Floor Statements

Congresswoman Pryce and I came to the floor as a mother, and certainly someone who has spent a good deal of time working in the Women's Caucus. And we would be together in a time when Democrats and Republicans would come together around issues of children and women. And I know of your forceful voice. And so I come today to thank you for this legislation and this tribute to Caroline because, coming from Houston, we have the Texas Children's Hospital. And I have visited the McDonald's House, which is a home that families are able to use to be able to see the children who are with their family who are suffering from cancer and obviously are in great need of pediatric research. And you see the smiling faces, and you see the uniqueness of their look, if you will--many of their heads are shaven--but you also see love. And this is what this bill represents to all of us; it is a testament of love, and the fact that children should have a future.

Caroline Pryce Walker, in the words Conquer Child Cancer Act of 2008, is embodied in the love that you have for your daughter.

I just want to recount one or two of the findings, because I think it is very important to note that cancer kills more children than any other disease. Many of us don't know that. You would think of many other elements that might kill. You don't know that cancer is the number one killer of children.

Each year, cancer kills more children between one and 20 years of age than asthma, diabetes, cystic fibrosis and AIDS. So I simply want to close by indicating that I was in a committee hearing and we just finished and I saw you speaking on the floor, and I was compelled to just come and say thank you. Thank you for your leadership. And you have entrusted in us the fact that we will carry on in your name and in your daughter's name.

I ask for support of this bill, and I thank Chairman Pallone.

Let me associate myself with the words of our chairman. This is in the interests of the American people. I thank Chairman Berman for introducing this legislation and the ranking member, as well, for the collaboration that our committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, always engages in.

I think it is important to note that this is an initiative that was entered into by the United States and Mexico that announced a multiyear, $1.4 billion plan to use U.S. assistance to combat drug trafficking and other criminal organization activities. This has been labeled the ``Merida Initiative,'' and the administration has requested $500 million.

Some would ask why? Because we are at a crisis. And I come from the State of Texas. There is bloodshed on the border. The violence is enormous. The wars between drug cartels have caused some 1,800 to 1,900 deaths to Mexicans in the first 9 months of 2007. And it is attributable to the cartel-related violence. More than 60 American citizens have been kidnapped in Nuevo Laredo, a Mexican town directly across the border from the city of Laredo, a fine, wonderful city. And the mayors of those cities have come and asked for relief. But unfortunately, it hasn't been listened to in the way that I believe it could be. Recognizing that the violence or the cause is not Laredo or the border towns as much as it is the violence that is now spilling over.

So I hope as we move forward in our initiative it will have a number of elements to it, and certainly one of the elements has to be the war against drugs here in the United States. It is important to note that Mexico is, in fact, the main foreign supply of marijuana and meth, and as well even though there is a small production of heroin, interestingly enough, they are a large producer of the heroin supply here in United States.

And for this reason, there needs to be a number of collaborations. I disagree, for example, with the Secretary of Homeland Security, who says that we can't put the virtual fence at the border because he realizes that we are being conflicted by the questions of a barrier fence, reasonably so, because we are used to the ingress and egress of trade in that area. And so I hope this initiative will have a balance and recognize that we have to look at many options to secure the border.

I want to also make mention of the fact that I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee and will hope, as this legislation moves forward, that we will have a collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security with this effort. You cannot make this work unless DHS is involved.

And I was prepared to offer an amendment that dealt with assessing the role of the relevant United States Government departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, in supporting the Merida Initiative, providing specific information on what staff, equipment and other resources the relevant United States Government departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security would need to support this initiative, and assessing the impact of the initiative on the border security operations of the relevant United States Government departments and agencies.

I thank the chairman.

Assessing the impact of the Merida Initiative on the border security operations of the relevant United States Government departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, and identify additional resources, if any, that the relevant United States Government departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, need to make available to carry out this initiative.

I recall specifically as a member of the Subcommittee on Border Security writing legislation and the ranking member on the Immigration Subcommittee in our past Congresses on providing more resources for our Border Patrol. It was interesting that the administration was always voicing their leadership on the idea of border security, and our Border Patrol agents were suffering. There were not enough. They didn't have the kind of speedboats, night goggles and computers. Now you see it is like night and day because of legislation carried by members of the Democratic Caucus.

And so it is important that as we go forward we find a collaboration of the Department of Homeland Security because human trafficking and drug trafficking are intertwined. The violation of the borders is intertwined with all we are doing here, and we need to have a collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security. I support this initiative, and I know it can be expanded.

I rise today in cautious support of H.R. 6028, the ``Merida Initiative to Combat Illicit Narcotics and Reduce Organized Crime Act of 2008.'' I would like to thank my colleague

Congressman Berman for introducing this legislation, as well as for his ongoing leadership as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. While I do support this bill, I am extremely disappointed in the manner in which it was brought to the floor today. Like many Members, I have outstanding concerns about this legislation that have not yet been addressed, and I believe Members should have been given the opportunity to offer amendments to this important and far-reaching bill. I remain concerned about human rights in the region and I believe that the United States must do far more to address the demand for drugs in the United States, but I also believe that this legislation represents a positive step toward partnering with our southern neighbors to combat a problem that we share.

Mr. Speaker, I had planned to introduce an amendment to this legislation that will require the President to submit a report

(1) assessing the role of the relevant United States Government departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, in supporting the Merida Initiative;

(2) providing specific information on what staffing, equipment, and other resources the relevant United States Government departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, have provided for the Merida Initiative;

(3) assessing the impact of the Merida Initiative on the border security operations of the relevant United States Government departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security; and

(4) identifying additional resources, if any, that the relevant United States Government departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, need to make available to carry out the Merida Initiative.

As a senior Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am cognizant of the fact that the Department of Homeland Security will play a major role in the implementation of the Merida Initiative. Among other things, Customs and Border Patrol will be involved in the procurement and training of non-intrusive inspection equipment (scanners, x-ray vans) and rescue and communications equipment, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be involved in modernizing Mexico's immigration database and the training of vetted units focused on anti-gang and anti-money laundering.

In short, Mr. Speaker, the Merida Initiative will not be complete or successful without the cooperation of the Department of Homeland Security and the dedication of its brave men and women. The report required by my Amendment would have made sure Congress knows what resources DHS is contributing to the Merida Initiative and whether more are needed. It would also have let Congress know how the Merida Initiative is affecting DHS's ability to carry out its other missions, including border security. As we continue to fight criminal syndicates and terrorism organizations around the world, we must ensure that there is accountability for our precious resources and that we are not losing focus of the needs at home. I am extremely disappointed that this legislation has been brought up under suspension, as I believe that my amendment would have improved the legislation.

On October 22, the United States and Mexico, in a joint statement, announced a multi-year, $1.4 billion plan to use U.S. assistance to combat drug trafficking and other criminal organizations. As part of this plan, known as the Merida Initiative, the Administration has requested $500 million for Mexico and $50 million for Central America in the FY 2008 Supplemental Appropriations. Since March 2007, when Presidents George W. Bush and Felipe Calderon met in Merida, officials of both governments, without the input of the legislative branch of either country, have been working on an initiative to expand bilateral and regional cooperation, in order to combat organized crime and criminal gangs in the region.

Mexico has, in recent years, experienced an increase in drug violence. Much of the recent violence has been attributed to turf wars between drug cartels, with between 1,800 and 1,900 deaths of Mexicans in the first nine months of 2007 alone being attributed to cartel- related violence. More than 60 American citizens have been kidnapped in Nuevo Laredo, a Mexican town directly across the border from the city of Laredo, in my own state of Texas. Some of this violence is reportedly spilling over the border into the United States.

Spill-over violence and attacks on Americans are not the only reasons Mexico's drug trade is of intimate interest to the United States. Mexico is the main foreign supplier of marijuana and a major supplier of methamphetamine to the United States, and, though it produces only a small share of global heroin production, it produces a sizeable proportion of the heroin distributed in the United States. In addition to production of drugs, Mexico is also a major transit country. According to State Department estimates, 90% of the cocaine entering the United States transits through Mexico.

With the demise of powerful cartels in Colombia, Mexican drug cartels have recently become increasingly significant. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican cartels now dominate the illicit U.S. drug market, using ``well-established overland transportation networks to transport cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin--Mexican and increasingly South American-- to drug markets throughout the country.'' Though Colombian groups retain a significant share of smuggling and distribution operations in the United States, the operations of Mexican groups continue to account for an increasingly large percentage of the market.

Recent years have indicated that much more needs to be done to address issues of drug production and trafficking in Mexico. While I certainly agree that the Merida Initiative represents an important and much needed effort, I am extremely disappointed that neither members of the U.S. nor the Mexican congress were included in the discussion process. In addition, I have significant concerns about the initiative itself, and I believe there are many outstanding issues that remain to be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we can address the problem of drug trafficking by combating the supply side alone. This legislation does require the President to submit a report on efforts to reduce demand in the United States, and I believe that this language is extremely important, acknowledging that this is not just a foreign issue. I would like to see this Congress take a more active role in reducing the prevalence of drug use and addiction in our own communities, in conjunction with working to eliminate the flow of drugs across our borders.

Mr Speaker, it is essential that this Committee stay engaged with this program after it is implemented, particularly monitoring its effects on human rights. U.S. dollars absolutely should not be going to fund abuses; they should be used to build a culture of respect for fundamental human rights. To this end, I am pleased that this legislation states that one of the purposes of this initiative is to ``strengthen respect for internationally recognized human rights and the rule of law in efforts to stabilize the security environment relating to the illicit narcotics production and trafficking and organized crime.'' Further, this legislation restricts funding to any units known to commit gross violations of human rights, provides assistance for human rights training in relevant law enforcement units, and, perhaps most crucially, requires the President to report to Congress on the human rights impact of the equipment and training provided in this bill. Mr. Speaker, this language is important, but alone it is not enough, and I fully expect that this committee will remain engaged in this important issue following the implementation of this program.

Mr. Speaker, despite my outstanding concerns and my disappointment over the manner in which this legislation was brought before us today, I do believe that this legislation will strengthen the bonds of cooperation with our southern neighbors on an important issue in which we all share a stake. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Let me thank the distinguished chairperson of the Africa Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs and the full committee chair, Mr. Berman, and the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and the ranking member of the subcommittee that Mr. Payne chairs.

This is an important reiteration of this Congress' commitment to the premises of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And I might read, in part, the language of this declaration that says, ``The recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.''

I believe that there is no better time than the time that we are engaged in today, the era of the world status, to reemphasize the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United Nations General Assembly proclaimed it on December 10, 1948, and the language stated that it was declared as a ``common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations.'' Sadly, in the 21st century, when we would hope to be celebrating the foundation of freedom, justice and peace to the world, the world is conflicted. It is conflicted in Iraq, where the different, distinctive ethnic groups of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are engaged in violations, respectively, of each of them by the other. And so even in a place of disruption in Iraq, in a war that I oppose, we have concerns that are ignoring the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We must call for the protection of human rights in Iraq. We must call for the protection of human rights in Iran.

Today, I had the chance to speak to a young woman in Iran long distance, international conversation to Miriam, a young woman of 22, who had a wonderful vision in front of us for freedom, and the ability to be the best interior designer the world would know. To do that, she must have freedom, justice and peace in the world. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must apply to Iran.

And as we look to the tragedy in Burma, now some weeks old, to understand that the junta continues to oppress those who suffer from the terrible and horrific tragedy that occurred, that people sit along roadsides trying to find, if you will, the resources that will come to them through the international aid organizations, and their oppressive regime is denying them that right.

Can you imagine that the human rights and dignity of those who are already brutalized through a horrific tragedy of catastrophic proportions are now denied their human dignity because this oppressive regime in Burma refuses to allow the international aid organizations to go forward?

I hope by our reemphasizing this declaration, that we will stand in abhorrence, in outrage over such undignified treatment. And then I would ask, as we move forward, that we can no longer tolerate the genocide in Sudan, and the completely reckless response of the Sudanese Government in Khartoum to the dignity and human rights of those in Darfur.

We have a litany of those. Those Tibetans who continue to fight every day in Tibet simply to be acknowledged, simply to allow the Dalai Lama to return over religion reasons. And to think that he has to be denied the right to come back over religion reasons, Mr. Speaker. They allow him to come on political reasons, on government affirmation, on saluting the government, but just to be able to engage in his religious, if you will, explanation, he is denied his human rights, the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. We could give a roll call along the way of the travesties of justice.

Might I compliment and announce the change-around in Liberia with President Johnson, who recognized a nation that had literally burned the principles of human dignity and human rights; now, with her stellar leadership, she is restoring the dignity to the Liberian people.

It can be done. It can be done in Sudan. It can be done in Bangladesh. It can be done in Burma. It can be done in North Vietnam. It can be done in places where oppression exists. But I rise today to recount the tragedies of denial of human rights, but also to applaud those who have overcome. And I believe it is our responsibility to not only applaud them, but to encourage them.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and let us do it by words and deeds.

I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman and the ranking member of the subcommittee and the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee. I would like to thank Chairman Payne in particular for introducing this important resolution. And I am very proud to cosponsor it because it is clearly a life-and- death matter. When you talk about sanitation and the removal of waste and the removal of sewage, you are talking about the lives of children. And as the cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, let me acknowledge that the most vulnerable to unsanitary conditions are children. In the disease that spreads, they are, in fact, the victims.

Global sanitation coverage has increased from 49 to 59 percent between 1990 and 2004. And that is, in essence, allowing over 1 billion people throughout the world to gain improved sanitation in the past 14 years. Pregnant women, nursing mothers and, of course, young children are, in fact, the bigger victims.

I am particularly troubled that 90 percent of these deaths that I have mentioned of those who died because of lack of access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation are children under 5, mostly in developing countries. As I mentioned, children are particularly hard hit by poor sanitation, paying a high price through missed schooling, disease, malnutrition and even death. An estimated 1.5 million children die each year due to poor sanitation, hygiene and unsafe water. UNICEF reports that girls are particularly vulnerable, missing out on schooling once they hit puberty, due to the lack of clean and safe latrines.

As the world's only remaining superpower, I think it is important to avert this humanitarian crisis. Chairman Payne, I believe that this is an important, constructive way of avoiding this massive death. Simply put, the Millennium Development Goal on basic sanitation would avert 470,000 deaths. And it would continue to do so. According to economic analysis, depending on the region of the world, economic benefits have been estimated to range from $3 to $34 for each dollar invested in it.

Let me just indicate that this is common sense. It is, again, human dignity. And as I close, let me also add my support for H. Con. Res. 337 honoring the Seeds of Peace. It is a program that I am very much aware of, having participated with the young people who have come from Israel and Palestine who have sat down together as teenagers and said we want peace. It was founded by John Wallach. Seeds of Peace initially brought 46 Israeli and Arab youths together. It has spread now to Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, the Balkans, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. These summer camps are enormously important. Again, the Congressional Children's Caucus believes that children are not only our tomorrows, they are our yesterdays and todays.

And I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his leadership in these areas. And with that I ask my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 318 and as well the following bill H. Con. Res. 337. And again, I thank Mr. Payne for his leadership.

I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 318, ``supporting the goals and ideals of the International Year of Sanitation.'' I would like to thank my colleague Congressman Payne for introducing this important resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor, as well as the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congressman Berman, for his leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, In 2007, the United Nations declared 2008 to be the International Year of Sanitation, to raise awareness of the importance of sanitation and its impact on reaching other Millennium Development Goals and to recognize progress made in achieving the global sanitation target detailed in the Millennium Development Goals. In addition, the International Year of Sanitation is intended to call upon all Member States, United Nations agencies, regional and international organizations, civil society organizations, and other relevant stakeholders to renew their commitment to attaining the target.

As my colleagues are aware, in September 2000, the United Nations adopted the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that challenged the global community to reduce poverty and increase the health and well-being of all peoples. Two years later, in September 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the United States and the rest of the international community reaffirmed these goals and added access to basic sanitation as a centerpiece of the poverty eradication commitments. The target to halve the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015 was defined in the Johannesburg Plan of Action.

We have begun to make important progress. Over one billion people, throughout the world, have gained access to improved sanitation in the past 14 years. Global sanitation coverage has increased from 49 percent to 59 percent between 1990 and 2004. These gains represent substantial improvements in the quality of life and basic health for countless people.

Mr. Speaker, despite the establishment of these goals, billions of people still lack access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and we are not on target to meet the Millennium Development Goal to reduce by half the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015. Today, over 2.4 billion people--half the developing world--lack access to basic sanitation and 1.1 billion people have no access to any type of improved drinking source of water. As a direct consequence, over 1.6 million people die every year from easily preventable diseases attributable to lack

of access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.

As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am particularly troubled that 90 percent of these deaths are children under 5, mostly in developing countries. Children are particularly hard hit by poor sanitation, paying a high price through missed schooling, disease, malnutrition, and even death. An estimated 1.5 million children under five die each year due to poor sanitation, hygiene, and unsafe water.

In addition to claiming too many young lives, poor sanitation reduces children's ability to grow and develop, stunting the economic and social development of the entire nation. UNICEF reports that girls are particularly vulnerable, missing out on schooling once they hit puberty due to the lack of clean and safe latrines.

As the world's only remaining superpower, the United States has a moral obligation to take the lead in averting humanitarian catastrophe. Increased access to sanitation would have an enormous impact on the lives of people throughout the world. Simply put, meeting the Millennium Development Goal on basic sanitation would avert 470,000 deaths. In addition, achieving the target would bring enormous economic gains. Meeting the Millennium Development Goal would result in an extra 320 million productive working days every year, and would bring considerable benefits to investment. According to economic analysis, depending on the region of the world, economic benefits have been estimated to range from $3 to $34 for each dollar invested in access to basic sanitation and safe water.

Mr. Speaker, even as our attention is consumed by rising food and fuel prices, it is vital that we do not lose focus of the equally vital goal of basic sanitation. The resolution that we are considering today recognizes the importance of sanitation on public health, poverty reduction, economic and social development, and the environment and encourages all Americans to observe the International Year of Sanitation with appropriate recognition, ceremonies, activities, and programs to demonstrate the importance of sanitation, hygiene, and access to safe drinking water in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Mr. Speaker, the benefits of meeting the Millennium Development Goal on basic sanitation would be dramatic and global. We have the opportunity to drastically improve the international community's ability to reduce global poverty, and to improve the health of people worldwide. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 337, ``Honoring the Seeds of Peace for its 15th Anniversary as an Organization.'' I would like to thank my colleague Congressman

Allen for introducing this important resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor, as well as the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congressman Berman, for his leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, fifteen years ago, in 1993, Seeds of Peace hosted its first international conflict resolution camp. In that first year, amidst regional conflict and fighting a history of hatred, the organization brought together Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian, and Egyptian youth. Founded by journalist John Wallach, Seeds of Peace initially brought together 46 Israeli and Arab youth. Since that time, Seeds of Peace has offered summer camps for youths from conflict regions around the world and from the United States, involving young people from the initial countries as well as from Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, the Balkans, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. These summer camps have made enormous strides toward fostering cultural and religious understanding.

Seeds of Peace empowers a new generation of leaders with the tools they need to overcome prejudice and to communicate and negotiate effectively. The summer camps help these youth to develop empathy, respect, and confidence, while giving their ``enemies'' a human face. The young people who attend these summer camps are the same people who will grow up to build a future of peace and stability. There are now nearly 4,000 young Seeds of Peace leaders who are working to make a positive difference in some of our world's most troubled regions.

As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I strongly believe in investing in our children. By doing so, we are investing in our future. Long-term peace between warring parties, including Arabs and Israelis, Indians and Pakistanis, and Afghans and Pakistanis, is dependent on the emergence of a new generation of leaders able and willing to engage in constructive dialogue.

By bringing young people from different backgrounds together in a recreational environment, Seeds of Peace lays a foundation for sustainable peace by facilitating interaction among young leaders before their fears, mistrust, and inherited prejudices have permanently shaped their vision of their ``enemy.'' After spending a summer at camp in Maine, participants and teachers continue to interact through regional and international programming, furthering the dialogue among and across nationalities. Seeds of Peace supports the development of future leaders.

In addition to these summer camps for children from conflict regions, Seeds of Peace now operates a domestic program called ``Maine Seeds,'' addressing ethnic and racial tensions between diverse communities in Maine. Also, in 2004, Seeds of Peace launched its ``Beyond Borders'' initiative, bringing teens from additional Middle East countries, such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, to participate in a cultural exchange program between American and Arab youth.

Mr. Speaker, while the Arab/Israeli peace process has moved forward haltingly since 1993, Seeds of Peace has grown into a major organization that continues to foster interaction among thousands of young leaders and educators from around the world. It continues to build upon the basic premise the prejudices dispelled during youth will be prejudices dispelled for life.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution, honoring Seeds of Peace for its fifteen years of promoting reconciliation, coexistence, and peace among youth of the Middle East and other conflict areas.

I thank the distinguished Speaker, and I thank her for her leadership.

We will in just a few minutes begin to talk about a very serious issue on universal access to health care, so I rise today to remind my colleagues that we are still in a very troubling conflict in Iraq. We are still spending billions and billions and billions of dollars. Even in the last few days I have seen the loss of young sons, young brothers, young men in my own community. We have buried a number of our fallen soldiers in the Houston, Harris County and South Texas metroplex.

We recognize that we are a nation that is willing to send her very best, her very brightest, to the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan and places around the world to defend the honor, but yet the need for freedom and democracy. But this is a war that the American people over and over again, 60 to 70 percent have said we must bring our troops home. The American people have said enough is enough.

We honor those who have fallen. We honored them in this memorial week. I was in Aviano, Italy, and celebrated there at the Air Force base with the young men and women, the fallen, who fell on foreign soil. It was my honor and my privilege to be there, and I will do so wherever there is the opportunity to say thank you to those that live injured, for those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. We will never dishonor their service.

So I claim that today we can call the actions in Iraq, albeit my opposition to the offense or the invasion of Iraq by this country, we can call it a military success. We can call it a military success and bring our soldiers home.

What disturbs me, Madam Speaker, is that this Nation, this administration, is negotiating for foreign bases on Iraq soil, U.S. bases on the soil of Iraq, when over and over again this Congress has voted against maintaining long-term bases, U.S. bases, in Iraq. We have said it clearly. We have said it over and over again.

So I raise the question as to why is the administration engaging in negotiations for permanent military bases without the engagement and the affirmation of this Congress that has said to the administration that we do not want permanent military bases and neither do the people of the United States?

Now, I recognize that we have the responsibility of transition as the new administration comes in. I am believing that the new administration that will come in to be President of the United States will be the administration that will oppose this war and that will begin to bring our troops home.

But if, for example, we were concerned about transition, let me simply say, we are aware that we have a Central Command in the region. It is an active Central Command. It will be headed by General Petraeus for the next couple of months.

There is no reason why when that region is in need that under the Central Command the appropriate military operation can be dispatched, if necessary, to the region, to Iraq and to other places around. It seems to be a smack in the face of Congress that has over and over again said that it is time to bring our troops home, that we cannot spend millions and millions and billions more of dollars in Iraq.

It is time for Iraq to secure its own security, to defend itself, to build its own military bases. And, yes, we are quite happy to continue to train those Iraqi soldiers, which I visited with in the last couple of months. I was there. I saw them. They are committed and dedicated, the Iraqi soldiers. Their generals are committed and dedicated. Give them the opportunity to finance their own bases, to finance the military. But enough is enough. I believe the American people have spoken.

So I say to the administration, we will not tolerate permanent bases on the soil. And I want to thank the Progressive Caucus with the leadership of Congresswoman Woolsey and Congresswoman Lee, the Out of Iraq Caucus with Congresswoman Waters, both of which I am a member of. We have worked on this. We have heard from the American people. We have heard testimony.

Frankly, this is an insult to the Members of the United States Congress, when we know that there are alternatives to ensuring the safety and security of the region, and we also know that the American people have spoken.

I stand with the American people. The needs are great. We must use this money for other reasons, bringing our soldiers home, training them, creating a green economy, making sure that we have the education we should and the health care that we should. It is time now to bring our troops home, and certainly it is time now to end this frivolous debate about permanent bases in Iraq.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from California for yielding, and let me add my appreciation for the vast knowledge that she brings, particularly as it relates to the comparisons of our health care, to the international system of health care, having been an ambassador and knowing, really, some of the stark contrasts between nations that are developing and have a better health care system than we have here in the United States.

I want to add my appreciation as well to Chairman John Conyers, who has single-handedly led the cause and the fight for universal access to health care, particularly as it relates to the legislation that all of us are looking forward to seeing passed, because this is legislation that clearly is enormously important.

So I want to speak today on some issues and share some stories of individuals who are suffering in the State of Texas. Maybe those who are within the sound of our voices will understand that we do not take your plight lightly. We have heard Members come on the floor of the House and talk about the spiraling gasoline prices, we have heard them talk about the crisis in the housing market.

I was in my district, and we had an hour-long program, and we really couldn't end the program. It was a television program, and all of the questions were on the foreclosure market. The producer came out and said, they don't want to ask any other questions. They just want to ask about the foreclosures.

People are hurting, and if you juxtapose the high food gasoline prices high food prices and your mortgage being foreclosed on, or no place to live, can you imagine what it is like? You can imagine, with no health insurance, catastrophic conditions, with the backdrop of the spiraling unemployment, then I would say that we have a human crisis, an American crisis where people are falling on the spear.

Yesterday, I introduced the Medicare Efficiency and Development of Improvement of Care and Services Act, MEDICS Act, of 2008. It is a complement to universal access to healthcare. But if we had universal access to health care, many of these issues would not have to be, if you will, remedied piece by piece.

Just to give you a very brief overview, the bill that I introduced has an elimination of discriminatory copayment rates of Medicare outpatient mental health services. It also prohibits and limits certain sales and marketing activities under Medicare Advantage, and it has exemptions from income and resources for determination of eligibility for low-income subsidy.

One of the key elements is if you are on Medicaid and you die, this eliminates the ability of States to collect from your estate, you don't have anything. It may be that you are leaving minimal resources to your children, and lo and behold, they want to grab that up to pay for the long-term care that you needed while you were in the hospital under Medicaid, more insult to your dignity.

So very quickly let me say that I rise to support H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, that is sponsored and introduced by my colleague, Chairman Conyers, of which I am an original cosponsor. I would just simply say in the State of Texas when you look at HIV and STDs, for example, there are 22,948 total AIDS cases in Harris County, this was in 2005. These are people who may have health issues we have to address.

According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, 72.9 percent of African Americans in Texas are overweight, while 60.3 percent of the Anglo white population are overweight. That bodes for an unfortunate health situation.

H.R. 676 would cover health care costs and would decrease for both families and for businesses. Currently the average family of four covered under an employee plan spends $4,225 on health care, $2,713 on premiums and $1,522 on medical services.

I would say to you that under H.R. 676 a family of four making the medium income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 for all health care costs, including the current Medicare.

Is that not a reformation of this system? Is that not a light at the end of the tunnel? Businesses would benefit as well. They would pay a 4.75 percent payroll tax for all health care costs, including the current Medicare tax. For an employee making a median annual family income of $56,000, the employee would pay about $2,700 per year. That is the answer that we are giving tonight and why we are here on floor of the House.

We want you to know, our colleague, that there is relief. We can move H.R. 676, which is based on the traditional Medicare model and provide health care coverage for a family of four that is drastically different from the crisis that they are facing today, because today they are facing a crisis such that if they are in any catastrophic illness you can be assured that they will have no relief.

Let me close by sharing with you two very painful stories, and you can understand why, might I say to you, there are pages and pages of stories of those who are suffering in this dilemma of having to pay for all of these expenses and short-changing their families on health care.

The lack of health care leads to death. Impossibly high gas prices can lead you to public transportation, it may lead you to walking. It may lead you not to going to places where you have not often gone, but you are still alive and might even be healthy. The lack of food may mean that you have a little less on the table, and it may mean your health, but it actually will not kill you directly.

Certainly we know that we want better education and our troops home. But if you do not have good health care, it can lead to your death. Whether it's preventive health care, whether it's mental health services, it can actually lead to the death of your loved one. Poor health care can lead to the death of your loved one.

We are speaking of life and death. This story is from Mike. ``I lost my job as an RN for advocating for better staffing ratios and patient safety.'' That means here is a registered nurse who is trying to fight for better quality of health care, got fired. ``With that job loss, I lost my medical insurance. On New Year's Day I had an ocular stroke. I was having symptoms for a couple of days prior, but without medical insurance, decisions are made in a different manner.''

``I put off the treatment because I didn't have money to pay. In the process I delayed treatment, and now I am blind in that eye. If I had insurance, I would have sought treatment sooner. I am a health care professional who delayed treatment decisions because of the cost and lack of insurance.''

This person could have died. Now they are blind which limits I imagine some of their occupational opportunities. They are blind because America allowed them to live without health insurance.

This is my final testament to the crisis we are in. This is from Robin: ``My daughter has a developmental disorder, something in the autism spectrum, her pediatrician has guessed. I am not certain of the extent of the diagnosis of her disorder due to the lack of my funds, being a single mother, and lack of quality health insurance. I can scrape together money to take her to the doctor if she has any routine sickness, and I push my budget the best I can to pay for 30 minutes of private speech therapy a week to complement what the school system provides. But there is so much more she needs. She could do so much better with medication that could possibly help her lead a decent life. If I could afford to get the extensive tests and evaluations, and even then, who knows if I could afford the medicine. She cannot qualify for SSI or Medicaid; they say I make too much money. That is an outrage. She cannot qualify for CHIPs; again, they say I make too much money. But I don't. Once I pay for day care, speech therapy, clothing, car insurance, food and shelter, transportation, the rising cost of gasoline, $38,000 gross without child support is not enough money. Can you imagine that they say $38,000 kicks her out of Medicaid and the CHIP program, especially when all your daughter can qualify for is a super-expensive health insurance risk pool. What can I do? I want the American dream, but I cannot have it. I am stuck in this old, falling- apart apartment with an old car and inadequate health coverage with my sweet, 7-year-old daughter. God help us, she deserves better.''

God help America. America deserves better. This universal access to health care is what we all should believe is the American dream.

I close by simply saying what our Founding Fathers said: We all are created equal with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I will just simply say that God has to help us come to our senses and pass this legislation, H.R. 676, authored by my dear friend, John Conyers, and cosponsored by so many of us, otherwise God help us.

I thank the gentlelady for her great leadership on this issue.

I regard health care as one of the most pressing issues facing this country and the world. I have been a staunch supporter of legislation that aims to eliminate health disparities in this country, fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic, combat the childhood obesity crisis facing this Nation, and provide health insurance coverage for all Americans. Most of all, I strongly believe that quality healthcare should be affordable and accessible to all.

Yesterday, I introduced the Medicare Efficiency and Development of Improvement of Care and Services Act (MEDICS Act) of 2008. For decades, Democrats have been fighting to fix the broken America's healthcare system and this initiative is an important tool to make sure that our most vulnerable get the healthcare they need.

As a long supporter of Universal Health Care, I happy to announce that this legislation puts our healthcare system on the correct path of providing access to health care for our Nation's low income, minority and elderly populations. On Friday June 6, 2008, my colleague Senator Max Baucus introduced a health care reform bill that addresses these key problematic issues continuing to plague our health care system. I am happy to announce that The MEDICS Act is the companion bill to Senator Baucus' legislation, uniting Congress on one accord to push for crucial healthcare reform. In 2007, there was an estimated 47 million people uninsured in our Nation. This is un-American and unacceptable. Now is the time to ensure that every citizen has access to the proper health care benefits they need.

In my house companion I have added a section requiring that within one year of enactment the Secretary, in coordination with the Association of American Medical Colleges, shall submit to Congress an effective plan to increase the number of primary care physicians particularly those practicing in counties, cities, or towns ``underserved'' or with a disproportionate number of Medicare-eligible and/or Medicare recipients. Without our primary care physicians, which act as the gateway to care we can never move towards an effective universal healthcare plan.

According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, Texas HIV/STD Surveillance Report, there were 22,948 total AIDS cases in Harris County in 2005; a figure which almost doubled the next closest county in Texas.

According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, 72.9 percent of African Americans in Texas are overweight or obese while 60.3 percent of White residents are obese.

The need for a high-quality, accessible and affordable health care system has never been more urgent. There are currently 47 million uninsured Americans, 8 million of whom are children. Another 50 million are underinsured. Although the U.S. spends twice as much on health care per capita as countries with universal coverage, the World Health Organization ranks us 37th in overall health system performance.

This Congress, I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 676, ``The United States National Health Insurance Act,'' introduced by my colleague Congressman Conyers. This act would allow for every American to receive heath Insurance.

H.R. 676 would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that improves and expands the already existing Medicare program to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income or health care status. You, the American people called for universal health care, as it was one of the most prominent issues for Americans in the 2006 elections.

The need for a high-quality, accessible and affordable health care system has never been more urgent. There are currently 47 million uninsured Americans, 8 million of whom are children. Another 50 million are underinsured. Although the U.S. spends twice as much on health care per capita as countries with universal coverage, the World Health Organization, ranks us 37th in overall health system performance. Major American corporations such as General Motors bear the brunt of an outdated health care system because they are at a competitive disadvantage relative to their international counterparts who pay less for health care. A Harvard study found that almost half of all bankruptcies are partially or fully related to health care bills.

Universal health care would not cause a financial burden on American families. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), ``If the U.S. were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage.''

Under H.R. 676, health care costs would decrease for both families and for businesses. Currently, the average family of four covered under an employee health plan spends a total of $4,225 on health care annually--$2,713 on premiums and another $1,522 on medical services, drugs and supplies. This figure does not include the additional 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax levied on employees. Under H.R. 676, a family of four making the median family income of $56,200 per year would pay about $2,700 for all health care costs, including the current Medicare tax.

Businesses will also save money under universal health care, as set forth by H.R. 676. In 2006, health insurers charged employers an average of $11,500 for a health plan for a family of four. On average, the employer paid 74 percent of this premium, or $8,510 per year. This figure does not include the additional 1.45 percent payroll tax levied on employers for Medicare. Under H.R. 676, employers would pay a 4.75 percent payroll tax for all health care costs, including the current Medicare tax. For an employee making the median annual family income of $56,200, the employer would pay about $2,700 per year.

Our plan, H.R. 676, ``The United States National Health Insurance Act,'' guarantees every resident of the United States access to a full range of medically necessary services, including primary care, prescription drugs, mental health care and long term care. There are no co-pays or deductibles under this program. The role of the government would be limited to collecting revenues and disbursing payments; care would continue to be delivered privately. Patients could continue to use the same hospital, physician or health clinic from which they currently receive services. H.R. 676 is supported by over 210 labor unions and more than 100 grassroots groups across the country. The former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, two former Surgeons General and 14,000 physicians support national health insurance.

H.R. 676 is based on the traditional Medicare model, in which the government negotiates and pays service fees for private and

public providers and mails its enrollees a card that gives them access to the doctors and hospitals of their choice. This system does not divert profits to insurance companies. This legislation is focused, first and foremost, on serving the American people, not on generating profits for big companies.

Lack of health-care is no longer just a concern of those living in poverty. According to recent reports, more than one-third of the nearly 47 million uninsured Americans coming from households with family incomes of $40,000 or more, lack of health insurance has become a worry of the middle class.

There is no reason why this country should continue down a dreadfully deleterious road of denying healthcare to any citizen of this country who needs it. Many of the health conditions, such as diabetes, obesity, kidney failure, cancer, hypertension and HIV/AIDS, the prevalence of which plagues our community the most, could be curtailed or even prevented if everyone had access to health insurance. I will continue to fight hard for the most effective policy measures that aim to narrow the racial health disparity gap.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support H.R. 5569. I am proud to join my colleagues in cosponsoring this timely legislation. I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman of the Immigration Subcommittee, for her leadership on sponsoring this legislation. I would also like to thank Mr. Blake Chisam, counsel on the Immigration Subcommittee, and Mr. Arthur Sidney, of my staff, for their important work in including my amendment in the bill.

By way of background and explanation, H.R. 5569 extends for five years the EB-5 regional center pilot program. Congress created the fifth employment-based preference, EB-5, immigrant visa category in 1990 for immigrants seeking to engage in a commercial enterprise that will benefit the U.S. economy and create at least 10 full-time jobs.

The basic amount required to invest is $1 million, although that amount may be $500,000 if the investment is made in a ``targeted employment area.'' Of the approximately 10,000 numbers available for this preference each year, 3,000 are reserved for entrepreneurs who invest in targeted employment areas. A separate allocation of 3,000 visas is set aside for entrepreneurs who immigrate through a regional center pilot program.

In 2003, Congress asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO, to study the EB-5 program. The GAO report concluded that the program has been under-used for a variety of reasons, including the rigorous application process and the failure to issue regulations implementing the 2002 law. The report found that even though few people have used the EB-5 category, EB-5 participants have invested an estimated $1 billion in a variety of U.S. businesses.

My amendment expresses the sense of Congress that, to the extent possible, qualifying investments should be made in targeted employment areas, including rural areas and areas of high unemployment. My amendment defines rural areas as an area other than an area within a metropolitan statistical area within the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more based upon the most recent decennial census of the United States. My amendment also defines an area of high unemployment as an area that has experienced unemployment of at least 150 percent of the national average rate.

The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that all of America will benefit from greater development and investment. The amendment is a bold first step in ensuring that all Americans have a seat at the table and are able to progress and advance as a result of foreign investment as Americans in the wealthy cities and suburbs. I have long championed the rights of Americans in the rural areas and in underserved communities. These Americans are our brothers and sisters. To be sure, no Americans should be left out from investment. My amendment makes sure that these groups that are often forgotten are not left out.

Ms. ZOE, LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5938, the ``Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008.'' I would like to thank the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Conyers, for introducing this bill and for providing leadership on this important issue.

The former vice presidents of the United States have brought to that office significant public service experience, including as members of Congress or state governors. Some came to their role as president of the Senate already familiar with the body, having served as U.S. Senators. Several vice presidents later returned to serve again in the Senate, among them former President Andrew Johnson. Two vice presidents, George Clinton and John C. Calhoun, held the office under two different presidents.

Of the fourteen vice presidents who fulfilled their ambition by achieving the presidency, eight succeeded to the office on the death of a president, and four of these were later elected president. Two vice presidents, Hannibal Hamlin and Henry Wallace, were dropped from the ticket after their first term, only to see their successors become president months after taking office, when the assassination of Abraham Lincoln made Andrew Johnson president and the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt raised Harry Truman to the presidency. Similarly, when Spiro Agnew resigned, he was replaced under the Twenty-fifth Amendment by Gerald R. Ford, who became president when Richard M. Nixon resigned less than a year later.

The vice-presidency was generally held by men of mature years, with most of them in their fifties or sixties when they took office. The youngest, John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, was thirty-six at the beginning of his term. At seventy-two, Alben Barkley, another Kentuckian, was the oldest when his term began.

Because I recognize the importance of the vice-presidency and the pivotal role it plays in American politics, I believe that tribute, respect, honor, and protection should be afforded to the person, and the family, that has obtained this position. I am proud to support this legislation.

Specifically, Title 18 U.S.C. provides former Presidents and their spouses protection by the United States Secret Service after leaving office but provides no such protection for former Vice Presidents and their families. H.R. 5938, authorizes the United States Secret Service to protect the former Vice President of the United States, his/her spouse, and his/her children under the age of 17 for not more than six months after the Vice President leaves office. The bill would also allow protection to continue should circumstances warrant extension.

After the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901, Congress informally requested Secret Service presidential protection. A year later, the Secret Service assumed full-time responsibility for protection of the President. Today, the secret service, which is under the Department of Homeland Security, is tasked with protecting the President of the United States and spouse and children under 17 years old for up to ten years after serving in office. The Secret Service also provides protection for widow(er) of the President and it provides protection for foreign heads of state and accompanying spouse when they visit the United States.

To date, four presidents have been assassinated, and there have been approximately twelve other assassination attempts on U.S. presidents. Under current law, because of the prestige of the office of President, current and former Presidents are protected by the secret service. Former Vice Presidents have not received any protection from the secret service after the vice president's term in office had expired. This legislation would ensure that Vice Presidents get protection for as long as necessary. Thus, the legislation ensures the safety and well- being of the Vice-President, spouse, and children under 17 years of age. This bill recognizes the important role of the office of Vice President. It is a powerful role with important responsibilities. This bill makes an important statement regarding our appreciation, commitment, and respect to the second most powerful position in this, our great country.

I think this bill makes sense. It is reasonable in its scope and its terms. I am proud to support this bill and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5593, the ``Congressional Review Improvement Act.'' I am proud to join my colleagues in cosponsoring this timely legislation. I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, for introducing this bill, and for providing leadership on this important issue.

I support this bill. It eliminates waste by minimizing the production of paper that is required to be provided to Congress. It should reduce duplicative paperwork and eliminate waste. These reduction and minimization of waste standards provided by this bill should result in a substantial cost savings to the Federal Government. In times like we are in now, it is important that the Government cut costs. I support this bill. It is a first step in cutting needless and excessive costs.

The congressional review mechanism of agency rules, known as the Congressional Review Act, CRA, requires that all agencies promulgating a rule must submit a report to both Houses of Congress and to the GAO. According to the CRA, the report must contain a copy of the rule, a concise general statement describing the rule, and the proposed effective date of the rule. A rule cannot take effect if the report is not submitted. Each House must then send a copy of the report to the chairman and the ranking member of each jurisdictional committee. The promulgating agency must then submit to the GAO: (1) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis; (2) a description of the agency's actions; and (3) other relevant information required under any other act or executive order. This information must also be made available to each House.

H.R. 5593 amends the current law, to reduce paperwork. The primary purpose of the legislation is to ensure that the same material is not submitted, housed, and printed at four different Government entities. H.R. 5593 eliminates the requirement that agencies submit paper copies of their rules that are printed in the Federal Register to each House while continuing a referral of all rules printed in the Federal Register and the periodic indication of those referrals in the Congressional Record. Instead, both the House and Senate would receive a weekly list of rules from the GAO and then the House and Senate would put that list in the Congressional Record.

This bill eliminates the excessive duplication and printing of rules. No longer are the rules housed at four Government agencies. Under this bill, the House would receive a weekly list of rules that would then be added to the Congressional Record. This bill adds a commonsense approach to rulemaking, the printing, publication and dissemination of those rules. It is simple and the reforms that it brings should yield a substantial cost savings to the U.S. Treasury.

I am proud to support this bill because it eliminates duplicative and needless paperwork and should provide a cost savings. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong supoprt

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5683, the Government Accountability Office Act of 2008, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Representative Danny K. Davis. This important legislation will improve the oversight, administration, and pay adjustment mechanisms at the Government Accountability Office.

As highlighted by Mr. Davis, the former Comptroller General emphasized that Federal agencies should have ``modern, effective, credible, and, as appropriate, validated performance management systems in place with adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms, to ensure fairness and prevent politicalization and abuse.'' I have been an outspoken advocate for improved inner governmental mechanisms that would allow for more fluid movement of information, equity, and the adherence to clear fair processes. H.R. 5683 is imperative to ensure that we as lawmakers are working responsibly to meet the needs of our constituents.

Some of the safeguards recommended by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, include a performance management system that makes meaningful distinctions in individual employee performance; involves employees and stakeholders in designing the system; and achieves consistency, equity and nondiscrimination. Over the last 2 years, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has conducted oversight, and has also investigated the implementation of GAO's new personnel system to determine if it meets the aforesaid criteria. This investigation revealed that it did not meet the criteria. In addition, based on its investigation the committee concluded that, contrary to legislative intent, GAO employees who met and exceeded expectations in 2006 and 2007, sadly, did not receive the annual across-the-board increase that other GAO employees received. This important legislation would restore the 2006 and 2007 annual across-the-board increase to GAO employees who met expectations but did not receive the adjustment. It would also put into place a ``floor guarantee'' that would preserve GAO's performance-based compensation system, while ensuring that GAO employees receive an annual increase in their permanent pay, provided they ``meet expectations,'' that is at least equal to the congressionally approved across-the-board increase.

The floor guarantee will be comprised of the annual adjustment to the GAO pay schedule plus the permanent merit pay increase received by an employee under GAO's merit pay system. This bill also establishes an Office of the Inspector General in GAO, who shall report semiannually to the Comptroller General to ensure that GAO is operating on one accord and is putting forth its best effort in implementing H.R. 5683. While I recognize that there are additional improvements that need to be made, this legislation will help improve the morale at GAO and remedy the inequities that resulted from the denial of the 2006 increase and the across-the-board adjustments.

This legislation is imperative to change certain pay practices, compensate employees for certain past practices, and increase salary payments to some GAO employees. It would also increase the cap on employees pay. This bill will expand the types of pay that are included in retirement benefit calculations. H.R. 5683 contains no inter- governmental or private sector mandated mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, UMRA, and would not affect the budgets of States, local or tribunal governments.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009 which has many important provisions to help our military personnel and their families. I want to thank my colleague Congressman Skelton for his leadership on the House Armed Services Committee in bringing a bill to the floor that not only protects but supports our military and our veterans.

Samuel Adams, who was known as the Father of the American Revolution, stated ``All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should.'' Well, while most of us value freedom many of us do not risk our lives for it the way our men and women in the armed forces do on a daily basis.

This defense bill reflects our commitment to support the men and women who fight to secure not only our citizen's freedom but the freedom of others. This bill will provide the necessary resources to protect the American people and our national interests at home and abroad. The Armed Services committee has provided for military readiness; taking care of our troops and their families; increasing focus on the war in Afghanistan; and improving interagency cooperation, oversight, and accountability in this year's defense authorization bill.

Defense Provisions

We must maintain our efforts to restore military readiness in order to meet current military challenges and prepare for the future. This bill directs approximately $2 billion toward unfunded readiness initiatives requested by the services, which includes an additional $932 million to deal with equipment shortages and for equipment maintenance.

The bill also provides $800 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment and $650 million to keep defense facilities in good working order and to address urgent issues such as dilapidated military barracks. To boost readiness and to reduce the strain on our forces, the bill increases the size of the military by 7,000 Army troops and 5,000 Marines, and prevents further military to civilian conversions in the medical field by authorizing an additional 1,023 Navy sailors and 450 Air Force personnel.

To improve the quality of life for our forces and their families, the bill provides a 3.9 percent pay raise for all service members, which is .5 percent more than the President's budget request, and extends the authority for the Defense Department to offer bonuses and incentive pay. The bill also preserves important health benefits to improve the readiness of our force, keep servicemembers and their families healthy, and to reduce the overall need for care.

The bill establishes a Career Intermission Pilot Program to allow a servicemember to be released from active duty for a maximum of 3 years to focus on personal or professional goals outside of the military. The bill also provides tuition assistance to help military spouses establish their own careers, authorizes Impact Aid funding to assist schools with large enrollments of military children, and establishes a DoD School of Nursing to address the critical nursing shortage in our military services.

This bill addresses the need to improve the command and control structure for military forces operating in Afghanistan providing equipment to train and properly equip the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). This bill urges the President to appoint a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), as required by law, at the earliest possible time.

More importantly this bill contains several layers of transparency and accountability. By requiring more detailed reporting to Congress on the status and strategies of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on the performance of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) and information on U.S. contractors--this bill provides greater oversight by this body.

Rep. Jackson-Lee Proposed Amendments

While I do believe that Congressman Skelton and the Armed Services Committee have done a great job at trying to address the needs of our servicemembers, their families, and our national interests, I am disappointed to see certain areas were not addressed. I offered two amendments to the defense authorization to improve its ultimate outcome.

My first amendment would have added three sense of Congress paragraphs: (1) the war in Iraq should end as safely and quickly as possible and our troops should be brought home; (2) the performance of United States military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan should be commended, their courage and sacrifice have been exceptional, and when they

come home, their service should be recognized appropriately, including through the observance of a national day of celebration; and (3) the primary purpose of funds made available by this Act should be to transition the mission of United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment, and not to extend or prolong the war.

This amendment was borne from my deeply held belief that we must commend our military for their exemplary performance and success in Iraq. As lawmakers continue to debate U.S. policy in Iraq, our heroic young men and women continue to willingly sacrifice life and limb on the battlefield. Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. The United States will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi government and military. Whether or not my colleagues agree that the time has come to withdraw our American forces from Iraq, I believe that all of us in Congress should be of one accord that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations.

My amendment explicitly stated that the goals laid out by the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (AUMF) have all been achieved by our troops in Iraq.

Due to the skill and dedication of the members of the Armed Forces, the entire world has now been assured that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the United States or any member nation of the international community. The United States Armed Forces successfully toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein and captured the key cities of Iraq in only 21 days. The Armed Forces performed magnificently in conducting military operations designed to ensure that the people of Iraq would enjoy the benefits of a democratically elected government governing a country that is capable of sustaining itself economically and politically and defending itself militarily.

While our troops have achieved the objectives for which they were sent to Iraq, they are now caught in the midst of a sectarian conflict. Unfortunately, there is no military solution to Iraq's ongoing political and sectarian conflicts.

My second amendment would have made a declaration of U.S. policy that ``The Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; approved on October 16, 2002) is the basis of authority pursuant to which the President launched the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.''

Further, it describes the authorization's two stated objectives: to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and to defend the national security of the United States (i) by disarming Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the security of the United States and international peace in the Persian Gulf region, (ii) by ensuring that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, including al Qaida, (iii) by changing the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime no longer pose a threat to the people of Iraq or Iraq's neighbors, and (iv) by bringing to justice any members of al Qaida bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, known or found to be in Iraq.

Most crucially, my second amendment states unequivocally that ``the objectives of Public Law 107-243 described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) have been achieved. This amendment would have provided an expressed acknowledgment by the Congress that the objectives for which the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution of 2002 authorized the use of force in Iraq were achieved by the Armed Forces of the United States.

The objectives for which this Congress authorized war in Iraq have been met; therefore, that authorization should no longer be the basis for ongoing involvement by U.S. armed forces. Our military has already paid too heavy a price for this Administration's ill-advised and poorly planned war effort in Iraq. My amendment would have recognized the exemplary performance of our men and women in uniform, and emphasizes that our military has already achieved the objectives for which it was sent to Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, although I would have liked to see my amendments included in this bill I am supportive of much of the provisions of this bill; however since this legislation provides for continued funding of the Iraq war I will not be able to vote for the continuation of the war. I will vote no.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss my vote on H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

I applaud Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for the work they have done. In fact, I quote Samuel Adams, who said, ``All might be free if they valued freedom and defended it as they should.''

We applaud the young men of the United States military, and I believe this bill that has $2 billion toward unfunded readiness initiatives is a good bill. I believe the $800 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment makes it a good bill, $650 million to keep defense facilities in good working order makes it a good bill, the 3.9 percent increase in raise for all servicemembers, the health provisions. The bill establishes a career intermission pilot program to allow a servicemember to be released from active duty for a maximum of 3 years to focus on personal or professional goals outside the military. I believe it is important to note that there are new procedures for interrogation in the field.

And yet I did offer an amendment that would have helped us end the war in Iraq by recounting the fact that all the tasks for ending the war have been accomplished by the military. That amendment was not accepted. And as well, I offered an amendment that would have celebrated all of our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq when they come home.

The fact that this bill provides $70 billion for the Iraq War, Mr. Speaker, I could not vote for the bill. I voted ``no.'' I explain this so that all might know there are good provisions in this bill, but I cannot support the war ever again. I voted ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this coming Monday, Americans will gather to do what so many families wish they did not have to do. That is to mourn the dead who have fallen in battle.

Certainly there will be many who will come simply to honor them as heroes, but many of the families will have the fresh memories of young men and women who have recently fallen in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I rise to take this opportunity on behalf of the 18th Congressional District, of the people of Houston, Texas, to acknowledge and respect and pay tribute to the soldiers of this Nation that have fallen in battle throughout the centuries.

For it is, in fact, true that our freedoms are vested in the willingness of young men and women who take the oath to give the ultimate sacrifice so that our Constitution and our values may be preserved. And I take their oath very seriously and believe it is important that, as Members of the United States Congress and the Commander in Chief, that when we send Americans into battle, it must be based upon thought and prayers and reason.

But this coming Monday, we will embrace these families, some who are freshly mourning, others who have long memories. We will commemorate the missing in action, the POWs, all who have suffered at the hands of the violence of others.

In Houston, Texas, we commemorate Memorial Day at out Veterans Cemetery. It is in my congressional district. And I have over the years enjoyed the fellowship with the families and the sacred spirit of what occurs. This Memorial Day I will place a memorial wreathe in Europe in honor of those troops who have fallen. My staff will represent me at the memorial commemoration. But they will also be present and my community will be present on Sunday as they place small white crosses to acknowledge the number of soldiers who have now died in Iraq.

Memorial Day is a time for the Nation to come together. It is not an accusatory time. It is to recognize everyone's fallen life equally, with appreciation and deep gratitude.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I have risen today to assure those families who mourn for the recent loss, those who are mourning of memories past, that America remains a grateful Nation. And on behalf of those of the 18th Congressional District, to the fallen soldiers and those families who mourn, I offer them my deepest and most sincere debt of gratitude and sympathy.

Let this Memorial Day be a reminder of the preciousness of life, the soldiers who serve us, but as well the ultimate cost that is paid in war. And let it remind us that, yes, we have valiant heroes, but that we as a Nation should continue to work as hard as we can to achieve peace not only amongst us but around the world.

May God bless those who have fallen, God bless their families, and God bless America.