Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, due to inclement weather, I was unable to vote during the following rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as indicated below.

Rollcall No. 68: yea.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendments by my colleagues in Texas, Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Doggett; our levee system in South Texas has long passed the point of insufficient--we are in an emergency situation.

The Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project has several components, including the levee system along the Rio Grande, which is in a state of disrepair. This amendment provides $10 million for IBWC; it has no effect on budget authority; and it reduces outlays by $2 million for FY 2006.

The integrity of the 500 mile levee system is the responsibility of the Army Corp of Engineers and the International Boundary and Water Commission. The IBWC has not received any consistent federal funding necessary to rehabilitate this critical levee system.

An indirect impact from Hurricane Emily last September brought water levels along the South border to critical levels that we have not seen in decades.

It was Hurricane Katrina that gave each American a tutorial on the utter importance of levees when it comes to protecting U.S. lives and property.

In the 2 major storms that blew ashore last fall, Katrina gave us a glimpse of the damage possible if these levees are not repaired . . . and Emily that made us hold our collective breath as the waters rose near the top of the levee system.

Like New Orleans, the population protected by these levees is enormous. South Texas is a densely populated area, and is the front door of international trade. Millions of lives and the nation's economy could hang in the balance when these levees fail. Evaluations of the present condition of these levees conclude the system is deficient in both hydraulic capacity and structural integrity.

The investment we ask to include today as part of this emergency supplemental is a small price to pay to ensure the integrity of these levees when we have the next major hurricane. Hurricane season is rapidly approaching, and this is the last opportunity to fix the levee system before hurricanes start blowing into the Gulf. Let us not be penny wise and pound foolish about the dangers that await us, as we were with the New Orleans levees.

We know the damage that can happen . . . and we know it will only come at a profoundly bad time, as millions of residents are trying to flee the coast . . . and the U.S. economy takes a multi billion dollar hit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Peace Corps as it reached its 45th anniversary on March 1, 2006. The Peace Corps is an outstanding organization that promotes peace through helping countless individuals who want to help build a better life for the community in which they serve.

Since the Peace Corps' inception in 1961, more than 182,000 Peace Corps Volunteers have been invited by 138 host countries to work in areas such as HIV/AIDS prevention, information technology, business development, education, and environmental preservation. The Peace Corps also works to empower people in various communities to take charge of their futures.

In addition to serving overseas, the Peace Corps' Crisis Corps Volunteers have helped their fellow Americans. In response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Peace Corps deployed approximately 272 Crisis Corps Volunteers to the Gulf Coast region to assist with hurricane response efforts, through an agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This deployment of volunteers within the U.S. was an historic first for the Peace Corps.

I would like to take some time now to honor current Volunteers from my District who are working on the front lines of humanity: Christina M. Burke serving in Nicaragua, Lisa M. Droege serving in Honduras, Cibeles Garcia serving in Ghana, Jesse S. Lovegren serving Cameroon, Timothy A. Markin serving in Thailand. By engaging in this meaningful work, these volunteers are making significant contributions to individuals and communities throughout the world. Their family and loved ones should be justifiably proud of their service to the Peace Corps and the extraordinary way they have changed and improved people's lives.

Today, I ask that my colleagues join me in commemorating the 45th anniversary of the Peace Corps and its global mission towards world peace and humanitarian aid. The thousands of Volunteers serving overseas truly are representative of the honorable cause that defines the Peace Corps.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in celebration of diversity in sports and civil rights in America first pioneered by Texas Western's 1966 NCAA Basketball Championship victory. On its 40th anniversary, I join my colleagues in recognizing the lasting impact this title game has etched into the history of American culture.

The Texas Western 1966 NCAA Championship triumph over the University of Kentucky is to this day acknowledged as the turning point for not only college basketball but American sports in general.

When no other schools in the Southeastern Conference or the former Southwestern Conference would award them athletic scholarships, African Americans had been recruited by and playing for Texas Western since the 1950s.

The university's most controversial move, however, came when the 1966 Miners were the first team in NCAA basketball to have an all-black starting lineup. Winning the title game was perhaps not as a great a feat for Coach Don Haskins as was placing five all-black starters against five all-white starters in 1966.

Haskins' daring insight combined with the players' undeniable athletic talent produced a game that would rupture the social structure of college sports and forever change the face of American sports.

The Miners' 72-65 victory over the Wildcats proved to be more than just an athletic anomaly. It became the social breakthrough that would invite the irrepressible talent and skill diversity has to offer to college athletics.

With cultural implications well beyond its sporting ones, this championship win has come to symbolize the glory that could be obtained by athletes--regardless of their heritage--who are bold enough to travel down the road of recognition, integration, and acceptance.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating Texas Western's 1966 NCAA Basketball Championship as we commemorate the 40th anniversary of the team's revolutionary civil rights success.

Mr. Speaker, when we passed the Federal budget last year, Democrats offered an alternative that would have achieved a balanced budget in 10 years, 10 years to spread out the pain of finally paying our bills again and freeing up the future for our children. When we passed this budget last spring, we were told there was no fat in it--it was all bone. When you cut bone, you fall down. Last year, the House struck out on this bill.

Today the House is striking out again even if this bill passes today, let it forever be known as the ``3 strikes and you're out'' budget. Strike 1: It hits hard our senior citizens, currently struggling under a difficult Medicare drug benefit, strike 2: It squeezes our middle class that pays the taxes and struggles to pay the household bills, and strike 3: It hits our children and students, who represent the future of this Nation.

Three strikes, today Congress hits all 3 components of American society with these budget cuts.

But let's get to why this bill is before us today. We're not here because the hurricanes busted the budget. It's not the war, it's just that many people in this House demand that we spend the Treasury's money on tax cuts for wealthier Americans. Period. It's about nothing more than spending this money on tax cuts today which mean tax increases on our children tomorrow.

Budgets are a reflection of who we are and what we value. The budget cuts offered in the House of Representatives today--which I oppose-- simply do not represent the values that we say are important to us in this nation. We value each other, we value the rule of law, we value education and keeping our families safe. South Texans have been astounded at the depth of cuts in the Federal budget, which mean Texas students will be less likely to stay in school or go to college. Low income Texas children will be sicker with the cut in health benefits. Seniors will lose essential services.

Today's bill will increase the deficit by $17 billion, give more tax cuts to the wealthy, and hurt those who use student loans, who need health care and who benefit from rural programs. We have got to come up with a budget that represents the right priorities for students, seniors, Katrina families and rural Americans. We had an opportunity to vote for such a budget last spring, with the right priorities, that paid down the deficit--authored by John Spratt--but the House rejected it.

When the $38.8 billion in spending cuts in this package are combined with the total of $122 billion in tax cuts passed by the House in 2005, Republicans are increasing the deficit by $83 billion over the next 5 years. Plus, when an AMT fix is included over the 5-year period, Republicans are actually increasing the deficit by $321 billion. Calling this a deficit reduction bill is not truthful.

It is incumbent upon all of us in Congress to help all Americans, not just the wealthy few. We can do better than this--and we must. This package is cutting vital services upon which working families depend, including the following:

GOP conference report slashes Medicaid by $6.9 billion over 5 years and $28.3 billion over 10 years. The conference report allows states to charge Medicaid enrollees more to get the health care that they need-- allowing substantial increases in co-payments and premiums for many low-income enrollees. This increased cost-sharing achieves savings of $1.9 billion of 5 years and $9.9 billion over 10 years. Studies have shown that this increased cost-sharing will result in a decline in enrollees' use of health care services and a worsening of their health status.

Seventy percent of the GOP Raid on Student Aid falls directly on students and parents. Seventy percent of the gross savings in higher education in the conference report are achieved by increasing college loan costs for parent borrowers and by continuing the practice of forcing student and parent borrowers in many cases to pay excessive interest rates on their loans.

GOP conference report will result in $8.4 billion in reduced child support collections. CBO has estimated that the conference report will lead to $8.4 billion in reduced child support collections upon which hundreds of thousands of struggling single parents rely, pushing more children into poverty and letting deadbeat dads off the hook.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the Readiness Subcommittee portions of the defense authorization bill. This bill represents a lot of hard work and bipartisan work on the part of the members of this committee. This bill provides nearly $126 billion to the Department of Defense for the operation and maintenance, the needs of our military, and over $12 billion for military construction. In addition, the authorization contains some important policy direction for the Department of Defense. One of the important provisions of the bill would protect the interest of civilian workers in the Department of Defense during public-private competition, another that extends the reimbursement of equipment purchased by soldiers with their own money, and still another will eliminate some of the restrictions that keep our wounded servicemembers from receiving gifts and support from Americans who want to help these soldiers.

I am pleased with these outcomes but I am very disappointed with how the conference on this bill was conducted. The majority leadership's delay on appointing conferees for this bill until after the conference report was completed is really shameful. This was not a conference. Only a few Members had a hand in the deliberations and other Members who have an interest in this bill were shut out of this process. I sincerely hope that this will not be the norm for conferencing future defense bills. Our national defense deserves a more careful, inclusive and deliberative approach.

The war in Iraq and the global war on terror are creating many challenges for the readiness of our Armed Forces. The services have many pressing needs in every area covered by the Readiness Subcommittee. It is impossible to fully

address those needs, Mr. Speaker, but this report reflects a balance of many competing demands to ensure that our troops are equipped and ready to defend our Nation. I appreciate that the Members on both sides of the aisle were able to put this bill together and bring it to the floor this early in the morning.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his effort at pulling together this bill. Reforming immigration in this Nation--and reinforcing the borders, as I have advocated for over a year and a half--is a difficult proposition.

However, the gentleman from Wisconsin and those that are in support of this bill do not seem to understand the complexities of border and immigration policy. The bill before us today would do little to solve the immigration problem, and it is not what we need to reform immigration policy and to reinforce our borders.

Any effort by Congress to truly reform immigration and protect our borders must address the root causes of illegal immigration. As President Bush has stated, people come to the country to do the jobs Americans do not want to do. We must understand that it is our labor market that draws them to the U.S., and we must address how the U.S. could absorb the economic blow of losing this part of our labor market that keeps prices artificially low for consumers. Are businesses ready to pay high wages to agriculture workers? Are Americans ready to absorb that cost and pay higher prices for their produce?

An honest policy discussion is needed to address the complete problem--our broken immigration system and the needs of our labor market.

Although my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim this bill will secure our borders, it does nothing of the sort. Nothing in this bill guarantees funding for detention facilities, Border Patrol agents, immigration judges or prosecutors.

The single most important thing we can do in Congress is invest in homeland security. However, our experience has been this: Numerous Members of Congress put forth ideas about how to fix border security, but funding these ideas has been impossible.

Let's use 2005 as an example. One year ago, the 9/11 Commission did what Congress's current majority could not do: It investigated the events leading up to the attacks on the United States, and made solid suggestions to the Nation about how the Government could prevent similar attacks in the future.

On the issues of Border Patrol agents and detention beds, the 9/11 Commission said the very least the United States needed to do was add 2,000 agents annually--for 10 years--and 8,000 detention beds annually. Congress agreed, and passed the bill overwhelmingly.

How did the President and Congress react when it came time to pay for it all? The President's budget proposed funding 200 Border Patrol agents this year--that's 1,800 short of the least we should do--and 1,900 detention beds--that's 6,100 short of the least we should do.

Congress acted a little better, passing an emergency spending bill and a spending bill for homeland security that netted us a total of 1,500 Border Patrol agents--still 500 short of 9/11 Commission recommendations--and 4,250 detention beds--still 3,750 short of 9/11 Commission recommendations.

We are playing a shell game with our border security and, by extension, our national security. On the one hand, every single elected official is for more border security. Yet, the leadership in Congress does not have the political courage to pay for it.

This is what always hangs us up. There's no money and no political will to change the equation.

The American people deserve an honest debate on how to protect our homeland. All of us in Congress understand the world changed after September 11. For that reason, we must put forth a solution to bring out of the shadows the 8 to 11 million people who are in this country now, paying taxes and doing hard labor and have an honest discussion, absent the politics.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote during rollcall No. 627. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yea'' in support of the conference report on H.R. 3199, USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.

Clearly, we are in a time of heightened awareness and in need of greater security in order to prevent another terrorist attack on our land. It is our duty as Representatives of our constituents and fellow Americans to see to it that we provide the resources that are necessary to help prevent such an attack.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania who speaks with authority about the military matters of the United States.

Jack Murtha won the American Spirit Honor Medal, received the Bronze Star with Combat ``V'', two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

The issues he raised yesterday are profound issues for each and every American. We honor the fallen soldiers by making an honest assessment of our national security needs. We honor our great democracy by having the national conversation about the war in Iraq--but we dishonor democracy by mischaracterizing what Jack Murtha said--and putting forward a resolution that does not reflect what he asks . . . and stifles real debate on this important issue.

Nobody here really believes the United States should--tomorrow-- withdraw all troops from Iraq. But many of us--indeed many Americans-- are unhappy with the direction of the war and believe we could have done it better from the beginning.

This is a serious resolution for us to consider; it should not be a political ploy for the leadership to mischaracterize. This is a serious debate that the Congress is not inclined to have--as evidenced by the late scheduling of a mischaracterized bill.

We should be holding hearings about this . . . and we should not be debating any of this on a Friday night when people don't watch the news, we should do it next week and give it 50 hours of debate. What is more important than a debate about our national defense and the security of our troops?

It is instructive to remember that we sent our troops to battle in Iraq ill prepared for what they would encounter. We did not send them with the tools--or in the numbers--they needed to win the war. We sent them with helicopters and rifles that didn't function properly . . . we sent them without the body armor they needed . . . we sent them in humvees without the armor they needed. They were not greeted as liberators--more faulty intelligence--they were greeted with improvised explosive devises . . . and lED attacks have only grown more sophisticated and more frequent on our troops.

Here's where we are right now: when you make a wrong turn and discover that, do you stay on that road because you don't want to admit you are wrong? Or do you find an exit, get off and find your way? By staying in Iraq after our invasion based on faulty intelligence--we are doing irreparable damage to our international friends: Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Kuwait . . . and the list goes on.

We need to do it right . . . or leave as Jack Murtha suggests . . . 1. redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of the U.S. forces; 2. create a quick reaction force in the region; 3. create an over-the- horizon presence of Marines in the region; and 4. to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

I will vote ``no'' for the fabricated resolution before the House tonight . . . but I urge the House to follow the advice--the actual advice--of Jack Murtha.

Mr. Speaker, when we passed the federal budget earlier this year, Democrats offered an alternative that would have achieved a balanced budget in 10 years . . . 10 years to spread out the pain of finally paying our bills again and freeing up the future for our children.

When we passed this budget last Spring, we were told there was no fat in it--it was all bone. Well, when you cut bone, you fall down.

Today the House is striking out . . . even if this bill passes today, let it forever be known as the ``3 strikes and you're out'' budget.

Strike 1: It hits hard our senior citizens, who built this great country . . .

Strike 2: It squeezes our middle class that pays the taxes and struggles to pay the household bills . . . and

Strike 3: It dumps on our children and students that represent the future of this nation. Three strikes . . . congratulations, today Congress hits all 3 components of American society with these budget cuts.

But let's get to why this bill is before us today. We're not here because the hurricanes busted the budget. . . . It's not the war . . . it's that many people in this House demand that we spend the Treasury's money on tax cuts for wealthier Americans. Period. It's about nothing more than spending this money on tax cuts--or, more appropriately: tax increases on our children.

Budgets are a reflection of who we are and what we value. The budget cuts offered in the House of Representatives today--which I oppose-- simply do not represent the values that we say are important to us in this nation.

South Texans have been astounded at the depth of cuts in the federal budget, which means Texas students will be less likely to stay in school or go to college . . . Low income Texas children will be sicker with the cut in health benefits . . . Seniors will lose essential services. . . .

Today's bill will increase the deficit by $20 billion, give more tax cuts to the wealthy, and hurt those who use student loans, who need health care and who benefit from rural programs.

We have got to come up with a budget that represents the right priorities for students, seniors, Katrina families and rural Americans. We had an opportunity to vote for such a budget last Spring, with the right priorities, that paid down the deficit--authored by John Spratt-- but the House rejected it.

It is incumbent upon all of us in Congress to help all Americans, not just the wealthy few. We can do better than this--and we must.

Mr. Speaker, today we mourn the loss of a 20th Century American giant, Congressman Edward Roybal. When I got to Congress so many years ago, there were not many people in Washington that I could identify with or look up to as a role model. There were just a few Hispanics in Congress when I arrived there. Nobody stood taller than Ed Roybal in my eyes. He was already a legend in Congress and Los Angeles.

Lord knows we were different--he was a businessman from California, I was a sheriff from Texas. But we were more the same for our backgrounds in families that came from modest means. We both represented a large number of low income people.

We met in 1976--the year the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, or CHC-- was founded. Even then he was organizing the nation's elected Hispanic officials; and as a County Commissioner in Texas, I was invited to a conference on Hispanic matters.

My first impression was what a gentleman he was, and how smart and well-organized. He seemed to know everybody and know everything about the organs of government at all levels. He was a charming and gentle mentor. Paying tribute to Ed Roybal is to remember that to see the future, you must stand on the shoulders of a giant. And this Hispanic pioneer had giant shoulders on which we all stand today.

When Ed came to Congress in 1963, he was nearly alone as a Hispanic member of Congress. He faced quite a quandary: While he represented a Los Angeles area district, he carried the hopes and dreams of a growing segment of the population that lived all over the Nation.

When he left Congress in early 1993, he saw not only his beloved daughter win a seat in Congress--he witnessed yet another growth spurt of the number of Hispanic members sitting in Congress. That year our Caucus grew to 20 members, quadrupling the membership just over a decade earlier when Ed founded the CHC.

Ed knew that he and his Hispanic colleagues: Herman Badillo, Kika de la Garza, Henry Gonzalez, and Baltasar Corrada del Rio represented disjointed districts and the interests of the national Hispanic community. It was Ed's leadership in this group that led to the creation of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in 1976.

When he talked about the formation of the CHC, he talked about the use of other Hispanic members as a ``force multiplier''--or the philosophy that more people working together created more opportunities and more information for the larger national community. In the beginning, there were just the five members and they all sat on various committees. Ed knew if there was a central organization for the sitting members, it would be easier for all of them to know what was coming in the various committees.

In Washington, information is power. Ed understood that and through the CHC the Hispanics in Congress shared information in a regular, organized way.

He was an extraordinary visionary. Just as he organized the Hispanic members of Congress to maximize our numbers to serve the larger Hispanic population--Ed also carried that vision beyond Capitol Hill.

He helped create the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, NALEO, which connects the Hispanic office holders around the Nation.

Visiting Ed's Capitol Hill office was to take a walk through the important events of the 20th Century.

There were pictures of Ed with President Kennedy, with President Johnson, with Cesar Chavez, and with dozens of other bigger-than-life people. His office seemed almost like a living museum.

He loved his wife very much. They were a beautiful couple. They were always together and he was so attentive.

He was forever explaining to the younger members: the issues are large and complex, and our population is growing, be smart. He was enormously respected on both sides of the aisle and that may have been the legacy he will be remembered for by those of us who labor on Capitol Hill.

Ed never believed the other party was bad or evil; he knew we were all Americans, and we all wanted the best for our Nation.

He brought his considerable business sense to our cause.

Realizing that our future was literally ours to shape, Ed founded, in 1978, a non-profit called the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, whose main purpose was: ``each one, teach one.''

CHCI, the Institute, was created to bring young people to Capitol Hill each year, put them in congressional offices to learn and understand the dynamics of our government, then send them back to their communities with more savvy about affecting change at the national level. In the early 1980s after my service in Congress began, Ed pointed out that we were wasting precious resources on rent for the Institute on Capitol Hill and insisted that we buy a building. He told us this was literally an investment in our children's future, and in the future of the Hispanic community. As always, he was right.

While Ed was a quiet man, he had an unwavering commitment to the principles of justice and compassion and to the poor, the elderly and the disenfranchised. He had an enormous heart, a quick wit, and was among the smartest members I ever served with. I was always fascinated by his stories of his early days in the 1960s when the population of Hispanic members of Congress could be counted on one hand. Many of his stories reminded me of experiences many of us shared--how other members of Congress were surprised that he spoke English fluently, with exceptional diction how people didn't think he was Mexican because he didn't have a long mustache or wear a sombrero.

Ed Roybal's legacy simply cannot be measured but it can be found in policies he championed, in the organizations he created to further the cause of Hispanic Americans, in the thousands of young lives he touched and influenced during the course of his amazing public service and in the service of his daughter who went on to follow in his footsteps in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, due to important business in my district, I was unable to vote during the following rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as indicated below:

Rollcall vote No. 569, ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise today is support of the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. I was disturbed--as were so many Americans--both by the decision of a local Connecticut community to seize private property for area economic development and the Supreme Court's upholding their right to do so.

While I believe our Constitution allows for State and local governments to execute the power of eminent domain for those purposes that specifically serve the public good, condemning property solely to implement economic development plans is not serving the public good. Private property rights matter in this country, and violating those rights insults a very basic tenet of American fairness. For my constituents, owning a home is the culmination of many years of hard work and the realization of the American Dream. At no time should a local entity take those years of hard work solely to increase their tax revenue.

I am proud to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, due to business in my district, I was unable to vote during the following rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as indicated below.

Rollcall No. 564: ``No.''

Rollcall No. 565: ``No.''

Rollcall No. 566: ``No.''

Rollcall No. 567: ``No.''

Rollcall No. 568: ``Yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to important business in my district, I was unable to vote during the following rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as indicated below.

Rollcall vote No. 555, ``yes.''

Rollcall vote No. 556, ``yes.''