Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Polish News, Chicago's Polish American monthly magazine. Polish News has served as an integral part of the Polish American community for the past decade, documenting Polish American culture in Chicago and around the world.

On behalf of the more than 110,000 residents of the Fifth Congressional District of Polish descent, I want to congratulate Polish

News on their 10 years of success, and wish them well for many more to come.

Publications like Polish News promote cultural understanding and are vital in maintaining cohesive relationships in a Nation as diverse as our own. For the past 10 years, Polish News has documented the vibrant social, civic, and philanthropic accomplishments of Polish Americans and their contributions to our society.

The magazine's success is due in large part to its wide array of content, including interviews with prominent Polish American leaders, profiles of community members and special events, and information on historical moments of importance to the Polish community.

Polish Americans have shared a leading role in business, fine arts, charity and many other forms of public service. The Polish American influence has shaped the city of Chicago and our country into the strong and dynamic Nation that it is today. I commend Polish News for documenting these events, ideas, and stories.

Today, I am proud to reaffirm our appreciation and respect for the Polish culture and the Polish American community as we congratulate Polish News on its dedication to promoting our city's ethic pride. I look forward to continuing to read Polish News in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, this morning the President noted with a report that we were at the starting line; 3,600 American lives, $485 billion spent, $10 billion a month, 5 years into the war. If that is the starting line, then I ask you, what is the cost to get to the finish line? If the President describes today that we are at the starting line, I ask you, what is the cost to get to the finish line after all those lives?

That would not be the words I would choose to tell the American families who've lost their loved ones. That would not be the words I would choose to tell the people who've put up close to a half a trillion dollars that we are at the starting line after 5 years, and our reputation sullied around the world.

Our American men and women in uniform have done brilliantly. Everything we have asked them to do, they have done. They have defeated an army. They have seized a nation, deposed a dictator, taken a castle. There is not one thing we've asked our men and women in uniform and their leadership to do. The only thing they've asked is that their civilian leadership do what they have done, and they were let down. They have won the war, and this administration has failed in the occupation.

Now, President Kennedy once said, ``to govern is to choose; choices are between bad and worse.'' And my colleagues on the other side are not all wrong. They fear that if we leave precipitously, there could be real violence, worse than we're seeing; not totally wrong.

Those of us have said, after 4 or 5 years of more money, more troops, more time and more of the same, at a certain point, you have to understand that there are costs to that because today we see in the report that, in fact, al Qaeda is reconfiguring and stronger than ever. There are costs to staying, and there are costs to leaving.

So what are the choices we all have to make? They are choices between bad and worse. There are those who want to stay and fight the war in Iraq, and there are those of us who want to fight al Qaeda. This is a road to fighting al Qaeda.

There are those who want to police a civil war between Sunnis and Shia, and those of us who believe in fighting the war on terror. That is the choice. Neither is easy. There are consequences to both, but all of us recognize that.

But after 5 years, 3,600 American lives, $485 billion, you have to ask yourself, are we getting stronger, or are we diminishing our reputation and our power?

As our military's stretched, as we see al Qaeda reconfiguring and stronger than ever before, that is the choice before us. And I do agree; it's not a free choice. But staying blindly, without ever having asked a question, only more money, more time, more troops and more of the same with no other clear policy has consequences to America.

In that sense, as we measure the Iraqi progress, as the President noted today, there are also ways to measure our progress.

We were told the insurgency was in its last throes. Not happening. We were told, at another point, they were placing democracy is the Mideast. Not happening. We were told that we were going to find WMD, weapons of mass destruction. Not happening. At every point that this administration has put a benchmark down for itself, it is not happening.

There are consequences to moving just down this path that has been traveled. Too costly. It is time for a new direction for America and Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday the President will issue an interim report on the Iraqi government's success or failure meeting the benchmarks. But prior to taking a look at that report, we have another set of benchmarks to look at; that is, the benchmarks for President Bush's administration and what they've done on the Iraqi policy.

When the war began, The White House said that Americans would be greeted as liberators. That's not happening.

Next we were told oil revenues would finance the reconstruction of the Iraqi society. Not happening.

Then we were told that the insurgency was in its last throes. Not happening.

Then we were told that we were planting a democracy in the heart of the Mideast. Not happening.

At every turn, the administration's benchmarks for the Iraqi strategy have failed to meet their own measure of success. And the American people have been asked to pay for this failure.

Two years ago, we were spending $5 billion a month in Iraq. It is now reported that we're up to $10 billion a month in resources, not counting the amount of lives we lose on a monthly basis.

Mr. Speaker, we've waited long enough. The President's strategy of more troops, more time, more money and more of the same has run its course. It's time for a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, today parents have a choice of a second job, a second mortgage, or dipping into their savings to help pay for their kids' college education, and that is the wrong choice to ask parents to make.

In Illinois, tuition last year went up, increases of 14.5 percent, the fourth largest increase of any State in America. Today when a kid graduates from college, they graduate with an average of $15,000 of debt. So on the front page they get a diploma, and on the back side, they get their first credit card bill. That is the wrong choice for America.

You could not write the American decade if you didn't look at the GI bill and making a high school education universal in America. Those are the two most significant economic acts of the last 100 years.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle noted two examples. One, they are worried about the deficit. After $4 trillion of new debt, I appreciate your conversion to concern about increasing the deficit, but there is no deficit spending here.

Second, and most importantly, they talk about the importance of the Pell Grants. This is after, in fact, the President's budget cut Pell Grants one year $1 billion, and froze it for the last 3 years. We are doing the right investment. Not one of us would be in this institution if it wasn't for two things: the love of our parents and the access to a higher education. We are providing Americans something different from the last 6 years. Rather than slamming the door shut on their access to a college education, we are opening the doors and making the American Dream possible. I compliment our leadership for bringing this bill and opening the doors of America's future with a good college education bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the addition of silver and largescale silver carp to the list of injurious species under the Lacey Act. The rule published in today's Federal Register by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finally recognizes the threat that Asian Carp pose to our lakes and rivers. I applaud the Fish and Wildlife Service for responding to the pleas of the Great Lakes delegation and others in moving to ban the importation and interstate transport of silver carp.

The Great Lakes are a national treasure. Representing 95 percent of the United States' surface freshwater and providing drinking water to more than 30 million Americans, the Great Lakes are vital to the commercial, educational, and recreational interests of millions of Americans and Canadians.

Since my first day as a Congressman, I have been committed to restoring and protecting our Great Lakes. Invasive species have long been a serious threat and require a serious answer. We have seen the disastrous effect the zebra mussels have had on water quality and water treatment facilities in Chicago. The silver carp could be an even more severe threat to the Great Lakes, endangering fisheries, ecosystems, and even anglers.

Silver carp are native to Asia, but were brought to the United States as a means to control algae in sewage lagoons and fishery ponds. These fish have escaped into surrounding waters creating an imbalance in their ecosystems and posing a threat of injury due to the carps' ability to propel itself out of the water and into boats.

Today's decision to ban the importation of these two species is a breath of fresh air for the Great Lakes, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to make sure that other species of Asian Carp are included on the list. We cannot take the Great Lakes for granted, and we must remain vigilant in protecting them.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I offer a simple amendment that bars the executive branch from being used to fund the office that does not exist in the executive branch, the Office of the Vice President.

Last week, we all received a tutorial in U.S. Government history from the Vice President's office. Apparently his office is not an entity within the executive branch.

There have been 46 Vice Presidents in U.S. history, and not one of them knew this or ever claimed this position. Perhaps the Vice President thought he occupied an undisclosed fourth branch of government.

His claim flies in the face of the Constitution and was offered in an attempt to avoid following the rules governing the treatment of classified information and documents. This claim was particularly ironic this week, given the four-part series the Washington Post ran about the Vice President's role in this administration. And rather than claim that he wasn't part of the executive branch, it sounds like, from reading those stories, he is the executive branch.

Yesterday, the Vice President was forced to admit what even an eighth grade student knew, there is no ``Cheney branch'' of government.

While the Vice President's excuses may change, his desire to ignore the rule remains just as strong as ever. The Vice President is unwilling to risk that the documents detailing the flawed intelligence and faulty assumptions that led us into the war in Iraq. He has been held unaccountable for 6 years, and now he wants to be unaccountable in the historical record.

Whatever his reasons, this penchant for secrecy is not new. Shortly taking office, the Vice President, in meeting with oil and gas executives and not wanting to turn over that information, claimed he was part of the executive branch.

After the Vice President excluded himself from the executive branch, my amendment follows up on the Vice President's assertion and restricts the executive branch funding for the Vice President's office. It leaves intact his Senate presidency office. It delivers two messages. If the Vice President is not in the executive branch, then there is no executive branch office to fund. And perhaps more importantly, it underscores that the Vice President is not above the law and cannot ignore the rules. The law should follow him, whatever branch of government he chooses to hang his hat in.

Mr. Chairman, we have a duty to ensure that no individual in our government, no matter how powerful, is allowed to ignore the rules. And when the Vice President is avoiding accountability, it is the Congress' responsibility to demand that accountability.

The Vice President must know that no matter what branch of government he may consider himself part of on any given day or week, he is not above the law.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to say that it's true, there is an important constitutional precedent here, and that's why the Vice President should never have claimed that he wasn't part

of the executive branch, something any eighth grader knows.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I want to make two closing points really quickly to my colleague from Ohio, if I can: one is I don't come to this amendment lightly. The Vice President's unprecedented act of declaring that he was not in the executive branch is the reason I submitted this.

To the second point, you had said, we may have a Vice President. Having worked in the executive branch, Vice President Cheney is the Vice President of all of us. He is not yours. He is all of ours. That is why all of us were outraged by the position that he took that he was not part of the executive branch so he can avoid accountability. He is the Vice President of all of us. We ask him to abide by the law, to understand that when there is a rule in place that he is accountable and responsible to that, both for the historical purposes and when it relates to national security matters. That is why all of us were outraged when he made the decision to keep his meetings with oil executives secret.

At every step of the way, he has chosen secrecy over sunshine; obstruction over accountability. We would ask seriously that the Vice President operate with that seriousness.

We didn't come to this lightly. He took an unprecedented step. It is not one we would have done gingerly, messing with his office. But I want to remind everyone here, the reason we are speaking up is because he is our Vice President. We would like him to act accordingly, in the office that he has and the responsibilities that come with the office.

Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield for a short question for the whip?

Mr. Chairman, question number one to the minority whip, I would say to you that, of course, there are three branches of government. I don't think anybody in room or in the Chamber needs that explanation. It is the Vice President's lawyer that needs that explanation.

Second, you do believe if he is in the Vice President's office, he should observe all the laws and regulations that come with that as it relates to the responsibility of that office.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, for years the Republican Congress sat idly by while we spent billions of dollars in Iraq and lost thousands of lives, no questions asked.

Now Republicans are starting to get nervous with the lack of results. On Monday, Senator Lugar said President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq has very limited prospects for success and called on President Bush to begin to reduce U.S. forces. It's exactly what Democrats have been saying all along.

From day one, the new Democratic Congress said that once we have accountability, benchmarks and reporting requirements, we begin to see the beginning of the end. I can now say that the end is in sight. Instead of rubber stamping a failed Iraq policy, Democrats demanded that Republicans and the country measure the progress or the lack thereof of the President's plan for more troops, more money, more time and more of the same.

Starting in July, we will put the administration of the Republicans to the test, a new direction in Iraq, or more of the same of the present course, vote after vote.

We said last May that we would begin to see the beginning of the end. Just this week, we begin to see that light at the end of the tunnel on this failed policy.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, when the Vice President met with the senior executives of big oil companies, and we wanted to know what they discussed when it came to energy policy for the country, the Vice President exerted executive privilege and said those meetings were private.

Now when we want to know what he is doing as it relates to America's national security in the lead-up to the war in Iraq and after the fact, the Vice President has declared he is a member of the legislative branch, the legislative branch.

Every 10-year-old who is studying social studies in the United States knows that the Vice President is in the executive branch. So we have decided that if the Vice President is no longer a member of the executive branch, therefore, we will no longer fund the executive branch of his office, and he can live off the funding for the Senate presidency.

We will follow the logic of this ludicrous argument that the Vice President of the United States is in the legislative branch, no longer in the executive branch. The Vice President is acting like he is unaccountable and above the law.

In fact, there is a real consequence to his decisions. His decision to avoid the historical record as it relates to America's national security has consequences. For too long he has accounted like he is above the law and not accountable, and it's time we bring him back to earth.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and my colleagues Mr. Holt from New Jersey, Mr. Becerra from California, Mr. Honda from California and Mr. Ellison from Minnesota in joining me in sponsoring this legislation and bringing it to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I remember when we had this legislation in the full committee by Chairman Conyers. About a week earlier than that, I had taken my 10-year-old down to Selma for the anniversary of the March over the bridge. It was his birthday gift, and we went on that march with John Lewis. And through the museums we walked through, my son and I were reminded of how the State was used to intimidate voters from exercising their right to vote. America reached out and widened the circle of democracy by ensuring that those who wanted to exercise their right to vote had a chance to vote.

That week, when I came back from Selma, we were in the full committee marking up this legislation. What had happened, and I noted then in the committee and others had noted, and it was not unique, was that the baton of intimidation had been transferred from the State to parties. They intimidated voters using leaflets to falsify voting places, days of voting and what information was required to vote. Phone calls had been used, all types of information, to basically dissuade Americans from exercising their right to vote. Through the 1950s, 1940s, 1930s, et cetera, that was the voice of our State governments and apparatus, to intimidate voters.

That insane act of intimidation, in communities across America and neighborhoods, now that baton had been passed to State parties, who were doing the same thing, suppressing people's right to exercise their right to vote.

Three years ago in this hall in the President's State of the Union, he recognized a young woman from Iraq who voted. She held up her purple finger. Colleagues, on the Republican side of the aisle, they also marked their finger purple, recognizing the importance of voting. Iraq and the people of Iraq, Sunni, Shia and Kurd, had taken that step of courage and voted. She came here in the State of the Union in this hall, the hall of democracy that people around the world look at, and said, you protected our right to vote.

This legislation is intended to ensure that individuals do not receive phone calls lying and deceiving about where they vote; they do not receive leaflets telling them they need other information than they properly need to vote; and, most importantly, that the location of where they are voting had been changed, when it never had been changed, all in an attempt to suppress the voting by individuals across communities and to depress the turnout of people who wanted to vote on Election Day.

The chairman of the committee noted other things we have to do, like a paper trail for voting to ensure the integrity on election day.

This legislation ensures that if you try to use acts of intimidation to deprive people of the right to vote, the United States Government, with the full force of its laws, will say there is a higher penalty and you will pay a price for that act of deception.

I commend Members on both sides of the aisle for bringing up this legislation. It is bipartisan in nature and in its finest sense it speaks to the voice of democracy. Whatever our policy differences on other subjects, we ensure that when people want to vote, they have a right to vote, and that the agencies of both our parties and our government don't try to intimidate people from exercising that right, but encourage them to vote.

That is what the Act here is. I am proud that this legislation not only receives bipartisan support, but wide support across both parties, because it speaks to what is so appropriately the American way and what is right about voting.

Mr. Speaker, nothing is more American than voting and nothing could be more un-American than deceiving one from taking the right to vote.

I want to thank the chairman for bringing this legislation to the floor today.

Madam Speaker, this week President Bush nominated former Congressman Jim Nussle to run the Office of Management and Budget.

Just before Mr. Nussle and President Bush took charge of America's books, we had a $236 billion surplus, the largest in U.S. history 3 years running. Under President Bush's watch and Jim Nussle's, in 5 short years we had a $318 billion annual deficit and $300 trillion in new debt owed to the Chinese and other foreign countries.

We have heard a lot from this President and the GOP Members about the importance of fiscal responsibility. We Democrats couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, when it comes to George Bush and the Republican Congress, we will forever be in their debt.

Mr. Nussle once said, can we continue to fund our war efforts on this type of ad hoc basis? I believe most of us would agree that we cannot and should not. We continue to give President Bush a blank check costing us nearly $1 trillion on credit card funding for this war.

Mr. Nussle and President Bush came to change Washington, and Washington changed them. Nominating Mr. Nussle tells Americans a lot of what they can expect from a Republican administration.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the MacArthur Foundation and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) of Chicago for their efforts to support communities throughout the city of Chicago. Recently, the MacArthur Foundation announced it will invest $26 million to support the New Communities Program. The New Communities Program is a project of Local Initiatives Support Corporation of Chicago that seeks to help lower income neighborhoods grapple with safety, employment, health care, affordable housing and development.

Chicago is a city of neighborhoods, which is why the MacArthur Foundation's most recent donation is so exciting. The Foundation's $26 million contribution will invest in 16 different Chicago neighborhoods--Auburn Gresham, Chicago Lawn, Douglas, North Kenwood- Oakland, Grand Boulevard, East Garfield Park, Englewood, Humboldt Park, Little Village, Logan Square, North Lawndale, Pilsen, South Chicago, Washington Park, West Haven and Woodlawn.

Since 2002 the MacArthur Foundation has donated over $21 million annually to the New Communities Program, providing seed money that has blossomed into over $255 million in private investment. The new investment in our communities is expected to multiply into another $500 million in private funds over the next 5 years, which will provide thousands of new jobs and opportunities to residents of some of Chicago's overlooked neighborhoods.

The Local Initiatives Support Corporation was created in 1979. Since then, LISC has provided 215,000 units of affordable housing, created funding for schools and day care for over 40,000 children annually, and added parks and playing fields to accommodate 150,000 people. In Chicago alone, LISC has dedicated more than $100 million into housing and economic development since 1980, and they remain committed to their vision of building whole communities.

Madam Speaker, the New Communities Program has served as a model to other community development organizations across the country and around the globe, and thanks in part to the Local Initiatives Support Corporation of Chicago and the MacArthur Foundation, our neighborhoods will continue to be some of the best in the world.

I would like to thank my colleague from New York and also my colleague from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, you know, it's interesting to have that discussion about what is a haircut. At this very time this would lead, if I am not mistaken, this actual amendment would lead to about a $150 million cut to assistance in Israel. At no time is there a more precarious moment in Israel's history since the founding of the State of Israel, since you have now a war in Lebanon that is affecting the security of the State of Israel. You have the Gaza strip, which has been turned over to Hamas, an enemy of the United States. There is no time that is a more precarious moment in Israel's security.

You have what's going on in Lebanon on its northern side. You have what's going on in Iraq, Jordan, dealing with over 1 million Iraqi refugees; Gaza being taken over by Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction.

And what do our Republican colleagues recommend? A cut in assistance to the only democracy in the Middle East that is facing its most serious threat on its northern border, its southern border and, in fact, what's going on to its near eastern border. This is a precarious moment in Israel security.

I do believe there can be cuts. I find every time we want to cut assistance to big oil companies, you guys can't find the will. But when it comes to cutting assistance to Israel, you find the will to do that. When it comes to cutting assistance, when it realizes with our military commitment to our allies

around the world, you know what, since everybody wants to make a quote, talk is cheap. Talk is cheap when it comes to standing next to your allies. We must put our resources to the only democracy in the Middle East.

This would directly affect Israel. It would directly affect Egypt. It would directly affect the countries we rely on as the bulwark against the spread of terrorism in the Middle East.

I would hope you understand. I see the politics. I know a little bit about politics. I see the politics in a simple half-percent cut. It happens to be politics at the expense of our allies who are on the front line in the fight against terrorism.

I would think better of you, of what you have always said rhetorically on the floor about your commitment to democracies in the Mideast.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 21, a resolution calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President e.g. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.

The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as, among other things, the act of killing members of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group with the intent to destroy the targeted group.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly made inflammatory and hateful comments regarding Israel, including direct statements calling for the destruction of Israel, an act of genocide. In 2005, he called for Israel to be `wiped off the map' and led a group of students in chants of `death to Israel'. Furthermore, the Iranian president has questioned the history of the Holocaust, an insult to the millions of men and women who perished as a result of that genocide.

These comments are not only hateful and unacceptable, but his comments threaten the security of Israel. As Iran funds, trains, and openly supports terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, that are determined to destroy Israel, Ahmadinejad's words raise concern on Iran's intentions. We must send a clear message to Iran and its President: we condemn your dangerous and reckless remarks.

As a member of the United Nations, the President of Iran's comments violate U.N. rules and must be dealt with decisively by the United Nations leadership and all those in the Security Council.

I want to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rothman, for his hard work on this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution to call on the United Nations Security Council to hold Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accountable for his intolerable words that call for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to welcome the world- renowned artist, Oldrich Kulhanek, to my home city of Chicago to exhibit his drawings and prints.

Mr. Kulhanek's work is displayed in Chicago's Art Institute, the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris, Prague's National Gallery and in more than twenty other of the world's most prestigious museums.

Mr. Kulhanek's dedication to his work came at a high personal cost. His conviction that ``the artist should reveal the pretence (or lies) of the establishment, unmasking what is happening to man a showing how man is manipulated and dehumanized'' led to his arrest in 1971 by the Czechoslovak Secret Police. He was accused of ``disgracing the representatives of communist countries,'' with depictions of Josef Stalin in many of the prints he created from 1968 through 1971--an offense that led to a charge of sedition.

Mr. Kulhanek spent a month in jail on this charge, and he was interrogated every 14 days for 2 years afterward. Although the laws under which he was charged were revoked by the president, his work was not immune from the government's hand.

In a scene the artist has described as ``Kafkaesque,'' eleven of his prints stood trial in a Prague Local Court and were sentenced to destruction. He was forbidden to show his work or to collaborate with publishers. Despite this artistic exile he continued to create. Many of his pieces were shown illegally under a pseudonym or smuggled to European countries for exhibition.

But today the Czech Republic celebrates Oldrich Kulhanek. He was commissioned to design the new Czech Banknotes, and was one of the principal designers of new Czech stamps, including one depicting President Vaclav Klaus.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to welcome Oldrich Kulhanek to Chicago and I thank him for his fine work and commitment to art and freedom of expression.

Mr. Speaker, some things are more important than politics. Lifesaving research that has the potential to cure diseases and end suffering for millions of Americans ought to be one of them.

But for President Bush, certain things aren't above politics. The President formed his opinion on stem cell research and now he has America ensnarled in his political straitjacket.

The American people see stem cell research as a cure to illnesses that plague their family and family members.

So today, as the President vetoes legislation that is backed by 72 percent of the American people, he will attempt to fool the American public and soothe his conscience with a symbolic gesture that is empty of medical value.

The American people will not be fooled. They know that the President has failed to lead and, instead, made a decision that is a crushing blow to millions of Americans suffering from diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and ALS.

Sixty years ago, when America was plagued with polio, this Nation and its political leaders rose to the challenge and took on the medical challenge of their time. Thank goodness we are not facing that challenge now, and we had leaders then who put medical science ahead of political stance.