Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this unfair rule. I do so because it denies Members the opportunity to offer amendments to critical provisions in the Defense Authorization bill.

National defense should be a subject that brings the Congress and the nation together, and not an occasion to create division. Especially given the clear and present danger of further terrorist attacks against the United States, it is imperative that we remain united as we confront these threats.

I support most of the provisions in this bill. It is unfortunate that the Majority chose to insert a number of highly controversial provisions into the Defense Authorization. In particular, I oppose the provisions of the bill that seek to upend longstanding civil service protections for more than 700,000 civilian workers who are instrumental to supporting our men and women in uniform. Without a competent civilian workforce at the Defense Department to back up our troops, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for our armed forces to prevail on the battlefield.

We are legislating in the dark here. Over the past century, we have established protections to prevent the civil service form becoming a political patronage system. Before we throw these protections in the garbage can, we'd better know what we're doing. the Bush Administration delivered its 205-page legislative proposal to restructure the Pentagon's civilian and military personnel system on April 10, just days before the House adjourned for a two-week recess. These sweeping proposed changes are not well understood and they have the potential for long-term negative consequences.

I want to read an excerpt from a General Accounting Office testimony on these proposed changes to the Pentagon's civilian personnel system. The GAO cautions that ``moving too quickly or prematurely [to a new personnel system] at DOD or elsewhere, can significantly raise the risk of doing it wrong. This could also serve to severely set back the legitimate need to move to a more performance- and results-based system for the federal government as a whole. Thus, while it is imperative that we take steps to better link employee pay and other personnel decisions to performance across the federal government, how it is done, when it is done, and the basis on which it is done, can make all the difference in whether or not we are successful.'' GAO goes on to say that ``based on GAO's past work, most existing federal performance appraisal systems, including a vast majority of DOD's systems, are not currently designed to support a meaningful performance-based pay system.''

The civil service rules have generally served our country well. Can we improve the Defense Department's civilian personnel rules? Sure. Is this the way to do it? Absolutely not. Such sweeping changes--changes affecting more than 700,000 Defense Department workers--deserve more thoughtful consideration by this Congress. If these changes are approved, we will find ourselves in the unique position of having one set of personnel rules for civilian defense employees, another set of personnel rules for employees at the Department of Homeland Security, and a third set of rules for every other federal worker.

It's bad enough that the Republican Majority insisted on including these controversial civil service changes in this bill. What's worse is that the Majority will not even allow us to debate them or offer amendments. The House should be permitted to debate the Employee Bill of Rights amendment proposed by Representatives Cooper, Davis and Van Hollen. This amendment would protect the right to receive a veterans preference and the right to be free from discrimination based on political opinion or party affiliation. It would ensure that Department of Defense employees have the same collective bargaining rights and due process rights that other federal employees enjoy. These rights are fundamental. they should not be waived or curtailed at the whim of the Defense Secretary, and this House should not be stampeded into providing him the authority to do so.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule so we can have a fair debate and a vote on the Employee Bill of Rights amendment.

Mr. Speaker, they say a half a loaf is better than none. This is a half a loaf. It will help one million workers who have been left out or threatened to be left out in the cold. But there are actually more than one million people who have been out of work or will be out of work for longer than the 9 months who are going to be just given the cold shoulder by what the Republicans are doing here today.

They refuse to give us the chance to provide some benefits for those who have been looking for work but have been out of work for more than 9 months. It is ironic, those out of work the longest get the cold shoulder from the Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, it was just a few days ago that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, ``I think it is a stretch to say that we are at a crisis point.'' So there was no action on unemployment comp. I guess Mr. Rove called up and said, politically, you had better cover your base. So here we are today. But covering a political base is not going to help close to two million people who have either exhausted their benefits or will soon do that altogether.

I was looking at the data, and it is really sad. They talk, the gentlemen from the Committee on Rules, about the States that have triggered in to extended benefits beyond the 39. That is only six States. The majority of workers in the majority of States are also left out in the cold.

By the way, it is not only their needs, it is the need of the country. When we provide unemployment comp benefits, we provide money into the economy to grow the GDP, because people who are unemployed tend to spend the money they receive through benefits.

So what are they afraid of? Why do they not let us bring before the floor the second half of that loaf? What are they afraid of? Answer that question. Why not give us a chance to bring it up? Why a rule that turns the cold shoulder in the end to two million Americans? I would be glad to have an answer.

Instead, the Republicans sit silently. They say there is no crisis and, at the last minute, act. I urge that we reject the rule.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues talk about jobs. They are doing a job on the American people tonight. That is what they are doing. That is what they are doing.

My colleagues are borrowing from my children's generation for a tax cut that will not benefit them primarily. My colleagues are borrowing from my grandchildren's generation for a tax cut. Where is it going? Mainly to the very wealthy in this society. And they get away from this by averaging. Okay, for the person with a million bucks, $93,000; someone with $45,000, $50,000, 211 bucks this year. When we add those together, the average tax cut for those two people is 46,000 bucks. The trouble is one is getting $95,000 and one is getting $200.

Alchemy does not work outside of Washington, D.C., and you alchemists are not going to prevail ultimately in the District of Columbia and this Congress. You have performed what some may say is a miracle. You have united the Democrats in this institution. And the reason you have done it is not because of political reasons on our part, because you are robbing future generations for a tax cut for the very wealthy, and we are going to stand together to say to the President, to you, no, no, no, no, and we are going to do it in 45 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably absent on congressional business when recorded votes were taken on four matters. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: on rollcall 201, ordering the previous question on H. Res. 245, ``nay''; on rollcall 202, the rule for the Defense Authorization bill, ``nay''; on rollcall 203, the Child Medication Safety Act, ``yea''; and on rollcall 204, final passage of H.R. 1911, ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed forest bill as well as the patently unfair procedure in which this legislation is being considered today by the House of Representatives. Neither the bill nor the procedure we are following brings credit to this body.

Last night in the House Rules Committee, Democrats brought forward eleven amendments and asked the Committee to allow the House to debate them today. Many of these amendments were thoughtful and constructive. All of them deserved to be debated by the full House, yet the Republican-controlled Rules Committee denied all but one of the amendments. The result is that we will have a severely curtailed debate on a very divisive piece of legislation with little opportunity for Members to improve the bill.

This is a lost opportunity. Clearly there is a significant public divide in this country on forest policy issues, and the best way to bridge these differences is to have a full debate in which alternative proposals can be debated. Instead, the Rules Committee has adopted a procedure in which Members will be effectively gagged. Sadly, this practice has become the norm whenever the House considers controversial bills.

I also disagree with the substance of the legislation before the House today. This so-called ``Healthy Forest Restoration Act'' is not an effective response to the wildfire problems we have experienced in recent years. The bill seeks to weaken longstanding environmental protections, including the landmark national Environmental Policy Act, under the guise of fighting wildfires. But the severe fires we have experienced are not the result of our nation's environmental laws; they have been due, in large measure, to a combination of severe drought, the overgrown conditions of many federal forests resulting from past fire-suppression policies, and the growing number of settlements adjacent to forested areas.

I will vote for the substitute that will be offered by representatives Miller, DeFazio, Rahall and Conyers. In my view, the substitute more effectively deals with the wildfire threat by focusing federal resources on protecting the communities most at risk from forest fires. Specifically, the substitute would dedicate 85 percent of the available funding to fire abatement projects near vulnerable communities. There is no similar guarantee in the underlying bill which allows logging to take place in roadless areas and old-growth forests far from

the communities at risk. If the substitute is not adopted, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing final passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I join the minority leader, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and others.

The Federal extended benefit program will expire in just a few days. Why do we bring this up every day? Every day? Because every day the number of people who have exhausted their State and Federal benefits grows. Americans are looking for work and unable to find it. And those who were in the millions as of a few months ago are facing more and more dire circumstances. And every day the number of people who are on State benefits, who are going to exhaust them, face the peril of looking for work without any help.

So when we add this all together, we are talking about 2\1/2\, perhaps 3 million people in this country of ours looking for work, who cannot find it, and on the Republican side here in the House they say to them, get a job. They are looking for a job, but there are none to be found.

The response of the Republicans in this House has been, to put it in its best frame of reference, inaction. It has really been worse than that. It has been indifference, and perhaps even worse than that. I simply ask that they go back home and meet the people out of work, looking for work, without benefits or facing that prospect, look them in the eye and tell them that you here are sitting idly by.

As mentioned by the minority leader, the benefit of extending benefits is that it is a growth package. Giving people who are unemployed money to help their families is money that is going to be spent, and well spent. The studies are clear that that helps to move the economy upwards.

So do vote ``no'' on moving the previous question. I would hope there would be a few brave souls on the Republican side who will not simply march the robotic line, all in sync, voting against the interests of America and its unemployed workers looking for work.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker has made it clear, I hope, to the country why we are asking that the previous question be voted down so we can bring up the unemployment comp issue. He has said let us get jobs for workers, not provide unemployment comp checks. Look, the people who are unemployed are looking for work. They want a job. There is no job when they seek it, and what the Republicans and the House are essentially saying to those workers who are looking for work and cannot find a job, tough luck. We can do much better.

A recent survey indicated that the average unemployed worker has applied for 29 jobs without finding work, and the average unemployed worker over 45 has applied for 42 jobs without finding work. Almost 9 million people out of work. Over 1 million have exhausted their benefits, and by the end of this month, it will be 1.4 million. And now each month another couple hundred thousand are going to be exhausting their benefits, out in the cold because of the cold shoulder of this House majority. That is why we are asking that the previous question be voted down.

Ten years ago we did much better. We did not hear this talk, get a job, to people who are looking for work and cannot find it. So we will proudly ask, give us a chance. My colleagues have been on the Republican side derelict in their duty, and we are willing to stand up and say to the people who are unemployed, yes, keep looking for work. Unemployment comp benefits will help grow the economy because they will spend the money they receive on benefits, but we are also saying while they are looking for work, we are not going to turn a cold shoulder to the unemployed of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill is not a growth bill; it is fiscally irresponsible for this Nation and is unfair to individual taxpayers. Only 9 percent of the tax cuts will take effect this year. It would mean more and more and more deficits. This bill should carry on with the sign, ``Deficits don't Matter.'' A family with $1 million in income this year would save 95,000 bucks in taxes. A family with $40,000 to $75,000, only $218.

A rising tide of tax breaks for the very, very, very wealthy will not raise all boats, only very big yachts. I urge a ``no'' vote.

It is interesting that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) was asked the question. Maybe the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) can answer it. Why not let us bring up the amendment on the issue they were discussing?

And another issue that is not being brought up today that should have been is the unemployment situation in this country: 341,000 people lost their jobs in April, almost 9 million people out of work.

This Congress, this House, this majority sits idly by. There is going to be the expiration of unemployment benefits, the extended benefits the end of this month. And there is over $20 billion in the trust fund that could be applied to help these people. Oh, it is said the answer is get a job. These unemployed people are looking for a job.

A recent survey indicated that the average unemployed worker has applied for 29 jobs without finding work, and you sit idly by and do nothing. It also shows the average unemployed worker over 45 has applied for 42 jobs without finding work. Stop sitting and act on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the rule and against the bill. The legislation before the House today fails to live up our promises to fully fund special education. It fails the parents of children with disabilities. Worst of all, it fails the kids who need our help the most.

The Bush Administration and many in this Congress have said over and over that the education policies of this country should leave no child behind. If it becomes law, this bill would leave more than 600,000 children with disabilities behind.

For more than 28 years, Congress has pledged time and time again to provide full funding for special education in this country, but not once has Congress provided the promised 40 percent Federal cost share of the states' cost of educating children and disabilities. Currently, the Federal Government pays just 18 percent. To illustrate my point, this year my home state of Michigan, will receive $308 million in IDEA Part B grants. Michigan should receive almost $704 million, if this Congress would only meet its obligation to fully fund this program, as it has promised.

IDEA is really the poster child for unfunded federal mandates. The fiscal crisis confronting the states makes it increasingly difficult for

them to pick up the unfunded federal share. Proponents of this legislation will claim that this bill fully funds IDEA by 1010. This House can authorize higher spending limits for IDEA until it is blue in the face, but it doesn't mean anything to our nation's disabled school children unless we follow up and actually appropriate the money to meet these authorization levels. And that's where the problem has been.

If the Majority is really serious about fully funding special education, as it claims, why not make the funding mandatory? It is ironic that at the same time the Majority is pushing to lock in a permanent $550 billion tax cut that chiefly benefits the very rich, it is unwilling to provide the same assurance of funding to disabled school kids. This speaks volumes about priorities around here.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule and opposing this bill. We can do much better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to the City of Pleasant Ridge, its residents and its elected leadership, on the anniversary of the city's 75th year of incorporation.

The City of Pleasant Ridge is a beautiful bedroom community located, just north of the City of Detroit, in south Oakland County. With tree- lined streets, warmly cared for yards, and historic brick homes, the City of Pleasant Ridge is truly a ``jewel'' in the metropolitan area.

This settlement began in 1913 when Burt Taylor subdivided the Mayday farm. The settlement was incorporated as a village in 1921 and as a city in 1927. This city is now home to over 2,500 individuals and 1,000 families.

The City of Pleasant Ridge has a sense of community that can be seen at the bustling community center where they hold a variety of community events and classes, through the numerous community organizations and wide-ranging activities like the garden tours, auctions, scholarship grants to graduating high school students, active participation in the Woodward Avenue Dream Cruise and so many other wonderful community-wide activities.

The city has also had an impact beyond its borders in the Michigan community. Ashton Berst, an early City Administrator, was one of a dozen local government officials instrumental in forming the Michigan Municipal League. Pleasant Ridge is also the hometown of a former Member of Congress, and Governor of the State of Michigan, James Blanchard.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in sending every good wish to the City of Pleasant Ridge on their 75th anniversary. Indeed, they have much to be proud of. My heartiest congratulations to the residents, the community activists, and all of the members of the city administration. I look forward to many more years of working together, and being part of the fabric of this important community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a remarkable individual, Richard T. Thompson, Chancellor of Oakland Community College (OCC) upon his retirement from this outstanding five-campus institution.

Beginning his OCC career in 1996, Mr. Thompson was a member of the English, Social Science and Counseling faculty at the Highland Lakes Campus. He also served as Academic Dean and Campus Provost at that campus until 1975.

After 1975, Mr. Thompson held various positions, including Provost of the Orchard Ridge Campus, and College District Vice President for academic and student affairs in 1984. He was promoted to Vice Chancellor of academic affairs in 1988, and served as OCC's Interim Chancellor. In 1995 he was appointed Interim President of Auburn Hills Campus.

On March 19, 1996, Richard T. Thompson assumed the Chancellorship of OCC, as its sixth chief executive officer. This appointment marked the first time in history of the college that an OCC academician was chosen to head its five-campus institution.

Professional and community activities are also a significant part of Mr. Thompson's life. The Providence Hospital Community Board, the Educational Advisory Board, the Oakway Symphony and the Better Business Bureau are some examples of the wide range of interest and service he has provided.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Richard T. Thompson for his dedication and devotion to Oakland Community College, an outstanding institution of higher learning, and for the high quality of education and the inspiration he has provided for its students during his tenure.

I wish Richard, and his wife, Nancy, good health and happiness in whatever paths they choose to take in retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that I would be able to vote for the energy bill before the House today. Now more than ever, this country urgently needs a balanced, forward-looking policy to meet America's energy requirements in the 21st Century. Unfortunately, the energy legislation before the House falls far short of even the minimum requirements of a balanced, comprehensive energy program. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in opposing passage of this bill today.

The overarching flaw in this bill is its lack of balance. This legislation contains relatively few energy conservation provisions and instead places most of its emphasis on production of traditional energy sources. In so doing, the bill weakens important environmental protections and offers subsidies and incentives to industry, even in cases where none are required.

I am also extremely disappointed that one provision of this bill would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. This provision would do serious environmental harm to one of the last pristine wilderness areas in America. It might be argued that doing so could be justified if drilling in the Refuge would substantially lessen U.S. dependence on foreign sources of oil. But we know that this is not the case. According to a 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study, the mean estimate of economically recoverable oil in the Refuge is 3.2 billion barrels, an amount roughly equal to the amount of oil the U.S. consumes in six months. We can't drill our way to energy self sufficiency. We need to look at alternatives to oil and make better use of advanced technology to lessen U.S. dependence on it.

The $18.6 billion tax package contained in this legislation is similarly unbalanced. These incentives would overwhelmingly go to energy production and transmission at the expense of conservation, energy efficiency and developing alternative energy. In particular, the incentives provided for alternative fuel vehicles in the bill are inadequate.

I believe consumer-based tax credits are needed to accelerate the introduction of hybrid and other alternative fuel vehicles. Sales of hybrids and all other dedicated alternative fuel

vehicles in 2002 represented just two-tenths of one-percent of total vehicle sales. For example, Ford produces 375,000 Taurus cars each year. Honda sells 360,000 Accords. By comparison, the most popular hybrid automobile--the Toyota Prius--sold just 18,000 vehicles in 2002. Clearly, we need a meaningful tax incentive to prime the pump on hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles. The federal government has a vital role to play in encouraging manufacturers to build, and consumers to purchase, these advanced technology vehicles.

If we go forward with an energy bill that lacks a meaningful incentive for alternative fuel vehicles, including an enhanced credit for hybrids, I believe we would be making a serious mistake.

At the end of the day, the energy bill before the House is unbalanced, incoherent, and environmentally risky. It deserves to be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, when I came here 20 years ago, I was told that this was the greatest deliberative body in this world; and here we are discussing this huge budget and what the

majority does is to reserve the balance of its time. Where is their argument? Where is their response? My Republican colleagues sit there like people of stone.

So let me sum up what the facts are as I see them. Here is what the Republicans are saying in their budget resolution. I have heard the gentleman from California say, get back to the growth of the late 1990s. They are doing it by adopting policies exactly the opposite of the 1990s. What my colleagues are saying is, if the hole is deep, dig it deeper. My colleagues try to show much in tax cuts, and now they are going to do it again. They have gone from a projected surplus, as we have said so many times, of $5.6 trillion to $2 trillion in deficits these next 10 years. What my Republican colleagues are saying is, when in debt, mortgage more and more.

My colleagues say they are meeting a deadline. They are doing it, I think, clearly by dealing death to fiscal responsibility. But I want to say in a few words, this is worse than fiscal irresponsibility. I say to my colleagues, this is fiscal madness.

Mr. Speaker, April 24, 2003, marks the 88th anniversary of one of the world's most tragic events--the genocide of the Armenian people by the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire.

On that day in 1915, over 200 Armenian religious, political and intellectual leaders were executed. This was the beginning of the Ottoman Empire's attempt to eradicate Armenians from their Anatolian homelands in what is now East Turkey through massacre and massive forced marches through the deserts of modern-day Syria. This resulted in the deaths of more than two-thirds of the Armenian population-- totaling one and a half million people.

To this day, there are those who dismiss the systematic persecution of the Armenian population. Some claim that a smaller number of Armenians were killed as a result of partisan fighting during World War I. Others lessen the importance of this event by refusing to recognize it as genocide. Still others seek to forget this tragedy altogether. But these tragic events must be acknowledged and remembered to ensure that this does not happen.

Stephen Holden of the New York Times once wrote of the Armenian Genocide that ``anguished remembrance is far preferable to willful amnesia.'' There are still many living survivors in my district who participate each year in commemoration ceremonies, in the hope that the world will not forget their anguish.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent a large and vital Armenian community in my district. It is for these people, as well as Armenians around the world, that I rise today to commemorate the Armenian Genocide with the great hope there will not be willful amnesia regarding this tragedy, but that people will remember and not tolerate anything of this kind again.