Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, once again, the world has seen another outbreak of Palestinian violence in the Gaza Strip. At least 14 people were killed and 70 were wounded the other day in Gaza City, bringing the total to at least 63 people having been killed.

Fatah and Hamas are tearing the Palestinian area of the Gaza Strip apart in what they call a political rivalry, and the Palestinian people are paying a price for Palestinian violence. Governments from around the world and the Arab world have said nothing about this violence, while Palestinians kill each other.

I just want you to think for a second, if this was a result of Israeli-Palestinian hostilities, would the international silence and the silence of the Arab world be this deafening? Does anyone really believe that if this level of violence existed between Israel and Palestinians that the U.N. would not be called into an emergency session to condemn Israel for the violence?

Those same countries that normally attack Israel, I would hope you now find your moral voice and your moral conscience with the attack and senseless violence that is leaving the Palestinian people so hopeless.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2640, the National Instant Background Check System--NICS--Improvement Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital correction of

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

The minority leader brought up two essential points which were basically, at that point, why we were here at a quarter to 1 in the morning. The first point dealt with the issues of fiscal responsibility and spending, and the second issue dealt with earmarks and the procedure or transparency and the questions that the minority had.

On the first issue of fiscal responsibility, he said that they were tired of the amount of spending that was going on and how basically flagrant spending had happened under Democrats.

After 6 years and $4 trillion of new debt run by a Republican President and Republican Congress and Republican Senate, I do appreciate your conversion on the road to Damascus as it relates to fiscal responsibility and spending. And I do believe that after we've seen the highest increase in the Nation's debt in the shortest period of time under a Republican Congress and a Republican President, adding $4 trillion to the Nation's debt, that you have decided enough is enough when it comes to a piece of legislation on homeland security, 5 years after the strike on 9/11. I think it's ironic that it's on this bill that you have decided the spending issue you want to debate.

Now, the minority leader did offer, and he has said as recently as a couple weeks ago, when we have certain debates on the war in Iraq, protecting America, to always be conscious that people from around the world are watching this debate. So I do believe as it relates to homeland security, as we try to protect our borders, as we try to protect our ports, and as we try to protect our cargo, I'm sure the terrorists around the world are quaking in their boots on the motions to rise. You've given them nothing but fear as that issue emerges. That is your right.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, and since it's often noted on the politics of what has happened in the last election, which is the issue of earmarks, as it relates to the motion to rise, you are long on process and short on policy.

What does this bill actually do? And it's ironic that it's the Republican Congress that basically has enacted, for lack of a better term, a filibuster in name that prevents us from considering 3,000 new border agents.

It's ironic that it is the Republicans in the minority who have dealt with, for the first time we're dealing with adding funding for nuclear material detection, you're preventing that to be voted on.

It's the Republican minority who is dealing with, as it relates to our port security, adding 100 percent new equipment and radiation detection to deal with radiation coming into the port which we know from all the intelligence is an attempt by those who are trying to hurt and harm America, and there's also an increase in our cargo protection.

We've increased funding for our police and fire equipment and fire departments; grants to study and make sure urban areas know how to deal with an emergency; transit grants in case terrorists try to strike our areas in major urban areas; fire grants; communications equipment for police and firefighters; port security funding; explosive detection system; air cargo explosive screening; customs and border agents, adding, as I said, 3,000 new agents for the border, 250 additional customs agents; law enforcement efforts for customs officers; fence requirements all for our border, all this to make sure that our borders, our cargo system, and our ports are secured.

Anytime you want to have that discussion, as long as you want to have that discussion, we are ready to have that discussion of what it takes to secure America, but after 5 years of the strike on America, I find it somewhat poetic that this would be the bill that on procedural grounds you would decide to bring the Congress to a halt.

And I do appreciate since there are no earmarks in this legislation, you seem to be making an argument about earmarks on this issue that fully funds our efforts to secure America.

To the minority leader's second point on earmarks, the question is, and it's a legitimate question for us to debate, have we lived up to our rhetoric?

I request an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the opening of the Center on Halsted, a new gay and lesbian community center at 3656 N. Halsted, in the heart of the northside of the Fifth District. This new facility will give the surrounding community a state of the art building for youth services, mental health services and community/ cultural programming and more.

The Center on Halsted has actually served Chicago's gay and lesbian community for more than three decades. Unfortunately, though, they had to make do with temporary facilities for a number of years. Today, the community has a place to call home.

This grand opening has been a long time in coming, with planning dating back to 2001. I am proud to have worked closely with the leadership at the Center on Halsted, Mayor Daley, Alderman Tunney, and many other local leaders to make the dream of a new center a reality.

The Center on Halsted focuses their programming into three areas: mental health, youth and community outreach, and cultural programming. One of the center's goals is to provide role models for young members of the gay and lesbian community.

The three-story facility is a proud home for a proud community, and the end product is almost as remarkable as the hard work of all the people who made it happen. The roof deck, computer lab, theater facilities, Whole Foods, cafe, and more will make the Center on Halsted a welcoming location for its neighbors and an engine for economic development on the northside of Chicago.

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled that the Center on Halsted has opened its doors. I want to congratulate everyone involved on a job well done, and I know the center will be an important part of Chicago for a long time to come.

Mr. Speaker, at this time last year, the Jack Abramoff scandal was on the front pages of the newspaper. Today, a new guilty plea in the scandal proves it is not over. It is like deja vu all over again. The president of a major environmental group with close ties to this administration pleaded guilty to obstructing a congressional investigation and agreed to provide assistance in the ongoing Jack Abramoff scandal investigation.

In little more than 4 months, Democrats and Republicans together in Congress have put an end to ``business as usual'' on Capitol Hill and passed the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate. But our work is not done. We must continue to hold those in this institution accountable for their conduct, and reform doesn't stop at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The American people deserve better from their public servants.

This Congress passed legislation to assure that the public trust is not lost at the expense of private interests. We are shining a bright light on the goings on at the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of the Interior, the Veterans Administration and the Student Loan Administration. With the power to hold hearings and ask questions that demand answers, this Congress is holding the administration and their officials accountable for their conduct and their oversight of the public trust.

America voted for change, and we will hold both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue accountable. We will never accept business as usual in Washington and will not stop until we bring the right reforms to the goings on here in Washington.

I would like to thank my colleague from Colorado. It is interesting she said that. I would like to speak slightly out of order from my prepared text.

The last time we debated stem cell research back in November of 2006, exactly that time there was another discovery about human amniotic fluid basically giving us the fact that we don't need stem cell research.

Past that, and you go back to the period of time in 2005 when we voted on this, the South Korean example was discovered exactly that same day we had that vote.

I used to, growing up, I used to say paranoid people have enemies, too. It is ironic that every time we vote on this legislation, all of a sudden there is a major scientific discovery that basically says you don't have to do stem cell research. The truth is, you don't base your research on one report in a medical journal. You provide leadership.

If you go back to the 1950s, we had a polio epidemic in this country that was killing thousands of people, leaving people terminally paralyzed. With funding from Washington, we found a cure for polio. Politics did not lead the way, medical research led the way, and America led its leadership there. That type of leadership needs to be provided for illnesses of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and other work where we should allow the scientific research and the promise of stem cell research to move forward, rather than allow politics to dictate what we do here.

This is one of those promising areas where, regardless of philosophy or ideology, rather, or party affiliation, when you look at diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, it affects every family, every community, individuals across this country. There is a promise here, a right way to do it. We can provide the leadership here for our medical research, define illnesses and cures to disease that not only affect our budget, our country, but our capacity to lead in the scientific field in this area.

I would like to thank my colleague, and this Nation should support this legislation. I look forward to finally getting this on the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1469, the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act of 2007, legislation which establishes an educational foundation to increase the number of students studying overseas in developing countries and non- traditional areas.

The Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation would provide a national competition for student fellowships and also provide funds directly to colleges and universities to support their study abroad programs, enabling over one million American students to study abroad annually.

This program was first envisioned by my friend and mentor, the late Senator Paul Simon. Senator Simon had a bold vision for American renewal driven in part by international education. His vision included an understanding of diverse cultures, direct exposure to foreign languages, and increased interaction with the peoples of other nations as achieved through study abroad.

As with his other initiatives, Senator Simon worked diligently to bring his vision of international education to life. H.R. 1469 continues this legacy of education and understanding by completing that vision.

Senator Paul Simon had a life-long commitment and passion for education. As the founder and Director of the Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, Senator Simon taught classes in journalism, political science, and history. As a scholar, he authored several books investigating the history and politics of Illinois. As a Senator, he was passionate about expanding educational opportunities to America's youth. I am proud to have worked for Senator Simon years ago, and I am proud that we are continuing his legacy here today.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides excellent educational opportunities to America's students, strengthens our international relations, and promotes good will throughout the world. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these laudable goals by voting in favor of H.R. 1469, the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and colleagues for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, my father is from Israel, and every summer I spent a good portion of my childhood in Israel, 2 days after the 1967 war, every summer for 5 years, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1973, every summer going to Israel. I remember that moment, since the bulk of my childhood was spent there.

The Six Day War was obviously not only an amazing military accomplishment, a lot of people think today in retrospect that it is a pyrrhic victory, that things would have been so much easier for Israel had that victory not occurred; that David became Goliath.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of myths that I would like to address to the chairman, and also to the leader on the Republican side.

One is it was not such a peaceful time pre the 1967 war. There were a lot of attacks on Israel because of indefensible boundaries. In fact, the peace with Jordan and Egypt could not have happened if it weren't for the 1967 war. There was no possibility, given the pan-Arabism that existed under Nasser, for any peace to have happened.

In fact, one has to look at the 1967 war, that it created possibilities, as did the 1973 war, for peace to occur, and every nation that has decided to make peace with Israel, Egypt and Jordan, has had peace.

The war in 1967, because of the changes to the boundaries to the south, to the immediate east and to the north, redefined Israel's security. Once those nations came to terms with Israel's status, which is what the 1967 war accomplished, they accomplished and received peace, and land-for-peace has been at the premise of America's foreign policy, Israel's foreign policy, and was possible because of the outcome and the results strategically on the ground and in the environment because of 1967.

People remember the military accomplishment which was unique and stands out in the 20th century, but it also created an environment that allowed peace to happen, at least with the two countries that have chosen the road of peace with Israel.

I would like to pick up on my colleague from California and her comments about the next 40 years. The next 40 years needs to be a period of time where America, and this may be a little bit of a criticism here, we were always and always will be the indispensable leader in that region. The moment we walk away from that role the parties lose interest in discussing among themselves.

I would hope that immediately the President would again, and I echo what my colleague from California said, nominate somebody to be a Middle East envoy, to again create a dialogue between the Israelis and Palestinians, to find what the Jordanians and Egyptians have found with the Israelis, peace, based on the premise of land for peace.

But everybody should not only look at the military peace of the 1967 war, but it created an opportunity that today two countries that prior to that had fought in the 1967 war against Israel now recognize Israel and have economic, cultural and other types of trade, and that is only due to what happened in 1967.

To those who think 1967 was a pyrrhic victory, wasted, we wouldn't have in fact the Israeli-Jordanian agreement

or the Israeli-Egyptian agreement if it weren't for the victories that happened there. There were also other things that happened to Israel.

One does hope though that as we look forward to trying to find resolution and look at the region as a whole, everybody has always described that Israel and the Arab conflict was at the heart of the Mideast. That is not at the heart. It is a problem. It needs to be resolved.

But the larger problem of the greater Gulf area is not one of the Israeli-Palestinian problem, although it is a significant problem; it is the radical philosophy that is dominating the young in the Arab world that we need to help resolve, because it is leading and feeding part of the terrorism, and that is the larger conflict. The Palestinian-Israeli problem is a problem, but it is not at the heart of the conflict in that region.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment our two leaders today, the chairman and the leader on the Republican side, for this resolution, for recognizing an historic moment that in fact without which we would not see the peace between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 441) and ask for its immediate consideration.

I'd like to thank the chairman, and I use that with my kids at the breakfast table. You can talk not to exceed 3 minutes. But thank you very much for that time.

When the new Congress came in session, this Congress, the 110th, we banned gifts by lobbyists. We banned meals paid for by lobbyists. We changed the rules of the reports on earmarks where Members were doing things that benefited themselves at taxpayers' expense.

Today we're considering the most comprehensive legislation on lobbying disclosure since the Watergate era, the most comprehensive legislation, because over the last 12 years, people saw a buildup in this people's House that gave them no confidence that their business was being done, but, in fact, the work of the special interests were done.

When that gavel on the Speaker's table comes down, it's intended to open the people's House, not the auction

house, and the American people lost confidence in this institution. The playing field was tilted to the special interests.

This legislation, time and again, alters fundamentally the law as it relates to the abuses that we saw over the last 12 years.

Now, I compliment my colleagues because in 1994 when they ran for Congress, they came to change Washington. They passed a lobbying bill, but after 12 years in power, rather than change Washington, Washington changed them. They became comfortable with power. They became comfortable and cozy with the special interests, and the American people said, enough.

It beared on us and the responsibility of Democrats to change the culture here, to break that link between lobbyists and legislation.

What happened at the end of the last 12 years was the special interest voices were heard at the expense of the American people.

So whether it's in banning the K Street Project that rewarded companies and institutions that hired the majority party's friends, whether it became gifts, trips and the reporting of those trips, whether it became when Members were negotiating their future employment and doing the work here on the floor of their future employer even before they left, every element of that reform needed to be changed. This bill, under this chairman, does it.

That will set the laws. Now it's the conduct of the Member to also understand there is a new day, there is change in the way you do things here in Washington.

About 6 years ago, the Congress altered, through passing campaign finance reform, the relationship between a contributor and a candidate. This alters the relationship between a lobbyist and the legislation.

Going forward, it would require a constant vigil, the attempt now is to ensure that at no point did those who represent the special interests have a capacity and an interest and an access that far outweighs the American people. That is the attempt of this legislation.

Whether it's the provision that relates to Jack Abramoff, the provisions that relate to the K Street Project, the provisions that relate to rangers or pioneers, that they don't have an ability to do things for Members or individuals that far exceed what the people who vote on election day for that Member and that their interests are heard.

We have to always come back and make sure that it is rules of the road to Washington don't tilt in favor of the special interests. This is a beginning, and it builds on what we did by banning on day one the gifts and meals by lobbyists, brings transparency to earmarks, and it brings transparency to the entire process as it relates to lobbyists' influence on legislators.

I commend our colleague and our chairman for his leadership on this legislation.

I would. I do appreciate it.

As you heard what I said from my friend from California, I said you came to change Washington and to pass lobbying reform. Over 12 years you came to change Washington; Washington changed the Republican Congress.

Now, to that effect, since you decided not to politicize it, but did decide to describe it, as a sham.

I don't think I will use that time.

Madam Chairman, as Ronald Reagan once said, facts are a stubborn thing. Let's take the section on required

recusal for Members and staff in negotiation for jobs. This bill has a closure on that, and it brings disclosure on that. The bill brought up before the Republican Congress last time just sits by on that.

Bans the K Street Project: This legislation only, in the last time, it said nothing on that. It was silent, except it was against the House rules.

Disclosure of lobbyist contributions to charities, conferences, or similar events Members have interests in: This bill has it. Last year, it did not.

The Harry and Louise disclosures, so interest groups could hide behind phony names and advertise against Members: This bill has it. Last year's did not.

Public database of Members' travel and financial disclosures: This bill has it. Last year's didn't.

Increased penalties: This bill has it. Didn't last.

Spousal lobbying, restrictions on their spouses: This bill has it; did not before.

Disclosure of lobbyist bundling will be considered in separate legislation. The goal is on comparison of the legislation. This is an improvement.

Second, to my good friend from California, I am glad you passed legislation last time. The Senate has now passed this. We're going to go to conference on this bill and actually get it done.

Number two, and, most importantly, I don't want to go forward looking back. My goal is to get this done, because as I said before, this is an institutional problem that requires an institutional solution, and that's what we have provided here.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleague from South Carolina for his leadership and, most importantly, his leadership because the Democrats promised in November that we're going to bring a new direction and new priorities to Washington.

We've accomplished in 6 months what my colleagues have failed to do in 6 years and that is produce a budget that produces a surplus.

Let me say what a surplus is since you've had such a recognition of not being able to produce one. Surpluses are the fact when the government puts its fiscal house in order and matches up its needs with the American people and produces a surplus, because your financial legacy is $4 trillion of new debt.

When it comes to economic policy, the one thing that can be said about the Republicans' fiscal mess is that we will forever be in your debt. That is the one thing that's for sure. $4 trillion in 6-years, the largest increase in the Nation's debt in the shortest period of time is your legacy, and I don't think you've quite gotten the recognition for what you've done to America, left it nothing but red ink.

This budget is not only in balance, but it's in balance with our values, our values that ensures that 8 million children who do not have health care but parents work full-time, they will get health care; in balance with our values to make sure that we're not subsidizing the financial industry by making sure that middle class parents have the financial resources to send their kids to college; making sure that when it comes to our veterans that in fact we are rewarding our veterans who have fought for this country and say the proper recognition for their service to America, that they get taken care of. And every step of the way, this budget is not only in balance fiscally but is in balance with our values.

The entire legacy in 6 years of the Republican stewardship was one of $400 trillion of debt left for the Americans to clean up that mess, and we have produced in 6 months a budget that's balanced, and at the end of the process also creates a surplus.

There are different and stark choices. President Kennedy once said, To govern is to choose. We've made the choices to make sure that middle class families get a tax cut, kids get health care, veterans get the respect and the resources that they need to move on with their life, and our families who know that an education and a college education in an era like this where you earn what you learn, that a middle class family does not need a second mortgage or a third job to send their kids to college.

I commend my colleagues for this new direction budget, a budget that is in balance and is also in balance with our values.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Keelin Broughan on winning the 2006 Presidential Award of Excellence in Math and Science Teaching.

Ms. Broughan is a kindergarten teacher at Paul Revere Elementary School in Chicago. I often say that we need to start teaching math and science to our children as early as possible, and it doesn't get much earlier than kindergarten.

Paul Revere Elementary is a Chicago Public School with a very long tradition in the community. Thanks to excellent teachers like Keelin Broughan, students from a variety of backgrounds are able to have access to an outstanding education.

This week, Ms. Broughan will be presented with her award and have an opportunity to meet the President of the United States and her fellow award winners from across the country.

Since 1983, over 3,700 teachers have received Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. The effort and ability of these educators will help ensure that our children are ably prepared for the coming years.

Madam Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Keelin Broghan on her outstanding work in the classroom, and I wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, like my colleagues, I too, rise in support of the full funding for the 100,000 community police officers. It has been a linchpin to a very successful anti-crime strategy.

In the 1990s, we pursued a single strategy of putting more cops on the beat and getting gangs, guns and drugs off the street. It led to the longest and largest decline of violent crime in American history.

After the elimination of the COPS program, community police officers, we saw a steady increase in violent crime. Cops doing community policing, an old strategy, door by door, knowing their neighbors, knowing their community, led to a dramatic drop in violent crime. Reducing those 100,000 extra police on the streets led to an increase in violent crime.

Democrats came here to change Washington, to bring a new direction to our policy. Seeing an increase in violent crime in America, we went back to a basic fundamental strategy that has proven year after year to be successful, adding 100,000 cops, doing community policing, knowing their neighbors, knowing the kids that go to school, knowing where the problems are, hitting the problems before they start, leading to the most successful anti-violent crime strategy in American history.

I am proud that we have brought this change to Washington.

Mr. Speaker, in 1994, when we passed the Community Policing Program that added 100,000 community police onto America's streets and also followed through with the strategy of not only getting cops on the beat, but getting gangs, guns and drugs off the street, we saw the longest and largest decline of violent crime in America's history.

After that program's success of adding 120,000 community police officers to the streets across this country, when it was ended in 2002 we saw violent crime in America begin to inch up again. Community police officers walking the beat, knowing the neighborhood and knowing their community is the linchpin of a successful anti-crime strategy.

I am so proud that we have a bill here representing, again, going back to a very basic approach of community policing by putting more cops on the beat, which is the success to reducing violent crime in America. We saw that rise again because this COPS Program ended. Every sheriff, police chief and mayor has asked for this program to be renewed, and I am proud we have done that to successfully once again get back to helping our communities reduce crime. In Chicago, we added 1,800 cops and we saw crime reduced in our neighborhood.

I thank the chairman from Michigan and also the gentleman from New York for their leadership in getting this bill passed.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my colleague from Indiana who takes seriously his public service and his time and his trips to Iraq.

As you comment on the installment plan we have, I don't mean to do this, but we've tried the ``blank check approach.'' You may not like this installment plan, but we have tried for 4 years an approach of being a blank check. No oversight, no accountability, no questions asked. And that has resulted here.

Our men and women, and I know this is true for everybody here, we have great respect for what they have done. We asked our Armed Forces to seize a country. We asked our Armed Forces to take down an enemy's army. We asked our Armed Forces to seize the capital. We asked our Armed Forces to capture a dictator. They've done all of that. They have been unbelievably successful.

So tell me why we've got the problems we have in Iraq. It is because there has never been a political strategy associated with the success of the Armed Forces' military effort. And General Petraeus is right: you can't solve this militarily. You can only solve this with a political solution.

So here we are, our Armed Forces are up to 160,000 troops. We have over $600 billion that has been appropriated for this. We have lost 3,300 lives and 25,000 wounded fellow citizens. So the need for a political solution, and the Iraqi answer? We're taking the summer off. Going fishing.

This bill says, no way. You have got to be accountable for your country and get off the sidelines and get onto the playing field and taking ownership of your country's future. If the men and women in our Armed Forces are supposed to give the Iraqis the political space to come together, we do not do that by taking the summer off and not finding common ground.

We have plenty of differences here, but we have common ground here. It is the Iraqis that need to find the common ground, not us. We have the right approach. We have asked our folks to do everything.

Just a month ago we celebrated the 4-year anniversary of ``mission accomplished.'' We know there is a lot to be done in Iraq, and what we are trying to do is provide our troops the resources they need, the equipment they need, the training they need, and when they come home, the veterans, the health care they need, and, most importantly, the policy that has been absent. The reason we never lost a single soldier in our efforts in Bosnia and in the Balkans is because the policy that a President implements is as important to the protection of those soldiers as the Kevlar vests they wear.

What has been missing from this policy and what has been missing from this endeavor is a policy that is equal to the endeavor of our Armed Forces. We have a policy that has been reduced to one simple thing, more troops, more money, more time, more of the same, and you cannot continue a status quo-plus policy.

It is time for a new direction, and I am proud that we have offered a new direction to our Iraqi policy.