have plenty more to say about you.

I will just make one comparison. When Mr. Livingston came in as the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, my colleagues on the committee will remember he brought, some would call it a machete, but I think it was called something else in Louisiana, and he was swinging this blade around, and that was how we started the term. It was humorous to some, frightening to others, a mystery to most.

In any event, when Mr. Young came, it was a much less menacing beginning and a much more fruitful, I think, opportunity for us all to work together. No offense to Mr. Livingston, but your approach and friendship was much more inviting. So, again, Mr. Young, thank you so much for your service and for your leadership. We are all in your debt.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to a former Member of this body, Tom Foglietta, who passed away so suddenly this week. Tommy was a gentleman, a diplomat, and a lovely and gracious man. We will miss him terribly.

At age 26 Tom Foglietta, as a Republican, Mr. Speaker, became the youngest person in the history of Philadelphia to be elected to the city council. He served there for nearly 20 years, devoted to the city he loved. In 1980, as a Democrat, Tom was elected to the Congress. I saw firsthand his values and his effectiveness as a member of the Committee on Appropriations where we developed a strong working relationship and a close friendship and took pride in our mutual respect for our Italian American heritage.

Tommy headed the Congressional Urban Caucus, promoted mass transit, and fought valiantly for the needs of Philadelphia, including the preservation of the Philadelphia Navy Yard. The entire country is in his debt for his relentless dedication to preserve and protect Philadelphia's Independence Hall, one of our Nation's sacred public places. In 1997 President Bill Clinton appointed Tom Foglietta to be the U.S. Ambassador to Italy, fulfilling a lifetime dream of his to serve his beloved America in his family's ancestoral home. Many of us heard him say over and over again that his grandparents came down the hill on a donkey in Italy to leave to go to America and he returned just two generations later as a U.S. Ambassador to Italy. It was in that role, in one simple act, that the world came to love and appreciate Tommy as we do.

Shortly after he arrived, a U.S. Marine fighter plane flying off course struck a cable car wire and killed 20 Italian skiers. There was great grief and outrage over this tragic event. The next day Tommy visited the site, knelt in the cold snow, and said a quiet heartfelt prayer for those who had lost their lives. That photograph of his prayer appeared in newspapers around the world presenting a human face of compassion for the United States. His act helped to difuse the public anger over the deaths and to convey the sincere apology of our country. Tommy did that spontaneously because he was a man of faith.

We expected no less of our Tommy. Quite simply, he was a good man we all loved to be around.

Tom Foglietta began his political career as a city councilman as a Republican, as I mentioned. He later ran for Congress and won as an Independent and then became a Democrat and remained so for the rest of his life.

But Tommy remained close to the people from all across the political spectrum, a testament to his appealing personality, his open mind, and his respect to each and every person in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for many here when I extend the condolences to Tommy's family and to the Pennsylvania delegation for this loss.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 110, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge during World War II.

I thank Speaker Hastert for scheduling this bill and giving us this opportunity to pay tribute to the brave Americans who fought and died in that crucial battle. I know that this is personal to the Speaker. His mentor, the former Republican Leader from Illinois, Bob Michel, received the Purple Heart and other citations for his bravery in that battle. I share the Speaker's respect for Leader Michel. Further, the Speaker's family hails from Luxembourg, and the special ties between our countries that resulted from the Battle of the Bulge have great meaning to him.

This is personal to me as well. My uncle, Johnny D'Alesandro, was one of the heroes who gave their lives for their country in the Battle of the Bulge. Like so many other families, his sacrifice was for us a source of both sorrow and pride--deep sadness over the loss of a wonderful man; tremendous pride that one of our own helped to preserve the freedom and values that we cherish as a nation.

But beyond the personal significance that the battle holds for us is the towering importance it holds for human history. The Allied victory in World War II literally saved the world, and that victory became inevitable when the Allied forces successfully repelled the surprise German attack in what we call the Battle of the Bulge.

With bitter cold and blinding snow, it was the bloodiest single battle ever fought by American soldiers. There were 81,000 American casualties, including 19,000 killed in action. The heroes of that battle rightfully take their place among the bravest and most noble in American history.

We dedicated the World War II Memorial on the Mall this year to pay tribute to all of the veterans of that war, and we will honor the heroes of the Battle of the Bulge with ceremonies by citizens of the United States, Belgium, Luxembourg, and many other nations in the coming months. But we can never truly repay the debt we owe them. We can offer only our words of heartfelt gratitude and our promise to never forget the sacrifice they made for our country.

May God bless the heroes of the Battle of the Bulge. May God bless all of the men and women serving in uniform today. And may God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, having just returned from the opening ceremony in Little Rock, Arkansas today, I rise to congratulate President Bill Clinton on the opening of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center. The library, an architectural triumph that evokes President Clinton's ``Bridge to the 21st Century,'' is a superb accomplishment worthy of the outstanding presidency it documents.

Containing 80 million pages of records, nearly 2 million photographs, nearly 80,000 artifacts and 21 million emails, it is the largest presidential library ever. It covers every aspect of his eight years in office, including domestic and international issues, legislative achievements, and personal triumphs and challenges.

The thoroughness of the library, however, is no surprise. President Clinton has always been known for his love of learning. The construction of this library and the opportunity to make resources available to scholars and the public is a personal joy to him.

In the library, visitors will learn the story of a great presidency that lifted the lives of so many Americans. During President Clinton's two terms in office, he created 22 million new jobs, and median household income was the highest in history. With an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and an increase in the minimum wage, America had the lowest poverty rate in 20 years. At the same time, President Clinton's responsible economic policies eliminated the deficit, and we had three years in a row of budget surpluses. More Americans were able to access health care and to own their own homes. We modernized our defenses, while strengthening our role in the world.

Bill Clinton's presidency is a powerful example of what we can accomplish when we ``put people first.'' Future Presidents and leaders should study his example.

Also characteristic of President Clinton, the library exists not for its own sake but as part of a larger effort to continue the good work of his presidency. Through the library and the Clinton Foundation, he is continuing to fight against HIV/AIDS, to promote racial and religious reconciliation, to encourage economic empowerment, and to support citizen service and leadership development. The library itself has helped revitalize Little Rock and has spurred more than $1 billion in economic development.

Bill Clinton's love of learning is infectious. He reminds us all of what a dedicated individual with drive and conviction can accomplish. I am confident that the Clinton Presidential Center library will be a valuable asset to scholars for generations to come and a destination for his many admirers from around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me this time, and I commend him for his very excellent work on fiscal soundness for our country and in this Congress. He has so eloquently driven the message home that no country has ever been strong, prosperous, and bankrupt. I thank him for his eloquence and his leadership.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, has been a champion for middle-income families in America and understands the importance of the fiscal soundness they have in their homes in paying their mortgages, their credit cards, their car payments, and the impact of a huge budget deficit, a huge national debt has on the lives of working families in America, and I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) as well.

I want to reserve my highest praise for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). This Congress has been blessed for many years by his distinguished service in the House of Representatives. He has been a champion for the American people, for the American farmer, and a leader for fiscal soundness in our country. He is about accountability, accountability in our service here. No one has been a stronger or more eloquent voice for that message and what it means. He has been a teacher to the Congress. He has changed the thinking of a political party by making Democrats the party of fiscal responsibility for having a pay-as-you-go policy where we say no more budget deficit, no more deficit spending.

It has too high a cost in the personal lives of the American people. It has too high a cost to fiscal soundness of our country, and as others have indicated, there are countries that own our debt that we are at the mercy of should they decide not to play in those markets at any given time.

So this place will simply not be the same without the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), but I hope that as a source of comfort, if that is the word, to him as he goes on to other great things, and I know he will, that he has made a tremendous difference for our country. He has made tremendous progress for our country. I know I speak for every person here when I say it has been an honor to call him colleague. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, many of us just came back from the dedication of the Clinton Library, where obviously we were drenched in the rain for several hours. But it was well worth it because we could pay tribute to a President who too was committed to fiscal soundness. Under the economic policy and the plan that was passed in this body by only Democratic votes, our country went on a path of fiscal soundness that had zero deficit in 1999. Zero deficit. Think of it. Compared to this year when the deficit is over $425 billion just for this year. And President Clinton, when he left office, he put us on a path of fiscal soundness and surplus of $5.6 trillion, $5.6 trillion in surplus.

And now we are going on a path of over $3 trillion in deficit, a huge swing approaching $10 trillion. It is historic, the swing that has taken place. So no wonder we would endure the driving rain and all that it did to us there to thank President Clinton.

And I might say that in attendance were also present Jimmy Carter, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President George W. Bush. And both Presidents Bush spoke with great eloquence. They spoke with great unity for our country. It was an honor for all of us to hear their words and to be there with them at the dedication of the Clinton Library. So it was a very wonderful occasion. And I, as Democratic leader, want to thank President George W. Bush for giving us the planes to enable us to go there and to thank our distinguished Speaker for rolling the votes so that the Democrats and I think some of the Republicans could go there. Senator Frist was there, but some from the House were there as well.

But just to get back to our subject here, here we come back. Is it not ironic that the Republicans in the campaign went out there and talked about their economic policy and the first order of legislative business when we get back here is to increase the debt ceiling? In the course of the President's administration now, this 4 years, it will have been raised $2 trillion. This is absolutely astounding in terms of these figures. Whatever happened to the deficit hawks? I know they are over there. We heard from them in earlier manifestations of their legislative lives that they really were concerned about the fiscal soundness of our country. Have the deficit hawks become an endangered species?

Be true to yourselves. Face the facts. We have to have pay-as-you-go again. Pay-as-you-go is what brought us into surplus. Pay-as-you-go is the way we have to go now. And we will have that opportunity to do that later.

I am going to submit my fuller statement for the Record because the hour is late and because my colleagues have spoken so eloquently to this point. But I just want to close with a point about accountability. This budget that we have is supposed to be a statement of our national values. We have talked about that over and over again. And a value that we have to have is accountability, how we answer to the next generation for the debt that we are piling on them. We want to give our children opportunity. Instead, we are giving them obligations.

It is simply not right.

So I urge all of my colleagues to support our motion to commit which will accommodate, will give the government a chance to go forward, but also to put a limit on this profligate increase in the debt. I hope at the end of the evening, though, that everyone who stands up for fiscal soundness will vote against this irresponsible lifting of the debt ceiling unless there is a responsible discipline thrust upon it of pay- as-you-go or a plan from the President to say how he intends to reduce the deficit.

With that, once again, I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their exceptional leadership on this subject, which is a very, very important one to our children, that we are accountable to them, that what we hand to them is our responsibility and that we will never forget that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal soundness, vote for pay-as-you-go, vote for a plan to reduce the deficit, vote for a limitation on the time that the Republicans can continue to pile on and pile on the debt.

At the same time, President Clinton's responsible economic policies eliminated the deficit, and we had three years in a row of budget surpluses.

How ironic--and how sad--that our first item of legislative business upon returning to Washington after election is to raise the debt ceiling to make room for the enormous piles of debt that President Bush, and this Republican Congress have run up.

When President Bush took office, we were on a path to a $5.6 trillion surplus. We are now facing a $3 trillion deficit--a fiscal collapse of nearly $9 trillion. Record surpluses have become record deficits. The deficit for this year alone is $413 billion.

Now, Republicans want to raise the debt limit for the third time in three years. Including this year's increase, Republicans will have raised the debt limit by more than $2.2 trillion since President Bush took office.

What happened to the Republican deficit hawks? They have become an endangered species in Washington. The truth is that there really is no limit to the amount of debt Republicans are willing to run up.

Republicans will tell you that these deficits are not their fault; that they were caused by circumstances beyond their control. But it's just not true.

These deficits are the direct result of irresponsible Republican choices--tax cuts for the wealthy and reckless corporate handouts including tax breaks that encourage shipping jobs overseas.

The Republican policy of borrow-and-spend must end. We are running up a bill and handing it to our children.

We should be giving our children opportunity, not obligations, but America's growing debt will ensure that our children and our grandchildren are paying for Republican irresponsibility for the rest of their lives.

Their taxes will pay for the interest on our debt instead of keeping our military the strongest in the world, strengthening Social Security, or improving education.

Higher deficits also have real consequences for American families today. The federal government is by far the largest player in the credit markets, and when federal borrowing increases there is less credit available to everyone else, causing interest rates to rise.

Higher interest rates mean consumers must spend more on their mortgage, credit cards, and student loan payments.

And when it becomes more expensive to borrow money, businesses are less likely to make the investments that generate jobs and opportunities.

Democrats have a better way. We believe in accountability in government. Accountability was one of the six core values in our New Partnership for America's Future.

Democrats believe we must return to accountability by restoring fiscal discipline and eliminating deficit spending with pay-as-you-go budget rules in which both tax cuts and spending increases must be paid for.

These rules created the surpluses under President Clinton, and can work again.

Democrats tried earlier today to restore the successful pay-as-you-go rules, but Republicans wrongly rejected that effort. Now, because this issue is so critical, we offer the Republicans yet another chance to work together in good faith to reduce the deficit.

Charlie Stenholm has long been one of the most passionate and eloquent advocates for fiscal responsibility in this Congress. And tonight he is giving us another opportunity to meet our moral responsibility to the next generation.

By supporting his motion to instruct, we will agree to increase the debt ceiling until April 15 next year, at which point the President must present a balanced budget. This would keep the government running and give the President and Congress time to put forward the balanced budget the American people need and deserve.

Thank you, Charlie, for all of your leadership, and for this motion. I urge my colleagues to support the Stenholm motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to salute Jennie Chin Hansen for her vision, leadership, and extraordinary service to San Francisco's seniors as she prepares to step down as Executive Director of On Lok Senior Health Services. She has had a magnificent career and will continue to make invaluable contributions to our City and our nation.

Jennie joined On Lok Senior Health Services as a research assistant in 1980. At that time, On Lok was a modest initiative in San Francisco's Chinatown that offered a day health program to 100 homebound seniors. Under her leadership, On Lok was transformed into a national model for an alternative to nursing homes for the growing population of frail and elderly Americans. On Lok has demonstrated how vital it is for the elderly to continue living independently in their homes, near their friends and families, and in their communities for as long as possible.

Jennie transformed On Lok into a non-profit family of organizations. On Lok now provides a spectrum of services including comprehensive medical care, prescription drug assistance, bilingual case management, home-cooked meals, and opportunities to socialize. On Lok provides transportation to seven neighborhood centers in San Francisco. In its 25 years, 20,000 seniors have benefited from their programs. Three million meals have been prepared and served. A quarter million classes on subjects including aerobics, dance, painting, and citizenship as well as group outings have met the physical and social needs of the elderly.

Jennie Chin Hansen led the effort to develop a national initiative called PACE, Program for All-inclusive Care for the Elderly, for which On Lok served as the prototype. In 1997, President Bill Clinton signed legislation making Medicare and Medicaid money available for PACE Programs. They are now operating in 30 states nationwide.

A visionary and a fierce advocate, Jennie has greatly influenced how our nation has come to regard care for the elderly. She has shown us the richness of caring for our seniors.

We wish her well as she continues her work educating nurses at San Francisco State University, Canada College, and the UCSF Center for the Health Professions. The nursing field with its acute shortages is blessed to now have her focus, her talent, and her wisdom. Her magic will accompany her wherever she goes.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, admiration, and affection, I am honored to salute John Burton for 40 years of fighting for human rights and social justice for the American people. John has been my mentor, my ally, and my dear friend for many years and throughout my time in Congress. Although term limits have now led John to continue his fight in new arenas, his leadership as President pro tempore of the California State Senate will long be recognized as a powerful force in the fight against poverty and in the fight for fairness for all.

The Burton name has occupied a revered place in California politics for decades, and John has served with great integrity in the Congress and in the California State Legislature. The vast landscape of John Burton's leadership includes legislative successes to protect our workers, to provide health care to all, to ensure equal rights for minorities, to preserve our environment, and to improve education. That landscape has been shaped by his intellect, his conviction, his humor, his sensitivity, and his ability to capture hearts, even those of his opponents.

One of John's first acts upon returning to the state legislature was to introduce a bill outlawing poverty. This was typical Burton style-- deep caring mixed with a brash reminder of our Nation's core value to care for those in greatest need. John displayed this fundamental commitment to justice recently when he spoke at a Building and Construction Trades Convention and stated, ``It is up to you and me and others like us to make sure that when people are asking for a job, that job has decent wages, decent working conditions, and decent benefits and that workers get their fair share of the wealth of this Nation. It's the just thing to do, it's due you, and we're going to help you fight to get what is your due.''

Sadly, John's political career has been marked by tragedy--the loss of his brother, Congressman Philip Burton, at the early age of 56 and the assassination of one of his dearest friends, San Francisco Mayor George Moscone at age 49. On the murder of Mayor Moscone, John wrote: ``Those senseless events brought me face to face with grief, making me realize that friends are precious and life is all too short. We should remember to take time from our own activities to spend more time with those we care about, rather than so totally immerse ourselves in our jobs and businesses that we are always too busy to relate to people.''

John's life has also been marked by great fulfillment--not only in his illustrious political career, but also in his family life. John's daughter, Kimiko Burton Cruz, is the light of

his life. They have traveled a wonderful journey together, and John is now the proud grandfather of Juanito and Mikala. Kimi, her husband Emilio, and their children are guiding forces for John, and will be a major part of John's future.

When you meet John Burton, you know you have met one of a kind. When you know John Burton, you have a friend. And, when you have John Burton as a friend, you know you have one of life's great treasures in hand.

John may have left the State Senate, but he will continue to be a fierce leader in our State, and in our Nation, on behalf of those who need him most.

Thank you, John, for your tireless efforts on behalf of so many in our country. May the wind be always at your back.

Mr. Speaker, environmental contaminants have been linked to birth defects, developmental delays, and many chronic diseases including asthma, various forms of cancer, and neurological disorders like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and Multiple Sclerosis.

Research shows that women and children are at especially high risk for health problems related to environmental factors. Each year, 4 percent of all births--more than 150,000 babies--are born with significant birth defects. The number of children with asthma has doubled in the past 15 years to about 5 million. And more than 8,000 children are diagnosed with cancer every year.

We do not understand the long-term health effects of the vast majority of the approximately 80,000 chemicals have been released into the environment over the past 50 years and the more than 7 billion pounds of chemicals that are released each year by industrial facilities in the United States. While many chemicals do not cause damage, we need to know which ones do.

In my hometown of San Francisco, breast cancer rates are more than 12 percent higher than they were 15 years ago. These rates are significantly higher than the rest of the nation, and public health officials are searching for

answers. We must understand what could be causing such a dramatic rise, especially when three out of four women who are diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history of cancer or other known risk factors. For these women, environmental factors may be the link to their cancer.

Improved infrastructure that enables local, state, and Federal public health agencies to monitor disease rates and environmental hazards is needed. However, there is no system in place that explores the relationship between disease and potentially associated environmental factors.

Today, I am joined by Representatives Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Louise Slaughter, and Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, Harry Reid, and Lincoln Chafee, in introducing the Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act to respond to this urgent need by creating the infrastructure necessary to collect, analyze, and report data on the rate of disease and the presence of relevant environmental factors and exposures.

The Network would also coordinate national, state, and local efforts to bolster our public health system's capacity to investigate and respond aggressively to environmental exposures that threaten health. In addition, the Coordinated Environmental Health Network will alert health officials when there is a sudden increase in any disease or condition, including those associated with a biological or chemical attack.

Over the past 3 years, my colleagues and I have worked to secure more than $73 million for pilot programs to begin developing the capacity for a Coordinated Environmental Health Network, with an additional $28 million pending in the Fiscal Year 2005 Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill. These pilot projects are giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency the information they need to put in place a comprehensive, coordinated network.

Once fully operational, the network will coordinate national, state, and local efforts to inform communities, public health officials, researchers, and policymakers of potential environmental health risks, and to integrate this information with other parts of the public health system.

This is really an issue of environmental justice. Minority and low- income communities are particularly vulnerable to environmental health hazards. The factories and dumping sites that emit pollutants are often located near communities with little political and economic power, and therefore less ability to protest. The result is an elevated risk of exposure to harmful substances.

Numerous public health and environmental organizations understand the need for an improved response to these threats, and the Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act is supported by the Trust for America's Health, American Public Health Association, Citizens for a Cleaner Environment, March of Dimes, American Lung Association, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, The Breast Cancer Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and many others.

We must respond to these health threats in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. To take action to prevent disease we must understand its cause. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this vital legislation.

Mr. Speaker, It is with great personal sadness and San Francisco's deep sorrow, that I rise to pay tribute to Vernon Alley, the most distinguished and beloved jazz musician in San Francisco's history, who passed away on October 3rd. Vernon honored his beloved City by choosing to pass up playing in the big jazz cities of New York and Chicago to devote his life to enchanting and inspiring generations of San Franciscans. He elevated our City with his music and his dedication to racial justice.

A lifelong San Franciscan, Vernon went to high school with Joe DiMaggio, where he became an all-star fullback. His interest in jazz began as a boy when his parents took him to see jazz pioneer Jelly Roll Morton. He started his own group in the 30's in the Fillmore. In 1940 he went to New York and joined the Lionel Hampton Band. Two years later, he became a member of the Count Basie Orchestra.

Vernon Alley knew and played with the greatest jazz musicians and performers of his generation--Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Erroll Garner, Nat King Cole, Charles Mingus, Ella Fitzgerald, and Billie Holiday.

He returned to his beloved San Francisco in 1942. The music scene exploded in the 40's when African Americans moved to San Francisco's Bayview District to work in the shipyards. Vernon fostered jazz in the Bay Area during the heyday of the Fillmore District and North Beach jazz scenes of the 1940's and 50's.

Vernon was as dedicated to fighting racism as he was to his music. He singlehandedly integrated the San Francisco Musicians Union. As chairman of the board of the black musicians local, he fought for integration of the City's jazz clubs, luring most of the white musicians into his local, because they wanted to play jazz in the swing clubs. As an accompanist for Ella Fitzgerald, he fought the segregationist policies of the casinos of Las Vegas.

A close friend of many San Francisco mayors, he served for years on the San Francisco Arts Commission and the Human Rights Commission. He was active in the City's arts community and hosted two popular radio programs and a television show. His good friend, columnist Herb Caen, whom he first showed around town when Caen was a young newspaperman, often mentioned Vernon as a man ``whose smile lights up the town, even on foggy days.''

Vernon was inducted into the San Francisco State University Alumni Hall of Fame in 1997. In 2001, when his health was declining, the San Francisco Jazz Festival put together a 3\1/2\ hour tribute called ``The Legacy of Vernon Alley'' that drew more than a thousand musicians and friends. Later that year, an alley in a redevelopment project was named ``Vernon Alley.''

We will never forget our most beloved jazzman. With a twinkle in his eyes, an infectious smile, a booming laugh, and his bass ``Baby'' in hand, he captivated us all. I hope it is a comfort to his brother, Eddie, his longtime companion, Loma Ruyter, and his nieces and nephews that so many friends and fans share their grief and are praying for them at this sad time.

Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon we will be voting on the Defense authorization bill, which I strongly support, and I commend the committee for bringing it to the floor. I want to especially acknowledge the great work of our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his leadership on the legislation.

I want to particularly acknowledge two things. One is, under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), we had the phased-in elimination of the 2-tier survivor benefit over a period of 3\1/2\ years. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) took the lead on that initiative with the Edwards discharge petition. They made it possible for the survivors.

I want to acknowledge the work of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), working with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to eliminate the 10-year phase-in of the disabled veterans tax for those with 100 percent VA disability ratings.

However, one area where I was very disappointed, and I condemn the action of the conference committee, for the second time in 4 years, the Republican leadership has unconscionably ignored the will of the House and the Senate and stripped the hate crimes prevention provisions from the bill. The needs of law enforcement, which has repeatedly requested Federal assistance in solving and preventing a wide range of violent hate crimes, have been ignored. The measure enjoyed strong bipartisan support, was endorsed by over 175 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations, including the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and many others.

That list would have added sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the Federal hate crimes laws, allowing the Federal Government the ability to provide critical assistance to the States. It is very, very unfortunate that it has happened. I want the Record to show that this is the second time that this has happened.

Four years ago, there was strong bipartisan support in both Houses supporting adding this to the Defense authorization bill. It was rejected 4 years ago. Once again, the Republican leadership of the House has decided that we will continue to discriminate against those on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Having said that, I plan to support the Defense authorization and, once again, commend our colleagues for bringing it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 845) for a special counsel to investigate the actions of the Republican majority leader and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his great leadership on issues of importance to middle income Americans. The gentleman tried very hard to correct this problem in a way that would not decrease the deficit and would increase jobs in America but, unfortunately, that approach was rejected. I wish that we had a chance to vote on it today.

Mr. Speaker, in commending the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his excellent work on so many issues emerging from this committee, I deeply regret that we would not have the opportunity to take the approach he took, which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) shared with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for a long time.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the committee, gave the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) a dubious distinction by saying he did yeoman duties in bringing this bill to the floor, but this is a terrible bill for working families in America.

Please do not paint him with that brush. He really did try; but, unfortunately, he succumbed to the bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this deeply flawed bill, and I thank the ranking member again for his steadfast leadership on behalf of our manufacturing sector.

This conference report is yet another example of the stark differences between Republican and Democratic priorities. We are faced with a simple problem caused by your trade sanctions, but Republicans are using a $4 billion trade issue to pry open the door wide for special interests. This is a blatant example of corporate welfare, full of pork for the special interest. This is not, just as the expression goes, this little piggie goes to market. This is the whole hog lot goes to the public trough. The oinking is so loud the Republicans cannot even think straight.

If you listen closely you can hear those hogs oinking. Can you hear them?

That may be why at every step of this process Republicans have consistently made decisions that are against the interests of middle- income Americans.

The difference between the parties is clear. In our New Partnership for America's Future, Democrats pledge to create new jobs here in America. But Republicans under this bill are exporting jobs overseas. For more on the subject, I will follow the lead of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and say please visit HouseDemocrats.gov for more on the New Partnership for America's Future.

Can you believe this? In the past 3 years nearly half a million jobs have been shipped overseas. But instead of working to stop this hemorrhaging, this Republican bill tonight has in it tax incentives to export American jobs. Think about it. You are a U.S. taxpayer in a job. They are using your tax dollars to export your job overseas. In fact, as businesses around the country are hit with 12 percent tariffs on more than 1,600 products, Republicans have been holding this bill hostage so they could include 24 extraneous provisions that will create jobs overseas rather than here at home.

No, Mr. Speaker, our distinguished whip and I in criticizing this bill are not saying that the problem should not be corrected. We said it should be done right, not at the expense of middle-income Americans, not at the expense of increasing our deficit.

This bill includes a whopping $42 billion in tax cuts for the foreign operations of U.S. multinationals. We all recognize the importance of multinationals to our economy, but we must face the facts. Many of those very same corporations pay no income tax whatsoever. Many of the multinational corporations getting tax breaks in this bill, pay no income tax whatsoever. And from 2001 to 2003, Federal corporate tax collections fell to their lowest sustained level in 6 decades, in 6 decades.

Democrats led by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) pursued a bipartisan bill that was tailored to create good-paying jobs in the U.S. without sacrificing our long-term fiscal health.

The difference is clear. In our Partnership for America's Future, Democrats have made a commitment to fiscal responsibility and the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) pay-as-you-go. Republicans chose in this bill to spend as they please and then hide the true costs of their bill with expensive gimmicks. A convoluted combination of phase-in, sunset dates, changes in scoring rules mask the true cost of the bill and how it will constrict our choices in the future.

This conference report is being touted as revenue neutral. But, in fact, it will cost nearly $80 billion over the next decade. The difference is clear. In our New Partnership for America's Future, Democrats put forth an agenda to support manufacturers and small businesses. In this bill, Republicans choose to give handouts to special interests. Please again visit us on HouseDemocrats.gov.

Our manufacturing sector is struggling to stay competitive in global markets. The erosion of our manufacturing base is cause for serious concern in our country, but not in the Republican Party. Under the Bush administration, we have lost nearly 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. Despite this depressing fact, this conference report stripped language that would have given bigger tax cuts to companies that manufacture more of their goods in the U.S.

That was one of the gentleman from California's (Mr. Rangel) provisions. They stripped from the bill a provision that would have given tax incentives to companies that manufacture more of their goods in the United States. The conference report also has broadly expanded the definition of manufacturing to include activities wholly unrelated to the manufacturing of goods and products.

Now, listen to this: the bill is riddled with special interest giveaways including suspension of customs duties on ceiling fans and steam generators, tax deductions on bows and arrows, fishing tackle boxes and sonar devices, as well as tax incentives for other specialized industries. Even the Bush administration's Treasury Secretary has criticized the Republican FSC/ETI bill as including a myriad of special interest tax provisions that benefit few taxpayers and increase the complexity of the Tax Code.

How is that for an indictment? The choices that Republicans are making are clear, and it is clear that they are the wrong choices. The same Republicans who today will find enough money for their special interest giveaways have not found the funding to secure loose nuclear materials to protect the American people. They have shortchanged veterans health care by $1.3 billion. They have underfunded No Child Left Behind by about $9 billion every year, 9.4 billion this year; and they have broken their promises on Pell grants.

They have defeated a $1,500 bonus for our brave men and women in uniform returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, 213 to 213. Every Republican who voted against that bonus is responsible for its defeat because it failed by one vote.

I urge my colleagues to make the right choice and defeat this job- exporting, budget-busting, special interest handout.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time, and for his extraordinary leadership in bringing this substitute to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, the credentials of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are unsurpassed in this body. In the previous Congress, following the 9/11 attack, and even before that, he served as the Chair of the Homeland Security Task Force for the House Democrats. He serves on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and he serves on the Committee on International Relations, in senior positions on both committees. So when we speak about protecting our homeland, our waterways, our ports, our rivers, our whatever, he knows of what he speaks. And when he talks about taking the fight against terrorism into Afghanistan and other diplomatic initiatives, sitting on the Committee on International Relations, he knows of what he speaks.

But perhaps the saddest, let us say the saddest learning experience he has had in this regard was the loss of over 100 of his constituents on September 11, 2001. So it is with great pride, I say to the gentleman, that I rise to support the gentleman's substitute. It is an informed substitute, it is based on bipartisanship, the bipartisanship of the Commission and the bipartisanship of the Senate, as it is a reflection of two of the bills that were put together in the Senate.

Following 9/11, Mr. Chairman, the Congress called for a joint inquiry of what happened then.

As a ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, at the time I served as a co-chair of that, and before we started our proceedings, our inquiry, which was conducted in a bipartisan manner, for most of the time, but before we began, we said that we must have a moment of silence before we began. It was both a deeply felt approach to it because we all wanted to pray for the families who had been harmed, who had lost their loved ones in 9/11; but also it represented the inadequacy of any words that we could ever have to express sympathy or condolence to those families. No words could possibly be adequate.

We resolved as we proceeded that we were on hallowed grounds. Anything to do with 9/11 was hallowed grounds. There was no place there for partisan politics. There was only room there for the U.S. to honor the memory of those who lost their lives; to pledge to the families that we would find the terrorists and bring them to justice who were responsible for this heinous crime; to make sure that we protected the American people so that acts of terrorism would not occur in this country; and to give comfort to those families that we were doing everything possible to achieve those goals.

The work that we did on that committee was largely ignored, and many of us thought that there should be an independent commission to bring fresh eyes to the challenges that we faced with a broader mandate; hence, the 9/11 commission was born. And the members of that commission understood that there was no place for partisanship on that hallowed ground that they now occupied, and they knew the responsibility that they undertook. The commission was reviewing the failures associated with 9/11 and suggesting ways to correct them.

Under the leadership of Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton, the commission acted in a very bipartisan and thoughtful way to accomplish its assignment. By persistence, dedication, and an unshakable belief in the importance of its task, the commission overcame every obstacle, and on July 22

provided us with a unanimous bipartisan blue print for action. Our entire Nation is in their debt.

The 9/11 families and the commission then looked to Congress to enact their recommendations into law. The 9/11 families had reason to be proud that their advocacy was effective, when last night the Senate adopted by 96 to 2 a bipartisan bill that meets the challenge for reform laid down by the commission and needed by our country.

We have an opportunity to do the same thing by adopting the substitute advanced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) whose district like so many others across our country bore such pain and sorrow on September 11. The Menendez substitute is a merger of the legislation introduced on September 7 by Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman and the bill authored by Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman that was reported by the Senate Government Affairs Committee.

These bills were endorsed by the 9/11 Commission and by the 9/11 families groups as being faithful to the commission's recommendation, and they were bipartisan from day one.

The Republican leadership bill, H.R. 10, on the other hand, implements fully only 25 percent of the commission's recommendations as opposed to the Menendez bill which is a reflection of the commission's recommendations. Having waited for more than 3 years to take action, why would the House want to adopt a bill which falls so short of the reforms identified as urgently necessary and adopted unanimously by the bipartisan commission and by the Senate?

Our country has tremendous unmet needs in the area of homeland security. Securing nuclear materials overseas before they fall into the hands of the terrorists and could do us harm; improving security on our airports, our ports, and our rail lines; ensuring that our first responders can communicate effectively in real time; and protecting our critical infrastructure have not been given the priorities they deserve in H.R. 10. We are not as safe as we could be.

Our first responsibility as elected officials is to protect the American people. Making the right choices on legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations is one of the ways that we can meet that responsibility. The right choice today is the Menendez substitute that will bring us closest to the bill adopted 96 to 2 in the Senate, facilitate a rapid conference, and enable legislation to be signed by the President quickly.

Mr. Chairman, on September 11, 2001, the United States was the victim, as we all know, of some of the most horrific attacks in our history. Today is 1,121 days later. This House is finally being given the opportunity to consider a comprehensive legislative response to those attacks. It took over 3 years.

When the 9/11 Commission issued its report on July 22, it did so with a sense of urgency. Having delayed so long in taking action, it is critical that we get it right and that we get it right now. A vote for the Menendez substitute will honor the work of the commission, will respect the wishes of the families, and will make the American people safer.

I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez substitute.