Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I supported the Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5441). The bill provided $33.1 billion for our Nation's homeland security. These funds will help our Federal, State and local first responders react to both natural disasters and terrorist events. Yet, funds appropriated in this bill represent only a 5 percent increase from the funds we appropriated last year and do not fully meet the homeland security needs of our country. Even though I supported the bill, I believe that we can and we should do more.

I am disappointed that Ranking Member Obey's amendment to add $3.5 billion to the bill for transit security, border security, port security, first responders, and preparedness programs was rejected along party lines by the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee and was prohibited from being offered. These programs are essential to strong and robust hometown security. This indispensable funding would have been easily paid for by rolling back the tax savings that taxpayers with incomes over $1 million today received under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

I am glad that this bill provides $19.6 billion for border security. This represents a 9 percent increase from current funding and shows that the House takes seriously the challenges we face in securing our Nation's borders. Yet it still falls short of the request made by President Bush.

This bill also includes $4.2 billion for port and cargo security, which is a 12 percent increase over last year. After the controversy over the D.P. World's attempt to acquire operating control of a number of U.S. ports earlier this year, Congress finally recognized the need to invest in container inspection and radiological detection. This bill also includes increased funding for grants to State and local governments to improve port security. But more needs to be done.

I was troubled that for the third year in a row DHS's rail and transit security grant program was flat funded at $150 million. This bill

already provided $200 million for port security and $4.7 billion for aviation security. That is why I joined my colleagues Mr. Castle and Mr. Lynch in offering an amendment to increase funding for this essential grant program by $50 million. A clear majority of Congress agreed with us and voted to ensure that rail security received an increase in funding. I am glad to have led this effort to make a small but important step to ensuring that our nation's rail and transit providers have the resources they need to ensure the safety of millions of Americans daily.

I remain troubled that nothing has been done in this bill to significantly reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). I have long argued that FEMA should be removed from the Department of Homeland Security and be reestablished as an independent agency that reports directly to the President. Unfortunately, the House again has missed an opportunity to put FEMA on the road to reform. As we begin hurricane season, I cannot forget the destruction and deaths caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It is time to remove FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security, where it never belonged.

Despite the lessons learned in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, this bill also cuts funding for firefighter grants by 17 percent. It also provides $7 million less than last year for the office of Grants and Training, formerly known as the Office of Domestic Preparedness. Unbelievably, this bill cuts by 65 percent from a DHS program that helps Federal, State, local, and private organizations implement protection strategies and to provide training to State homeland security advisors.

Congress has a duty to provide the American people with the best security possible in the wake of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. While this bill does not fully provide the funding our Federal, State and local homeland security officials have said they need, it does begin to meet their needs. I will continue to work with my colleague in Congress to ensure that we increase our Nation's investment in our homeland security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act (H.R. 5254).

About a month ago the House debated this legislation under Suspension of the Rules, which makes it impossible for Members to offer amendments. H.R. 5254 did not receive the needed two-thirds majority necessary to pass under the Suspension calendar since many Members had serious objections to the proposed legislation. But we are here again today, considering this legislation without an open debate. Two Democratic amendments were ruled out of order by the Rules Committee. Representative Dingell and Representative Boucher offered a substitute, which would have created a new Strategic Refinery Reserve to give our country the ability to produce refined oil products during extreme energy situations. Representative Allen offered an amendment that would have struck

the section of the bill requiring three closed military bases be considered as locations for refineries. So again today, we are considering this bill without the opportunity for real debate.

H.R. 5254 is based on a false premise--that requirements for environmental permits are to blame for the lack of refinery capacity. Oil companies have openly stated that environmental standards are not stopping them from building new refineries. In fact, the truth is that oil companies simply do not want to build more refineries. The solution that H.R. 5254 prescribes does not match the problem that our nation faces with energy.

Instead of investing in sustainable energy sources to meet our growing energy needs, we remain stuck in our old ways. Since the most recent spike in gas prices in early May, Congress has not considered one energy conservation piece of legislation. Instead we have considered a bill to open the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, and we will try again today to build more refineries. I hear many of my colleagues express their commitments to sustainable energy sources, yet we continue to focus our legislative efforts on oil. We simply can not rely on oil to meet our future energy needs.

I would like to take the opportunity to discuss one point of this bill that I find particularly disturbing. Section 5 directs the President to designate three closed military bases for new oil refining facilities. This section will ultimately force communities that have already suffered from the closure of a military base to welcome unwillingly an oil refinery in their backyards if the President and the Secretary of the Army deem it worthy of a refinery. I am disappointed that Representative Allen's amendment was ruled out of order by the Rules Committee that would have struck this provision from the bill.

In late April, I joined with New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine, Representative Frank Pallone and other New Jersey State legislators for the Signing of the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Act, which creates a ten-member authority charged with overseeing the transition and revitalization of Fort Monmouth once it closes in or before 2011. Creating such an authority is an important step for communities to protect their interests as communities are revitalized following a base closure. What frightens me even more about this provision is that the Secretary of Defense can override any decision made by a local authority. The federal government can supersede a local decision. This is not just about Fort Monmouth in my district in central New Jersey. This is about communities who are already dealing with the closure of a military base. This is about allowing the Federal Government to overrule what state and local authorities believe is best for their communities.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation because it does not address our growing energy needs and is unfair to local communities.

Mr. Speaker, before Memorial Day Recess, during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, Mr. Markey, the gentleman from Massachusetts, offered an amendment that would have cut $40 million for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a dangerous program about which we are still not fully aware of the consequences. I supported Mr. Markey's amendment, which unfortunately failed last night. This amendment would have funded GNEP at $80 million. The Energy and Water Subcommittee already cut funding from this program, stating ``serious reservations'' about the new program. Until there are no reservations about the program, we should not continue to fund it.

The Department of Energy claims that the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership will prevent misuse of civilian nuclear facilities for non- peaceful purposes by developing enhanced safeguards over these programs and technologies. According to DOE, the program will account for materials, control technology, provide transparency to validate peaceful uses, and review international agreements and obligations.

Despite the claims of the Department of Energy, there are many consequences of this program that are costly and potentially very dangerous to Americans and the international community.

Nuclear reprocessing is a dangerous endeavor. Reprocessing nuclear waste produces separated plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons. If the plutonium remains bound in large, heavy, and highly radioactive spent fuel assemblies, it is nearly impossible to steal. In contrast, separated plutonium is not highly radioactive. The simple fact is it will never be as secure as it would be if left in the spent fuel rods. By producing additional materials that aid in the production of nuclear weapons, we are potentially enabling terrorists and other non-nuclear countries to create nuclear weapons. This is not the example we want to set for the world.

Reprocessing also does not decrease radioactive nuclear waste. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said that spent fuel could be safely stored in spent fuel pools or dry casks without significant environmental impact for at least 100 years. For the past thirty years, we have been able to dissuade countries from creating nuclear reprocessing programs on the premise that we ourselves are not involved.

Another problem with GNEP is that the Administration has not been able to demonstrate to Congress how costly this program will be. Since the program was announced in February of this year, the Department of Energy has not provided Congress with an overall cost for this program. Congress has not had the opportunity to evaluate the merits of this program or determine if it is in our best interest, in the long and short term. With such a great undertaking, we must fully understand the effects of this program.

I am disappointed that the Markey amendment failed. It is my hope that my colleagues will see the dangers of nuclear reprocessing and oppose this program when the final version of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill is considered in the next couple of months.

Mr. Speaker, before the Memorial Day recess, we considered the misnamed and misguided American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act (H.R. 5429). I voted against this legislation, which unfortunately passed the House of Representatives. As I have repeatedly stated, we must make a commitment to a rational energy policy that promotes sustainable energy sources and conservation; not continue the belief that we are going to drill our way to energy independence.

Two weeks ago we considered the Fiscal Year 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations bill which funds our Nation's Department of Energy programs, water and science programs, and some defense and agriculture related programs. Unfortunately, instead of making a commitment to a rational energy policy, the Energy and Water bill continues our dependence on fossil fuels and continues our practice of poisoning our lands, oceans, and air. While the Energy and Water bill does increase funding for alternative energy research and development, we must do more. I was pleased to learn that energy supply and conservation programs will receive more funding in Fiscal Year 07 than they did last year. However, this is not even close to sufficient. Congress still fails to recognize the dire situation the world faces with regard to global warming and the urgency of the action we must take. It is apparent now to all but the willingly blind that we are altering our climate in dangerous and deadly ways, and that is threatening the ability of the air and the oceans to sustain us.

We then considered a bill that will once again allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I wonder when my colleagues will learn that drilling our way to energy independence is unrealistic and simply flawed logic. The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, yet we only have less than 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. Even if we find oil in ANWR, we will not even come close to lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

We must focus on developing sustainable energy sources and encouraging conservation. We can do this by investing in programs that make our schools, office buildings and homes energy efficient. We must continue to invest in transportation systems that optimize technology to efficiently and effectively move passengers while consuming less energy. In 2005 the Energy Information Administration estimated that if oil was discovered in ANWR, it would only lower gas prices by about one penny per gallon twenty years from now. Responding to rising gas prices by drilling is simply not the answer.

My colleague from New York, Mr. Boehlert, pointed out during debate on the House floor, that we have not considered one piece of conservation legislation since the most recent spike in gas prices in May of this year. When will we realize that there are other means to fulfilling our energy needs than destroying our environment and disrupting habitat and wildlife?

It is essential for us to do something dramatic. It is not enough for us to just do a little bit better every year. This is the only way to actually work our way to energy independence. Now is the time for my colleagues to make a commitment to alternative energy sources. We must continue to fight to preserve our environment and develop energy sources that are clean, safe, and sustainable.

Mr. Speaker, it's been more than 2 years now since the world saw the infamous photographs showing prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. To date, mostly junior enlisted personnel have been tried and prosecuted for various offenses related to detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. These individuals did not commit these acts in a vacuum; senior leaders allowed this abuse--and in several cases, deaths--to occur on their watch. That's not simply my opinion. It's the judgment of men like retired Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, a former senior Navy Judge Advocate General officer who has said ``One such incident would be an isolated transgression; two would be a serious problem; a dozen of them is policy.''

Admiral Hutson and other senior former officers offered those kinds of comments, and their endorsement, for a report issued earlier this year by Human Rights First entitled Command's Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly encourage my colleagues to take the time to read at least the executive summary of this meticulously documented 82-page report. You can find this report on the web at: http://www.humanrightsfirstinfo/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic- rep-web.pdf

I would also recommend that my colleagues familiarize themselves with Human Rights First 2004 report, Getting to Ground Truth, which formed the foundation of their work on the detainee abuse issue. That report can be found on the Human Rights First website at: http:// www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/PDF/detainees/ Getting_to_Ground_Truth_0908.04.pdf

Let me take a moment to share with you some of the key findings from Command's Responsibility, which I am also including for the Record. The report documents 98 detainee deaths in U.S. custody. Of those 98 deaths, 45 are suspected or confirmed homicides. Thirty-four deaths were classified as homicides under the U.S. military's own definition. Human Rights First found 11 additional cases where the facts suggest that deaths were the result of physical abuse or the harsh conditions of detention. In 48 cases--close to half of all the cases--the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. At least 8 detainees, and possibly as many as 12, were tortured to death. To date, only 12 deaths have resulted in any kind of punishment, and the highest punishment for a torture-related death has been 5 months confinement.

Most tellingly, no civilian official or officer above the rank of colonel responsible for interrogation and detention policies or practices has been charged in connection with any death of a detainee in U.S. custody, including the deaths of detainees by torture or abuse.

As retired Army Brigadier General David Irvine noted in the Human Rights First report, ``What is unquestionably broken is the fundamental principle of command accountability, and that starts at the very top. The Army exists not just to win America's wars, but to defend America's values. The policy and practice of torture without accountability has jeopardized both.''

I whole-heartedly agree, which is why last June I joined over 170 of my colleagues in cosponsoring HR 3003, which would establish an independent Commission on the Investigation of Detainee Abuses to conduct a full, complete, independent, and impartial investigation of the abuses of detainees in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, or any operation within the wider war against Al Qaeda. The Commission would be charged with determining: (1) the extent of the abuses; (2) why the abuses occurred; and (3) who is responsible, and to provide recommendations for corrective action.

This Commission is necessary because the work of uncovering all of the facts in these cases has yet to be done. This Commission must also help Congress determine why no flag-rank officers have been held accountable for the deaths and abuse that occurred on their watch. If we are to avoid future cases of abuse and rebuild our reputation as a nation that lives by the rule of law, we must air the full facts about how aggressive interrogation techniques resulted in serious injury or death for dozens of detainees in our custody.

Mr. Speaker, the detainee abuse scandal has done grievous harm to our moral standing in the world, and given our terrorist enemies a powerful recruiting tool. We cannot allow it to happen again. I urge the House leadership to bring H.R. 3003 to floor for an immediate vote. Congress has allowed too much time to pass already; we need answers, and we need to hold senior civilian and military leaders accountable for this sorry episode.

Finally, I commend Human Rights First for their unflagging commitment to preserving and protecting human rights, for the high quality of their work on these issues, and for holding our Government and its representatives accountable in the court of public opinion on this critically important issue.

[From Command's Responsibility]

I. Introduction

``Do I believe that [abuse] may have hurt us in winning the

hearts and minds of Muslims around the world? Yes, and I do

regret that. But one of the ways we address that is to show

the world that we don't just talk about Geneva, we enforce

Geneva. . . . [T]hat's why you have these military court-

martials; that's why you have these administrative penalties

imposed upon those responsible because we want to find out

what happened so it doesn't happen again. And if someone has

done something wrong, they're going to be held

accountable.''--U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales,

Confirmation Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee,

January 6, 2005.

``Basically [an August 30, 2003 memo] said that as far as

they [senior commanders] knew there were no ROE [Rules of

Engagement] for interrogations. They were still struggling

with the definition for a detainee. It also said that

commanders were tired of us taking casualties and they [told

interrogators they] wanted the gloves to come

off. . . . Other than a memo saying that they were to be

considered `unprivileged combatants' we received no guidance

from them [on the status of detainees].''-- Chief Warrant

Officer Lewis Welshofer, Testifying during his Court Martial

for Death of Iraqi General Abed Hamed Mowhoush, January 19,

2006.

Since August 2002, nearly 100 detainees have died while in

the hands of U.S. officials in the global ``war on terror.''

According to the U.S. military's own classifications, 34 of

these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides; Human

Rights First has identified another 11 in which the facts

suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh

conditions of detention. In close to half the deaths Human

Rights First surveyed, the cause of death remains officially

undetermined or unannounced. Overall, eight people in U.S.

custody were tortured to death.

Despite these numbers, four years since the first known

death in U.S. custody, only 12 detainee deaths have resulted

in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official. Of the 34

homicide cases so far identified by the military,

investigators recommended criminal charges in fewer than two

thirds, and charges were actually brought (based on decisions

made by command) in less than half. While the CIA has been

implicated in several deaths, not one CIA agent has faced a

criminal charge. Crucially, among the worst cases in this

list--those of detainees tortured to death--only half have

resulted in punishment; the steepest sentence for anyone

involved in a torture-related death: five months in jail.

It is difficult to assess the systemic adequacy of

punishment when so few have been punished, and when the

deliberations of juries and commanders are largely unknown.

Nonetheless, two patterns clearly emerge: (1) because of

investigative and evidentiary failures, accountability for

wrongdoing has been limited at best, and almost non-existent

for command; and (2) commanders have played a key role in

undermining chances for full accountability. In dozens of

cases documented here, grossly inadequate reporting,

investigation, and follow-through have left no one at all

responsible for homicides and other unexplained deaths.

Commanders have failed both to provide troops clear

guidance, and to take crimes seriously by insisting on

vigorous investigations. And command responsibility

itself--the law that requires commanders to be held liable

for the unlawful acts of their subordinates about which

they knew or should have known--has been all but

forgotten.

The failure to deal adequately with these cases has opened

a serious accountability gap for the U.S. military and

intelligence community, and has produced a credibility gap

for the United States--between policies the leadership says

it respects on paper, and

behavior it actually allows in practice. As long as the

accountability gap exists, there will be little incentive for

military command to correct bad behavior, or for civilian

leadership to adopt policies that follow the law. As long as

that gap exists, the problem of torture and abuse will

remain.

This report examines how cases of deaths in custody have

been handled. It is about how and why this ``accountability

gap'' between U.S. policy and practice has come to exist. And

it is about why ensuring that officials up and down the chain

of command bear responsibility for detainee mistreatment

should be a top priority for the United States.

The Cases to Date

The cases behind these numbers have names and faces. This

report describes more than 20 cases in detail, to illustrate

both the failures in investigation and in accountability.

Among the cases is that of Manadel al-Jamadi, whose death

became public during the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal

when photographs depicting prison guards giving the thumbs-up

over his body were released; to date, no U.S. military or

intelligence official has been punished criminally in

connection with Jamadi's death.

The cases also include that of Abed Hamed Mowhoush, a

former Iraqi general beaten over days by U.S. Army, CIA and

other non-military forces, stuffed into a sleeping bag,

wrapped with electrical cord, and suffocated to death. In the

recently concluded trial of a low-level military officer

charged in Mowhoush's death, the officer received a written

reprimand, a fine, and 60 days with his movements limited to

his work, home, and church.

And they include cases like that of Nagem Sadoon Hatab, in

which investigative failures have made accountability

impossible. Hatab, a 52-year-old Iraqi, was killed while in

U.S. custody at a holding camp close to Nasiriyah. Although a

U.S. Army medical examiner found that Hatab had died of

strangulation, the evidence that would have been required to

secure accountability for his death--Hatab's body--was

rendered unusable in court. Hatab's internal organs were left

exposed on an airport tarmac for hours; in the blistering

Baghdad heat, the organs were destroyed; the throat bone that

would have supported the Army medical examiner's findings of

strangulation was never found.

Although policing crimes in wartime is always challenging,

government investigations into deaths in custody since 2002

have been unacceptable. The cases discussed in this report

include incidents where deaths went unreported, witnesses

were never interviewed, evidence was lost or mishandled, and

record-keeping was scattershot. They also include

investigations that were cut short as a result of decisions

by commanders--who are given the authority to decide whether

and to what extent to pursue an investigation--to rely on

incomplete inquiries, or to discharge a suspect before an

investigation can be completed. Given the extent of the non-

reporting, under-reporting, and lax record keeping to date,

it is likely that the statistics reported here, if anything,

under-count the number of deaths.

Among our key findings:

Commanders have failed to report deaths of detainees in the

custody of their command, reported the deaths only after a

period of days and sometimes weeks, or actively interfered in

efforts to pursue investigations;

Investigators have failed to interview key witnesses,

collect useable evidence, or maintain evidence that could be

used for any subsequent prosecution;

Record keeping has been inadequate, further undermining

chances for effective investigation or appropriate

prosecution;

Overlapping criminal and administrative investigations have

compromised chances for accountability;

Overbroad classification of information and other

investigation restrictions have left CIA and Special Forces

essentially immune from accountability;

Agencies have failed to disclose critical information,

including the cause or circumstance of death, in close to

half the cases examined;

Effective punishment has been too little and too late.

Closing the Accountability Gap

The military has taken some steps toward correcting the

failings identified here. Under public pressure following the

release of the Abu Ghraib photographs in 2004, the Army

reopened over a dozen investigations into deaths in custody

and conducted multiple investigation reviews; many of these

identified serious flaws. The Defense Department also

``clarified'' some existing rules, reminding commanders that

they were required to report ``immediately'' the death of a

detainee to service criminal investigators, and barring

release of a body without written authorization from the

relevant investigation agency or the Armed Forces Medical

Examiner. It also made the performance of an autopsy the

norm, with exceptions made only by the Armed Forces Medical

Examiner. And the Defense Department says that it is now

providing pre-deployment training on the Geneva Conventions

and rules of engagement to all new units to be stationed in

Iraq and responsible for guarding and processing detainees.

But these reforms are only first steps. They have not

addressed systemic flaws in the investigation of detainee

deaths, or in the prosecution and punishment of those

responsible for wrongdoing. Most important, they have not

addressed the role of those leaders who have emerged as a

pivotal part of the problem--military and civilian command.

Commanders are the only line between troops in the field who

need clear, usable rules, and policy-makers who have provided

broad instructions since 2002 that have been at worst

unlawful and at best unclear. Under today's military justice

system, commanders also have broad discretion to insist that

investigations into wrongdoing be pursued, and that charges,

when appropriate, be brought. And commanders have a historic,

legal, and ethical duty to take responsibility for the acts

of their subordinates. As the U.S. Supreme Court has

recognized since World War II, commanders are responsible for

the acts of their subordinates if they knew or should have

known unlawful activity was underway, and yet did nothing to

correct or stop it. That doctrine of command responsibility

has yet to be invoked in a single prosecution arising out of

the ``war on terror.''

Closing this accountability gap will require, at a minimum,

a zero-tolerance approach to commanders who fail to take

steps to provide clear guidance, and who allow unlawful

conduct to persist on their watch. Zero tolerance includes at

least this:

First, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, should move

immediately to fully implement the ban on cruel, inhuman and

degrading treatment passed overwhelmingly by the U.S.

Congress and signed into law on December 30, 2005. Full

implementation requires that the President clarify his

commitment to abide by the ban (which was called into

question by the President's statement signing the bill into

law). It also requires the President to instruct all relevant

military and intelligence agencies involved in detention and

interrogation operations to review and revise internal rules

and legal guidance to make sure they are in line with the

statutory mandate.

Second, the President, the U.S. military, and relevant

intelligence agencies should take immediate steps to make

clear that all acts of torture and abuse are taken

seriously--not from the moment a crime becomes public, but

from the moment the United States sends troops and agents

into the field. The President should issue regular reminders

to command that abuse will not be tolerated, and commanders

should regularly give troops the same, serious message.

Relevant agencies should welcome independent oversight--by

Congress and the American people--by establishing a

centralized, up-to-date, and publicly available collection of

information about the status of investigations and

prosecutions in torture and abuse cases (including trial

transcripts, documents, and evidence presented), and all

incidents of abuse. And the Defense and Justice Departments

should move forward promptly with long-pending actions

against those involved in cases of wrongful detainee death or

abuse.

Third, the U.S. military should make good on the obligation

of command responsibility by developing, in consultation with

congressional, military justice, human rights, and other

advisors, a public plan for holding all those who engage in

wrongdoing accountable. Such a plan might include the

implementation of a single, high-level convening authority

across the service branches for allegations of detainee

torture and abuse. Such a convening authority would review

and make decisions about whom to hold responsible; bring

uniformity, certainty, and more independent oversight to the

process of discipline and punishment; and make punishing

commanders themselves more likely.

Finally, Congress should at long last establish an

independent, bipartisan commission to review the scope of

U.S. detention and interrogation operations worldwide in the

``war on terror.'' Such a commission could investigate and

identify the systemic causes of failures that lead to

torture, abuse, and wrongful death, and chart a detailed and

specific path going forward to make sure those mistakes never

happen again. The proposal for a commission has been endorsed

by a wide range of distinguished Americans from Republican

and Democratic members of Congress to former presidents to

leaders in the U.S. military. We urge Congress to act without

further delay.

This report underscores what a growing number of Americans

have come to understand. As a distinguished group of retired

generals and admirals put it in a September 2004 letter to

the President: ``Understanding what has gone wrong and what

can be done to avoid systemic failure in the future is

essential not only to ensure that those who may be

responsible are held accountable for any wrongdoing, but also

to ensure that the effectiveness of the U.S. military and

intelligence operations is not compromised by an atmosphere

of permissiveness, ambiguity, or cofusion. This is

fundamentally a command responsibility.'' It is the

responsibility of American leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my colleague from Massachusetts as well as my colleague from Delaware, who is the cochair of the House Passenger Rail Caucus, in shifting this funding into the rail, freight and transit security grant program.

I understand what the appropriators have gone through. Maybe everyone in this House could rewrite the bill in some way. But it clearly merits attention when we are spending 70 times as much for air security as for rail security.

As the 9/11 Commission said, it appears that we are fighting the last war. Of course, we watched in horror as airplanes were used as explosive missiles. But we have thousands of people traveling by rail. We have important freight routes. We have thousands of miles of track, just in New Jersey, 800 trains, 1,000 miles of track, 161 rail stations patrolled by a couple hundred uniformed officers.

The money in this program that we propose to increase can be used for explosive-agent sensors, for security cameras, for interoperable communications. That was driven home to us just today when travelers in the northeast corridor coming out of New York traveling through New Jersey were shut down for hours.

And as they were shut down because of a power failure, they discovered they had difficulty communicating with each other. The various trains had trouble communicating with each other. We clearly need to address the security in all of these areas.

The GAO reported in 2002 that in just eight transit agencies, there was a need for security improvements that totaled well over $700 million, far more than we have spent in the intervening years.

Mr. Chairman, you have heard from my friend from Massachusetts that this is not a maybe; there is unfortunately a long tally of security breaches, of terrorist attacks around the world. And this funding will go a long way toward preparing the rail systems throughout the United States against such terrorist attacks.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that we are considering today.

The Energy and Water bill funds our Nation's Department of Energy programs, water and science programs and some defense and agriculture related programs. Unfortunately, instead of making a commitment to a rational energy policy this bill continues our dependence on fossil fuels; continues our practice of poisoning our lands, oceans, and air; and does little to combat rising gas prices.

While H.R. 5427 does increase funding for alternative energy research and development, we must do more. I was pleased to learn that energy supply and conservation programs are funded at $2 billion, 5 percent more than the President's request and 12 percent more than the current level. Important initiatives that will receive additional funding are renewable energy and energy efficiency programs; including biomass fuels, hydrogen technologies and solar power.

Appropriations bills are a chance for Congress to fund programs that we believe fit our Nation's goals and protect the best interests of the American people. In this bill, we must show our commitment to important programs that promote sustainable energy sources, energy efficiency, and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. We can and should do better than what we are considering today.

That is why I supported the Visclosky amendment which would have invested $750 million in alternative energy, innovation, and energy efficiency by increasing funding for the Biomass and Biorefinery Systems Research

and Development and various other technologies such as clean coal and geothermal research and development.

Tomorrow we will consider a bill once again that will allow drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I wonder when my colleagues will learn that drilling our way to energy independence is unrealistic and simply flawed logic. We must focus on developing sustainable energy sources and encouraging conservation. This is the only way to actually work our way to energy independence.

I urge my colleagues to make a commitment to alternative energy sources. Ernest Hemingway wrote, ``The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.'' We must continue to fight to preserve our environment and develop energy sources that are clean, safe and sustainable.

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 8: Page 3, line 15, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

Page 28, line 23, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

Page 29, line 15, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

Page 30, line 7, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the bill that will increase funding for organic transitions. It should come as no surprise; in fact, we have talked about it already this morning, that the demand for natural pesticide-free and chemical-free foods has been increasing dramatically in the United States. In fact, the Department of Agriculture says this part, this sector of the industry, is growing at 20 percent per year.

And yet funding for a critical government program to help farmers make the transition to organic farming has remained quite small and flat year after year.

The Organic Transitions Program is a competitive grants program established as part of the Cooperative Research and Extension Service. The national program has been very important to organic farming, to organic farmers and farms, and to fund research to assist the farmers in overcoming the barriers and making the transition into organic production.

This will help farmers, and it does today, help farmers optimize management of organic matter, soil fertility, research in pests and in crop health. Farmers have been funded to implement pest management programs for use in blueberry production. Another study has been funded to look at organic weed suppression.

Organic agriculture, indeed, is coming of age. But still, there is a need for research under the Department of Agriculture to help in the transition. Despite the surge in demand for organic products, the research into the transition, the research to assist the farmers in making the transition into organic farming methods has been holding steady at just under $2 million for the last several fiscal years. Well, spread over 50 States for agricultural research and extension services, obviously that is not keeping up.

So today I am offering with my colleagues from Iowa, Oregon and Wisconsin, Mr. Leach, Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Kind, an amendment to increase the funding of the organic transitions program from $1.8 million to $5 million.

I am very much aware of the hard work that the chairman and the committee have put into squeezing every dollar out of their bill to get the best effect. However, I must say I was startled to find that the funding for this important program was not increased a bit even though this sector of agriculture in the United States is growing at 20 percent a year, and the demand for this very program is growing very rapidly.

So this amendment has the enthusiastic support of the National Organic Coalition, the Organic Trade Association, the northeast and other chapters of the Organic Farming Association, and many in the farming community.

And without this additional organic research funding, the farming community simply will not be able to keep

pace with the ever-growing demand for pesticide-free and chemical-free organic agricultural products.

I hope my colleagues will join me in favor of this amendment. I ask for its approval.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman from Wisconsin, I am sure, is fully aware of the fact that the Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research and Extension Service has been one of the things that has made agriculture in America great and has made it successful.

What we are talking about is a highly competitive grant program under that service. This is not any give-away. This is something that advances the understanding and advances the agricultural science. The chairman makes it sounds like we are talking about a whooping amount of money, $5 million. We are talking about agricultural services all over the country; every State is involved in organic agriculture now. This is an important increase, but this is not a whooping, prohibitive increase.

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 18: Page 5, line 15, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(reduced by $3,145,000)''.

Page 17, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $3,145,000)''.

Page 17, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $3,145,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Military Quality of Life Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5385). This is an improvement, albeit a small one, over the President's budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs. In total, the Committee provided an additional $635 illion above the President's budget. Everyone on my side ofthe aisle-- and all of

the veteran service organizations--viewed that figure as inadequate. Several of my colleagues--including Mr. Edwards, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Obey--did their best to get the committee to fund adequately hospital construction, personnel hiring, and health care delivery initiatives that are vital to meeting our veterans needs. Instead, the committee voted to give still more tax cuts to millionaires.

Whom do we value more--those who make millions, or those whose valor made it possible for the millionaires to flourish in peace and freedom in the first place?

On January 17, 2003, the Bush Administration stopped enrolling new Priority 8 veterans for VA medical care, and the President's budget continues this restrictive policy. This Republican policy has denied health care to 273,000 and prevented 1 million veterans, who make as little as $26,902, from enrolling in VA health care. Those who are eligible are often forced to wait in line for care. As VA officials admitted to Congress in February, the VA has treated more than 144,000 returning veterans from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, and nearly 30,000 veterans are waiting in line for their first appointment--double the number last year.

Nearly a third of returning veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan have been diagnosed with mental disorders, with nearly half of those PTSD, according to the VA. The number of troops back this year from Iraq and Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder could total 15,000 or more--five times higher than the VA predicted. And as the Kansas City Star noted on April 30, the ``miscalculation on PTSD echoes last year's underestimation by the Bush administration of how many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans would need medical treatment.''

The President and his Congressional allies don't seem to have any problem paying for the weapons of war, but they do seem to have a problem paying for the consequences of war. But the country that sends its people into combat--its sons and daughters, its husbands and wives, its sisters and brothers--has a sacred obligation to take care of those people when they come home--and to care for their survivors when they do not. It is an obligation that goes back to Abraham Lincoln in 1865. It is an obligation we have never fully met--under administrations and Congresses of both parties.

This budget, while better than what the President submitted, does not truly meet that obligtion. Any member of this body who has committed this country to a war costing $400 billion can surely find it in their hearts to their budget to produce the $2 billion that the veteran's organizations say is missing in this bill. Yet this bill fails to provide $6 billion from what current veterans need over the next 5 years for their health care. I hope that next year we will pass a budget that veterans feel meets their needs, rather than one they view as ``the best they could get.''

Finally, there is a VA clinic in my district leasing space at Fort Monmouth which is scheduled to close under the 2005 BRAC recommendations. Secretary Nicholson has pledged to me in writing that this clinic will stay open through 2010 at its present location and working to maintain its location in Monmouth County beyond that. While the Pentagon must take into account the care and well-being of the veterans served by the base when following BRAC procedures, the VA must have sufficient resources meet the veteran's needs. In this case, it means having the resources to acquire a much needed facility after the Army leaves town. At present those resources are not there. I look forward to working with my colleague to ensure that the veterans of my district will continue to receive the same high quality care they currently have.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Department of Interior and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. Today we are considering a bill that funds the majority of our Nation's environmental programs. However, the funding levels that this bill allows are inadequate to meet the needs of our country. By passing this bill today we are turning our back on programs that conserve our public lands, protect our wildlife, and protect our environment.

I am disappointed with a variety of programs that are losing funding in this appropriations bill but I want to talk specifically about the cuts to the Land and Water Conservation Fund LWCF. As many of my colleagues know, for the last 40 years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund program has helped State and local government preserve open space and develop recreational facilities. By providing Federal matching grants, LWCF has helped create a national legacy of public parks and outdoor leisure areas.

This bill would provide for LWCF a mere $60.3 million in funding, the lowest in more than 30 years. This funding level is more than $80 million below last year's funding level. LWCF's State and local matching grant program that helps States acquire open space and recreational land has been completely eliminated in this bill.

My good friend and colleague, Representative Jim McGovern, the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I have worked together to try to restore ``State side'' funding for LWCF. I was pleased that over 150 of my colleagues joined a letter that Representative McGovern, Representative Peter King and I sent to the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to restore state side LWCF funding. Mr. McGovern, Mr. King and I all represent densely populated States that are combating overdevelopment, and programs like the matching grant program help our local communities establish the recreational and open space areas that are so vitally important to our children's health, appreciation for the environment and community development. In the past 40 years, roughly 40,000 grants to States and local governments have been funded through the LWCF State side program.

According to the National Park Service ``Today, there is clear evidence that the grant program has been successful in encouraging States to take greater responsibility for the protection and development of recreation resources at every level.'' Now is not the time to cut funding for conservation programs that help our local communities.

Protecting open space is not an abstract environmental matter--it is a quality of life issue. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying bill and demand real attention to our Nation's environmental needs.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price amendment to provide much needed funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

As a scientist, I am often advocating for investments in math, science, and technology research, development, and education. These are worthwhile expenditures that contribute to innovation and economic growth, but our nation requires a parallel investment in the arts to retain the cultural and creative growth that ties our diverse society together.

This modest increase in funding will build programs that use the strength of the arts and our Nation's cultural life to enhance communities in every State and every county around America. The additional funds provided through this amendment would support the very successful Challenge America program, which brings the arts to rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods whose limited resources don't always allow for community arts programs.

In 2005, the Challenge America program provided grants to towns and cities in 99 percent of Congressional districts for jazz and blues festivals, showcases for regional musicians and artists, and public- private partnerships that bring the arts into local schools. Dozens of studies have demonstrated the significant positive effect of arts education on students' academic performance, self esteem, and behavior, and the Challenge America grants are an excellent mechanism to bring the arts to students who can greatly benefit from that exposure.

Similarly, the NEH serves to advance the nation's scholarly and cultural life. The additional funding contained in this amendment would enable NEH to improve the quality of humanities education to America's school children and college students, offer lifelong learning opportunities through a range of public programs, and support new projects that encourage Americans to discover their storied and inspiring national heritage.

It is clear that increasing funding for the arts and humanities are among the best investments that we as a society can make. They help our children learn. They give the elderly sustenance. They power economic development, even in regions that are down and out.

Will the projects that would be sponsored by this increase in funding help defend our country? Probably not, but they will make our country more worth defending. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Carol Kientz for over 40 years of dedicated service to the field of nursing.

Since receiving her B.S. in nursing from Cornell University in 1965 and her M.S. in nursing from the University of California, San Francisco in 1968, Ms. Kientz has been an active member of the healthcare community; serving in a variety of professional and community volunteer positions. She has served as a community health nurse for the New York City Health Department, a nurse educator in New York and New Jersey, supervisor for the Visiting Nurse Association, director of health services at Christ Home Hospital in Jersey City and for the past 16 years, as the Executive Director of the Home Care Association of New Jersey.

Outside of her professional responsibilities, Ms. Kientz has also participated in many healthcare organizations and activities including serving as a founding board member of the New Jersey Commission on Accreditation for Home Care, participating on numerous committees within the National Association for Home Care, and serving on the editorial review board for New Jersey Medicine and the Home Health Care Management and Practice.

Throughout her professional career in nursing, Ms. Kientz has received numerous recognitions and has had the distinct honor of receiving a number of public appointments. Most notably, she was named Home Health Assembly Member of the Year in 1989 and received the Home Health Assembly Martha Esposito Award in 1997. For her commitment to improving public health, Ms. Kientz was appointed and has served on the New Jersey Governor's AIDS Council from 1994 to 2002 and presently, serves on the Medical Assistance Advisory Council for the New Jersey Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services since 1995, Governor Corzine's New Jersey Healthcare Advisory Committee since 2002, and the Bioterrorism Advisory Committee for the Department of Health and Human Services since 2002.

In her most recent position, as executive director of the Home Care Association of New Jersey, Ms. Kientz has displayed great character and commitment towards achieving her

goal of ensuring that all patients receive the highest quality of care. She has been instrumental in developing and facilitating committees within the organization responsible for addressing industry issues as well as advocating on a variety of healthcare policy issues. Her efforts have included establishing the Real Coalition, which allowed the home care industry to formulate a collective and unified voice, participating in the development of the Assisted Living Regulations for the State of New Jersey, improving the process for home health aide competency testing, strengthening relationships with State agencies, advocating for government initiatives to address the nursing and workforce shortage issues affecting the home care industry, establishing the home health aide scholarship process, and establishing the Home Care Foundation of New Jersey to explore Grant opportunities to benefit the greater home care industry.

Throughout her career, Ms. Kientz has genuinely demonstrated a strong commitment towards improving home healthcare. It is the enthusiasm and dedication of people like Ms. Kientz that have raised the bar of excellence in patient care. Please join me in recognizing her many accomplishments.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican budget resolution. The Republican budget resolution is no plan to bring the budget back to balance. The Republican budget includes a deficit for 2006 of $372 billion, and a deficit for 2007 of $348 billion. These deficits mean that, under Republican policies, the five largest deficits in history will have occurred in five consecutive years. Over the next five years (2007-2011), the budget resolution calls for deficits totaling $1.1 trillion.

Since this Administration took office, it has requested and the Congress has provided four increases in the statutory debt ceiling totaling $3 trillion. Under this budget, by 2011 the statutory debt will increase by another $2.3 trillion, for a total increase of $5.3 trillion. It will leave the statutory debt at a record level of $11.3 trillion. The President's reckless economic policies have doubled our nation's debt. Further, I am concerned by the amount of the debt that has been accumulated by foreign bank, individuals and governments. In 1980, 17 percent of the federal debt held by the public was in foreign hands. By 2006, 45 percent of the debt held by the public was owned overseas. Unfortunately, this trend seems to be increasing rapidly. During the past year, approximately 90 percent of the debt we have accumulated has been purchased by foreign banks, individuals and governments.

I support the Representative John Spratt's alternative budget, which would reach balance in 2012. The Spratt budget also has smaller deficits than the Republican budget, and accumulates less debt. By contrast, the Republican budget never returns to balance, and even refuses to show how big its deficits will be after 2011. The Spratt budget backs the two-sided Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) budget enforcement rules that require that the cost of any new mandatory spending or revenue legislation be fully offset. During the 1990s, two-sided PAYGO rules played a critical role in turning record deficits to record surpluses. The Spratt budget also requires a separate vote to increase the debt limit, and prohibits using fast-track reconciliation procedures to make the deficit worse.

The Republican budget cuts appropriations for domestic services by $9.4 billion relative to current services, and by $3.2 billion below the level passed by Republicans in the Senate. Meanwhile, the budget continues Medicare subsidies close to $60 billion for managed care providers of Medicare even though they are supposed to save Medicare money, not cost more. The resolution also includes $228 billion over five years for additional tax cuts, part of a $3 trillion ten-year Republican tax cut agenda.

The Republican resolution cuts appropriated funding for education and related programs below current services, providing the same inadequate level as provided by the President. For 2007, that Republican level cuts funding for the Department of Education by $2.2 billion below last year's comparable level, and eliminates 42 education programs.

The Spratt budget provides $4.6 billion more than the Republican budget for education appropriations, and over five years provides $45.3 billion more than the Republican resolution. The Spratt budget rejects the deep cuts proposed by the Republican budget, and preserves programs such as vocational education, Perkins loans, Safe and Drug-Free Schools state grants, and the GEAR-UP college readiness program. The Spratt budget also makes a down payment on college affordability by cutting student loan interest rates.

After a temporary one year gain, the Republican budget after five years cuts funding for veterans' health care by $6.0 billion below current services. The Spratt budget includes $6.0 billion more than the Republican budget over five years for veterans' health care. The Spratt budget also rejects the increase on health care fees on military retirees who are enrolled in Tricare. The Republican budget asks additional sacrifices from those who have served and sacrificed for our country; the Spratt budget rejects the misguided Republican policies and keeps our commitment to our veterans.

The Republican budget cuts funding for health by $18.1 billion below current services over five years, the same insufficient level provided by the President. The Republican level means cuts to priorities such as the Centers for Disease Control, 18 of 19 institutes at the National Institutes of Health, and rural health activities.

The Spratt budget provides $18 billion more over five years to fund health priorities cut by the Republican budget, including medical research at NIH and graduate medical education for children's hospitals. The Spratt budget also takes steps to address the problems with the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, including extending the May 15 signup period through the end of year and protecting seniors from any enrollment penalties. The Spratt budget also takes steps to help the uninsured, and creates a reserve fund to increase Medicare payments to physicians, which are currently scheduled to be cut.

For the environment and natural resources, this Republican budget imposes a $25.0 billion cut relative to current services over the next five years and imposes a $2.9 billion cut for next year alone. This is the same level as the President's budget, which cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (including the Clean Water State Revolving Fund), the Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Park Service.

Mr. Chairman, the House Republican budget resolution actually makes the deficit worse, offers no plan to bring the budget back to balance, and adds to the growing burden of the national debt. Meanwhile, the Republican budget makes harmful cuts to critical services for the American people--including education, veterans' services, health, and environmental protection. I ask my colleagues to oppose this budget and support the Spratt alternative budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 2.9 million nurses across the country whose vital contributions to our healthcare system are rightfully honored this week during ``National Nurses Week.''

The theme of National Nurses Week (NNW) 2006 is ``Nurses: Strength, Commitment, Compassion.'' These are 3 qualities that nurses show on a daily basis in caring for patients during times of disaster and crisis, at the bedside, and through continuing education.

In my own healthcare and that provided to my family and friends, I am continually impressed by the knowledge, professionalism, and kindness that nurses demonstrate in their patient care. They are literally at the front lines of our healthcare system, and their important role deserves to be recognized. That is why I am pleased to support House Resolution 245, supporting the goals and ideals of National Nurses Week.

There are immediate challenges facing the profession of nursing, and there are concrete steps that Congress should take in order to ensure that patients can benefit from their care now and in the future. Most notably, we must take steps to address the growing shortage of nurses and the aging of the nursing workforce.

Recruitment and retention of nurses is important, as is ensuring that schools of nursing have the faculty and resources they need to teach and train students. That is why I introduced H.R. 2184, the Nursing School Capacity Act, which would authorize an Institute of Medicine (IOM) study to identify constraints encountered by schools of nursing in admitting an adequate number of nurses for our healthcare system, and develop recommendations to alleviate the constraints.

We must fully fund nurse workforce development programs through Title VIII of the Public Health Service Act. Unfortunately, as the nursing shortage has worsened, funding has remained flat. We must ensure that healthcare providers are adequately staffed with nurses, and protect nurses from mandatory overtime. We also must support the right of nurses to bargain collectively with their employer, a basic right that should be afforded to workers in all sectors of our economy.

I thank all nurses for the contributions that they make to our health and to our communities.