Floor Statements

I asked my dear, dear friend of a long time, Speaker Michel, glad to have you here. You former Members, I want you to know that at one point in time I went up to Ray LaHood in 1995. I would particularly like my Republican friends to hear this. I went up to Ray LaHood, who was presiding in 1995. I went up to him and I said, look, we have got 197 Democrats, and if you could just get 20 Republicans, we will elect Bob Michel speaker. But LaHood could not deliver, Bob. I do not know what happened.

But I always like the opportunity to come and visit with those of you who have served so well in this Congress and provided for us such an outstanding institution in which to serve. It is a little more acrimonious than when most of you served here. Perhaps that will, at some point in time, get better. But in any event, on behalf of all of us who still serve here and who have benefited by what you have done through the years, thank you very much. And I hope that you have had a great visit back.

We see you often. I see Bob on a very regular basis, but I hope that all of you are doing well. Thank you for your assistance through the years. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader for the purposes of inquiring of the schedule for the coming week.

I thank the leader for that information. If I could go through a couple of these bills. The defense authorization bill, Mr. Leader, do you expect at this point in time to have that on a particular day of the week? Do we know when that will be?

I thank the gentleman for that response. With respect to the defense authorization bill, can you tell us now what kind of a rule might be applicable to the consideration of that bill?

I thank the gentleman for that information and would ask that certainly the substantive Democratic amendments be made in order. This, obviously, is a very important bill, a large sum of money, critically important at a time when we are confronting terrorists in Iraq and around the world and our men and women are in harm's way. All of us want to make sure that we have our ideas on how we can best strengthen our efforts in that bill. So to the extent that the leader can prevail upon the Rules Committee to allow such amendments as Democratic Members and, for that matter, Republican Members want to offer, I think that would be in the best interests of full consideration.

Mr. Leader, the stem cell research legislation you indicate will be on Tuesday. It is my understanding that that bill will be brought to the floor and that it will not be subject to amendment; it will be considered as reported out of committee. Is that accurate?

I thank the leader. I know that our leader and your office are working on that unanimous consent and the parameters of the consideration of, as you point out, a very, very important bill. There are obviously different points of view on the legislation.

I know we are going to be meeting Monday night and going to come in early Tuesday. Would you have a thought as to when, because of the importance of this bill, our Members want to be sure that they are here, as I am sure yours do as well, what time of day you would expect to be considering that piece of legislation?

I thank the leader for that information and appreciate his working with Leader Pelosi in determining that, because this is important. I think all Members will want to make sure that that time frame in which it will be considered, they will be available to be on the floor or be watching the floor debate with the ability to come to the floor to offer their thoughts. I thank the gentleman for that information.

I thank the leader for that observation. The happy circumstance is we both certainly agree on this procedure, that it needs to have a thorough airing and debate and discussion. There are strong views on either side of this issue and quite obviously the consequences of this bill are very substantial. Whether it passes or whether it fails, the consequences are substantial. So we appreciate the fact that there will be significant time to discuss and debate this issue.

Mr. Leader, I have two items left. The Head Start reauthorization has now, as you know, been marked up by the committee. I know it is not coming next week, and we will be out the week after that for the Memorial Day work period. Can you tell me when you might expect the Head Start reauthorization bill to come to the floor?

I thank the gentleman and would hope that we could try to

move that as quickly as possible. Obviously, people will want to be planning for the next school year and next Head Start year.

Lastly, Mr. Leader, the highway bill. As we know, the highway bill is now more than 2 years overdue in terms of reauthorization, has been sitting for some period of time. The Senate has now passed that bill. Can you tell us when we might appoint conferees for the highway conference?

I thank the leader for that observation and hopefully we can, in fact, move on that. We not only passed it last week but we passed it a number of times before that. Mr. Leader, I would simply observe on our side and, frankly, on your side that the Senate number is a number that I think our committee certainly and this House could well approve.

I know the President does not like that number, but very frankly, as the gentleman knows, our own committee almost unanimously on voice vote passed out an authorization figure at, I think, 375, so $80 billion more than the Senate-passed bill.

I would certainly hope that the Congress could exercise its will. The Senate was at 218. We were at 284. Now it is a little bit in between that. I would hope that we could move this conference as quickly as possible. It has been held up a long time and has a significant consequence for jobs, as the leader knows, significant consequence for contractors, States, municipalities, localities, and we have been a long time waiting for this passage that is now some 2 years late.

But I appreciate the leader's observation that we will appoint conferees next week, and hopefully perhaps the leader can help accelerate that conference so we can agree. And then the President, of course, will have to do what he thinks is best and make a determination, and then we might have a shocking event and he may veto a bill and send it back to us, and I am relatively confident we would work our will at that point in time.

I do not know whether the leader wants to make an observation.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I recall that Democrats, when they were in charge, had a slightly different perspective, believing we were a co-equal branch of the government. We would adopt our policies based upon what we believed to be in the best interests of this country, and that the President, as a co-equal branch of the government, would make his determination, and if we disagreed we would override his veto. As a matter of fact, I voted to override a number of vetoes that the previous Democratic President disagreed with us on.

The gentleman is right. We do not seem to do that. We have a 4\1/2\- year unblemished record, as the leader points out, of not doing anything that this President did not want us to do.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman by any chance remember the ag bill?

The ag bill that was passed some years ago. The President was not too excited about that spending level, as I recall. He signed the bill, nevertheless.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for some period of time, as the leader knows, and the only bill that Ronald Reagan vetoed that was overridden by the Congress was a bill in which he said we did not spend enough money in 1983. He vetoed it because we did not spend enough money.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, despite the expenditure of billions of dollars on homeland security since September 11, the reality is that America's ports, chemical facilities, transportation systems and critical infrastructure are still to this day vulnerable to attack.

Are we better off? Yes. Are we where we need to be? No.

As Stephen Flynn, the former U.S. Coast Guard Commander and a foremost expert on homeland security, stated a few months ago on Meet the Press, ``The measures we have been cobbling together are hardly fit to deter amateur thieves, vandals and hackers, never mind determined terrorists.''

This Congress can and must, Mr. Chairman, do more to protect our citizens from attack at home, even as we take the fight to our enemies abroad.

That is what the Thompson substitute does.

It provides $6.9 billion more than the Republican bill, including funding to fulfill our homeland security commitments in the Intelligence Reform Act.

It includes $1 billion for grants for port, rail, transit and bus security, critical priorities; $380 million to hire 2,000 new border agents; and $500 million to ensure that first responders can communicate with one another.

It requires a plan to ensure that all air cargo on passenger planes is screened, giving sufficient time to develop the requisite technologies, and it sets deadlines for establishing security plans for critical infrastructures.

Republicans will and are objecting to the funding level in our substitute, but let us put it in perspective, Mr. Chairman.

This additional funding is nearly $2 billion less than the funding the Bush administration has failed to account for, some $8.8 billion, in Iraq. Mr. Chairman, if the Bush administration can lose track of nearly $9 billion in Iraq, I submit that we ought to be able to find $6.9 billion to make this Nation, its people, its communities and its families safer and more secure.

I urge my colleagues to support the Thompson substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to join my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who has done such an extraordinary job in raising the consciousness of the Congress and of the American people with respect to the importance of our volunteer and paid fire fighting community and our emergency medical response teams throughout this country.

I also want to join my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and I want to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) in thanking the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his agreement to move this forward and for helping us fashion this amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) as well, the chairman of our full committee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express sincere appreciation to all of those involved, and I particularly want to recognize my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) whose effort was extraordinary in the adoption of the Fire Act, which provides for the basic grant program.

All of us were involved, but no one was more involved and more in the leadership, and of course his bill was the basis for the establishment of this. I would be remiss if I did not also reiterate how important the Fire Service Caucus has been and Bill Webb, who is the Executive Director of the foundation, and their focus on the issues that confront us.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides much needed increases to both the Fire Grant and SAFER programs, and moves us closer to fulfilling our obligations to ensure that our Nation's firefighters have at their disposal every resource possible to not only guarantee their own safety, but also to allow them to better serve each of our communities.

The $25 million we add to each of these accounts brings the funding in the bill to $650 million, $575 million for the Fire Grant program, and $75 million for SAFER. The SAFER program deals with personnel, the Fire Grant program is a broader application of moneys dealing both with equipment, safety equipment, training and other matters.

This is $150 million above the level requested by the President and is a reflection of Congress' commitment to ensuring that our fire departments are properly staffed, trained and equipped. But these amounts are still, Mr. Chairman, well below the authorized levels and far from meeting the needs of the fire service.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) pointed out the fact that the Base Closure Commission or the Pentagon has recommended to the commission the closure of many Guard and Reserve units around the country, and while first responders are critically important now they will be even more so if this action is taken.

The Fire Grant program was established by Congress in 2000, as I said through the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and so many others, to meet the basic equipment, training and fire fighting safety requirements of America's fire service, and to bring all fire departments to a baseline of readiness to respond to all hazards.

The Fire Grant program has been a tremendous success, providing more than $3 billion for the infrared cameras, HAZMAT detection devices, modern breathing apparatuses, improved training and physical fitness programs, new turn-out gear, fire trucks and interoperable communications systems, to name but a few of the items that have been provided for by the Fire Act.

The simple fact is that the equipment and training provided by these grants have saved the lives of firefighters and average citizens in communities across America, and I am proud to play a role in this program.

The SAFER Program authorized 2 years ago and funded for the first time last year is a vital compliment to the Fire Grant program, because insufficient staffing, defined by National Fire Protection Association as fewer than four firefighters per apparatus, is a very real problem for far too many of the Nation's career and volunteer fire departments.

Not only does that understaffing put at risk the firefighters but, as I said, it puts at risk those whom the firefighters would save, whether in a very serious automobile accident, in a fire, earthquake or other natural disaster.

Responding with fewer than four firefighters per apparatus prevents the first responder unit from complying with OSHA's two-in/two-out standard for safe fire-ground operations and adds unnecessary risk to the already dangerous job of fire suppression.

Mr. Chairman, the NFPA estimates that an additional 75,000 firefighters are required across the country and the additional funding we provide today will move us a little closer to achieving that goal.

Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of this legislation. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and all of those who have been involved in supporting these two vital programs.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring of the Majority Leader the schedule for the week to come. At this time, I yield to the distinguished Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Majority Leader for that information. With respect, Mr. Leader, to the Homeland Security Authorization bill, can you presently tell us which day of the week will that be considered?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Majority Leader. Does the gentleman know at this point in time what type of rule, I notice that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is on the floor, what type of rule the Homeland Security authorization bill might be considered under?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I appreciate that observation. I agree with the gentleman from Texas. In light of the fact it is the first time that we will have considered an authorization bill from this committee and for this department since its formation as a separate piece of legislation, it would, hopefully, be one that would be open to perfection and amendment, if possible. So we will hear from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) shortly on that.

Prior to Memorial Day, can you tell us, Mr. Leader, what appropriation bills you anticipate coming to the floor prior to that Memorial Day break?

We are going to have, obviously, Homeland Security and Interior next week. Do you know which bills you might be considering?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader.

Reclaiming my time. Lastly, Mr. Leader, there has been some discussion about having bipartisan support for the legislation, some of the legislation that is going through this body. We have had bipartisan support for some of those pieces of legislation.

There is a bipartisan bill, the Castle-DeGette bill, on stem cell research. I know it is a controversial piece of legislation, but it does have bipartisan support and broad support I might say.

Can the Leader tell us when the gentleman might contemplate that bill coming to the floor?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLAY).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate not necessarily the specifics, but at least the assertion that it will be sooner. We believe this is a very important piece of legislation. It is. Obviously, strong views are held on this issue on both sides of the issue. But it is important to an overwhelming majority of Americans, one way or the other, and I would certainly hope, I know both the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) on your side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) on our side of the aisle, have both been working very hard on this piece of legislation. We would look forward to it coming to the floor as soon as practical, given the discussions that are ongoing. And I appreciate the Leader's observations. I thank the leader for his information.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Congressional Youth Leadership Council (CYLC) on the occasion of their 20th Anniversary. Founded in 1985, the Council has long been committed to inspiring America's youth to achieve their full leadership potential.

CYLC has educated over 200,000 individually selected young men and women representing all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the American territories, and over 100

countries around the world since its founding. From my district alone, we have had more than 200 students participate in this outstanding and innovative program and in the entire State of Maryland over 1,600 students have had this terrific opportunity.

These energetic and dedicated young men and women are academically well-rounded, involved in their schools and communities, frequently interested in careers of government and service, and eager to develop their leadership skills. In addition to representing all comers of the country and globe, they are culturally, racially, and economically diverse.

The Congressional Youth Leadership Council programs bring thousands of students to Capitol Hill each year in an effort to deepen their understanding of the realities of government, citizenship, and service. I know my colleagues and our staff appreciate the opportunity to discuss important local, national, and global issues with these bright and eager young students.

Essential to the success of these and other CYLC programs is the focus on learning through experience. Students are challenged with simulations, role playing, and debate. They are charged with applying those experiences to abundant opportunities for personal interaction among each other and with today's leaders. The greatest outcome of this type of educational experience is open dialogue, perspective sharing, and cultural exchanges that increase understanding, cooperation, and teamwork.

The Congressional Youth Leadership Council inspires and energizes young men and women who return to their homes, communities, and schools with the tools and commitment to be effective leaders both today and for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to please join me in congratulating CYLC on 20 years of positively impacting the lives of America's youth, our next generation of leaders.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for yielding time, and I thank her for her leadership on bringing this bill to the floor. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania as well on getting this bill to the floor early. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, I know, has worked with us on so many different matters. I thank her very much for making sure this happens.

Madam Speaker, for the 15th straight year, I am proud to sponsor the resolution allowing the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to hold its annual race on the grounds of the United States Capitol. They could not

do so without this legislation. H. Con. Res. 86 authorizes the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board to work with the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are made to conduct this race in complete compliance with the rules and regulations governing the use of the Capitol Grounds. The 64th annual Greater Washington Soap Box Derby will be held on Saturday, June 18.

Since 1991, the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association has held its race on the Capitol Grounds. Each year, it attracts over 50 racers, both boys and girls, ranging in age from 8 to 17. These young people work very hard to build their own gravity-powered race cars from a kit provided by the All-American Soap Box Derby program. What a great name, All-American Soap Box Derby, because it is, of course, true that like apple pie and motherhood, soap box derby rings so true to all Americans. Participating in the soap box derby provides contestants with an opportunity to learn basic building skills and a sense of accomplishment. Racers are divided into three divisions, stock, super stock and masters. The local winner of each division automatically qualifies to compete with racers from around the world in the All- American soap box derby. This year's race will be held on July 30 in Akron, Ohio, where every year since 1936, except during World War II, young people have gathered to race.

The festivities in Akron begin when the racers receive a police escort into town and conclude in the winner's circle with the awarding of scholarships and merchandise. In between, the racers and their families participate in a whirlwind of activities that leave them with enduring friendships and memories that I am sure will last a lifetime.

Madam Speaker, I am honored that all three of last year's winners of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby were from my congressional district from the Washington competition: Haley Luense of Accokeek, Robbie Reuss of Waldorf and Robert McDaniel of Bowie. They were not winners of the national competition but they were participants and did well.

Madam Speaker, this event has been called and I quote, the greatest amateur racing event in the world. There may be a dispute on that from time to time, but it is a wonderful opportunity for our children from the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia to venture into the world of engineering while experiencing the spirit of competition.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join with me and the other original cosponsors, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) in supporting this resolution. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for her leadership in assuring that this bill gets to the floor in a timely fashion so that we will be ready for June 18.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am of course going to vote for this emergency supplemental appropriation because I believe it is absolutely imperative to support our brave men and women in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I know that even today, 2 years after the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there continues to be strong disagreement across the Nation on the decision to remove the brutal Hussein regime as well as the planning and prosecution of our military effort in Iraq.

However, on this point, I believe there is unanimity.

We, the elected representatives of the American people, have a legislative duty as well as a moral responsibility, to do everything in our power to ensure that our troops have everything they need to defeat the vicious insurgency in Iraq, to assist the Iraqi people in establishing democracy, and continuing our efforts in Afghanistan.

In my view, however, we are not doing enough. Just last week, The New York Times reported the experience of Marine Company E, an experience that, ``was punctuated not only by a lack of armor, but also by a shortage of men and planning that further hampered their efforts in the battle.''

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that this bill includes $1.4 billion more than the administration requested for bolstering force protection needs such as add-on armor and night vision goggles, and, in addition, for outfitting troops rotating into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Over the last 4 years, this administration, however, has refused to ask the American people, particularly the wealthiest American people, to make even minimal sacrifices, while we ask our men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq for some to make the ultimate sacrifice. The very least, in my opinion, that we can do is give them the resources they need to achieve victory and to return home safely.

I also support, Mr. Speaker, the important funding in this bill for tsunami relief, foreign assistance, and domestic homeland security as well as the $200 million in assistance for the Palestinian Authority for infrastructure and economic development projects. Those are all worthwhile, necessary, and important projects. The political reforms taking place in the territories must be accompanied by an end to the poverty and lack of opportunity facing the Palestinian people. That is ultimately how we will defeat terrorism.

Finally, however, let me raise, Mr. Speaker, one objection, among others, to the funding bill: the $592 million for a new embassy compound in Baghdad. That is not an emergency. This funding, Mr. Speaker, is not only inappropriate in this emergency supplemental appropriation, but it also, in my opinion, is substantially excessive in its expenditures; not to keep the people safe, we can do that, but to create an embassy in a relatively small country that, hopefully, in the years ahead, will be more peaceful than we have found it.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are at a critical juncture in Iraq. Victory is imperative, although it is not certain. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. It is during this month that we commemorate the significant contributions that the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community has made to our country.

I would like to join my colleagues on the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, of which I am a member, and which is chaired by my colleague, Mr. Honda of California. This bipartisan and bicameral caucus has been active in raising awareness about the concerns and issues that face the Asian American and Pacific Islander community today.

There are more than 12 million Asian American and Pacific Islanders in the United States, including about 275,000 in my home state of Maryland. Asian Pacific Americans also have the most diverse background of any minority population, tracing their roots to almost fifty different countries and ethnic groups.

Today, Asian Pacific Americans play an important role in every aspect of American life--as authors and artists, as business leaders, as political leaders, as military leaders, as scientists and innovators, as athletes, and in virtually every other aspect of American society.

In addition to recognizing the important role that Asian Pacific Americans play in our country, this month's celebration is also a time to remember significant historical contributions that Asian Pacific Americans have made in our Nation's history. From the building of our transcontinental railroads to fighting on behalf of our Nation, Asian Pacific Americans have contributed greatly to the American tapestry.

This year's theme for Asian Pacific American Heritage Month is ``Liberty and Freedom for All.'' This spirit was embodied in Representative Robert Matsui, who passed away in December, and to whom I wish to pay tribute. The House of Representatives and the country as a whole suffered a great loss with the passing of Bob Matsui, a dedicated leader who served with distinction for 13 terms in the House and was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

During his career, Bob Matsui was an active member of the Asian Pacific American community, working to achieve redress for Japanese Americans who were placed in internment camps after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Congressman Matsui himself was placed in the Tule Lake internment camp along with his family in 1942. He was later instrumental in securing the passage of the Japanese-American Redress Act as well as in ensuring a monument to Japanese-American patriotism during World War II.

Representative Matsui's experience demonstrates the determination and perseverance that characterized Asian Pacific Americans during their time here in the United States, oftentimes overcoming discrimination, language and cultural barriers.

I am pleased Americans have so much to benefit from as a result of our diverse society. We continue to learn from each other and share each other's traditions, history, and culture.

That is why it gives me great pleasure today to recognize the significant advances and contributions made by the Asian Pacific American Community to our country during Asian Pacific Heritage month.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Asian Pacific Heritage Week.

I am especially proud to do so because I am privileged to represent some of the most important Asian Pacific American communities in Los Angeles, California, including Chinatown, Little Tokyo, Filipinotown, and a portion of the Korean-American community. These historic California communities are constant reminders of the vibrancy and vitality of Asian Pacific Islanders and their significant contributions to our nation.

Secretary of Transportation, former Representative Norman Y. Mineta from California, was one of the first to work towards establishing a time of national recognition of the accomplishments of Asian Pacific Islander Americans. In June of 1977, he and his colleague, Representative Frank Horton of New York, introduced the first House resolution that called upon the President to proclaim the first 10 days of May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Week. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed a joint resolution declaring May 4-10 as National Asian Pacific American Heritage Week. And in 1990, President George H. W. Bush expanded the celebration to the entire month of May. The month of May was chosen for this special commemoration since it corresponds with the arrival of the first Japanese immigrants to the United States in May of 1843.

``Asian Pacific American'' is a political appellation that encompasses the many ethnic groups that exist in the API community. The term helps give expression to this historically, culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse group while at the same time recognizing common experiences in American history.

Mr. Speaker, let me take a few minutes to highlight a few of the important events in the lives of my Asian Pacific American constituents. In Little Tokyo, one event was the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Little Tokyo Service Center, in which I had the honor to participate. For 25 years, the Little Tokyo Service Center, a nonprofit charitable organization serving Asian and Pacific Islanders throughout Los Angeles County, has been an important resource for the residents of this diverse community. Currently, Little Tokyo Service Center sponsors over a dozen community and social service programs, with over

40 paid staff and hundreds of volunteers who provide competent and compassionate services in seven different languages. The services provided by Little Tokyo Service Center include individual and family counseling, support groups, transportation and translation services, an emergency caregiver program, crisis hotlines, and consumer education.

Little Tokyo Service Center is also the sponsor of several major community development projects in the Los Angeles area, including the construction and management of Casa Heiwa, a 100-unit affordable housing project for individuals and families; the rehabilitation of one of our city's historical landmarks into the Union Center for the Arts; and the development of Pacific Bridge, a housing complex for adults with developmental challenges.

Another noteworthy event took place last year when I was honored to recognize the 100th anniversary of The Rafu Shimpo. The success of this bilingual English-Japanese newspaper, founded in Los Angeles and published, distributed, and read avidly in my congressional district, is another milestone in the rich history of the Japanese-American community.

The history of The Rafu Shimpo is an important part of both American and Japanese American history and heritage. In April 1903, three young men, Rippo lijima, Masaharu Yamaguchi, and Seijiro Shibuya produced in Los Angeles the first mimeographed news bulletin for the Japanese- speaking community. In 1914, under the new management of Henry Toyosaku (H.T.) Komai, the newspaper began to grow. In 1926, an English language section was added with the help of a 20-year-old UCLA education major, Louise Suski. By 1932, the English section became a daily feature.

On April 4, 1942, The Rafu Shimpo ceased publication as Americans of Japanese descent were forcibly and shamefully removed to desert internment camps. At the end of the war in 1945, while other Japanese Americans were released, H.T. Komai continued to be detained in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Nevertheless, the Komai family's dedication to publishing The Rafu Shimpo persevered. H.T.'s son, Akira Komai, with a $1,500 loan from three staff members, rebuilt the newspaper.

The newspaper grew rapidly from a circulation of 500 in 1946, to 20,000 over the next 30 years. Today, H.T.'s grandson, Michael Komai, serves as the third generation publisher, a position he has held since 1983. The award-winning daily has over 45,000 readers and prevails as the premier news source for the Los Angeles area Japanese American community.

Two years ago, I was also honored to recognize the 100th anniversary of Fugetsu-Do, a family-run bakery in my congressional district. Starting in 1903, Seiichi Kito and his family, later including Roy Kito, began working in a small shop to produce batches of mochi, maju, and other Japanese sweets. In 1942, when the Kito family was forced to relocate to the Heart Mountain, Wyoming internment camp, the family business was closed. At the end of the war, the Kito family returned to Los Angeles and reopened the doors of Fugetsu-Do. Today, Brian Kito, the grandson of Seiichi Kito and the son of Roy Kito, continues the legacy of Fugetsu-Do and continues to serve the Little Tokyo community.

And, of course, there is the wonderful celebration of Japanese culture and tradition during Nisei Week, culminating with the annual parade.

I am also very proud to represent many members of the Korean-American community and to work with this important constituency that greatly contributes to the Los Angeles area and our nation as a whole.

In 1903, Korean immigrants began arriving in the U.S. in 3 distinct waves. The first wave was recruited for back-breaking work on the sugar plantations of Hawaii. The second wave of Koreans arrived after World War II and again after the Korean War. In the 1960's, more Korean immigrants came to the U.S. seeking increased educational opportunities. Many in this last group were medical professionals who came to fill the shortage of health care workers in our inner cities. These immigrants have helped revitalize declining neighborhoods and have been an economic stimulus through small business entrepreneurship. Korean Americans have also made their influence felt in international trade, the fashion industry, and other community businesses such as restaurants. Still others make significant contributions in professions ranging from the arts to medicine and the sciences. Last year I was proud to help honor the 100th anniversary of Korean-American immigration to the United States with a statement on the floor of the House of Representatives and to participate in their annual Harvest Moon Festival parade in Los Angeles.

And, of course, I am privileged to represent Los Angeles's Chinatown, perhaps the Asian Pacific American group with the oldest and best known story in American history.

Immigrants from China first came to southern California in the late 1850's to help build wagon roads and lay railroad tracks across the west. Initially barred from owning property, many Chinese eventually settled near Olvera Street in rented homes and storefronts used for hand laundries, herb shops and markets in downtown Los Angeles. In the 1930's, this neighborhood of approximately 3000 Chinese was uprooted to make way for the construction of Union Station on Alameda Street.

Chinese families and merchants banded together as the Los Angeles Chinatown Corporation to create a ``new Chinatown'' on Broadway. Since second-generation Chinese could own property, American-born Peter Soo Hoo led the group in purchasing a railroad storage yard they turned into a traditional Chinese-looking, tile-fringed pedestrian plaza. This ``New Chinatown'' became one of America's first shopping malls and was an immediate success. Restaurants and shops abounded, and at night the neighborhood came to life with colorful lights, music and street entertainers.

In the 1970's, waves of new Chinese immigrants led an ethnic population shift eastward to the San Gabriel Valley. The original Chinatown, however, retains its historical significance and vitality. To help stimulate its renewal and make this historic area accessible to more southern Californians, the Los Angeles delegation is working to bring the Gold Line through Chinatown.

Among the many other exciting things happening in Chinatown is the Chinese American Museum. In December of 2003, I was pleased to join the Chinese community to celebrate the Grand Opening of the museum, located at Olvera Street, the birthplace of Los Angeles. The Chinese American Museum is in the Garnier Building, which was erected in the 1890's for the exclusive use of the Chinese community. During those early years, the Garnier building housed schools, temples, churches and businesses. And, of course, the annual Chinese New Year parade and dragon dance culminates a week of celebration of Chinese culture and history.

And finally, in 2003, with other Members of Congress, I was pleased to attend a recognition ceremony in honor of Asian American and Pacific Islander veterans and current service members who are defending our country in the armed services. Among those being honored were members of the legendary 442nd Infantry Army Regiment, which sustained a higher rate of casualties during World War II than any other unit.

This ceremony was one more reminder of the enormous contributions and sacrifices made to this country by the members of our Asian Pacific American communities.

It is truly an honor to join my colleagues during Asian Pacific Heritage Month to recognize the many heroic and positive contributions of the API community to our American society.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Very frankly, I listened to the Republican comments about this budget, and I cannot decide whether it is George Orwell or Lewis Carroll who is writing their stuff: Up is down; down is up; black is white; huge deficits are really savings. My, my, my.

Mr. Speaker, it is very tempting to come to the House floor today and to focus solely on the numbers; to focus on the fact that in just 4 short years the Republican Party has turned a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion in surplus into a projected deficit of $4 trillion; to focus on the fact that this year OMB projects a record budget deficit of $427 billion, and it will actually be over half a trillion dollars, the third record deficit in a row; to focus on the fact that since 2001, this Republican Party has added more than $2.2 trillion to the national debt, now $8.2 trillion, and that Republicans will increase the debt ceiling by another $780 billion this year in this budget.

It is tempting, Mr. Speaker, to let this important debate revolve around numbers, but I think the American people want the big picture, and here is the unvarnished truth: This budget conference report is the absolute epitome of unfairness and irresponsibility.

At a time of exploding deficits and debt, this conference report calls for another $70 billion in tax cuts, with nearly 75 percent of those tax breaks going to the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans. At the very same time, it calls for $10 billion cut to Medicaid. I would presume that the 43 people plus the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) who signed this letter and said ``don't cut Medicaid,'' I would presume all 44 of those Republicans will vote ``no'' on this budget. We will see.

It also calls for cuts to student loans, food stamps, pension benefits and other national priorities. I suggest to my friend the majority leader, who was concerned rightfully about the vulnerable, those, Mr. Leader, are the vulnerable. They are let down in this budget.

Furthermore, this conference report not only fails to arrest our exploding deficit, it makes it worse, increasing the deficit by some $168 billion over the next 5 years. And while the Republican Party tries to convince the American people that Social Security faces an imminent crisis, the Republican conference report would spend every last nickel of the Social Security trust fund; every last nickel.

Now, let me refer the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) to comments I am sure that are emblazoned upon his brain: ``The Congress will protect 100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Period. No speculation. No supposition. No projections. Jim Nussle, July 11, 2001.''

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my friends that the other side of the aisle on seven different times between 1999 and 2001, House Republicans voted to protect our Social Security surplus. They could do it because of the Clinton surpluses. They could do it because of the Clinton surpluses.

But over the last 4 years, when you controlled this House, the Presidency, and the Senate, you could not do it. You have not done it. You have spent every nickel and decimated the lockbox.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget boldly proclaimed in 2001 again, ``We will not touch a nickel of Social Security.'' He touches every nickel tonight.

What the Nation has seen over the last 4 years is nothing short of full-scale retreat from fiscal responsibility and the imposition of Republican policies that will immorally force our children to pay our bills, because we are not paying for what we propose buying tonight. This conference report is the latest example of that irresponsibility.

I urge my colleagues in all good conscience, vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the deputy majority whip the schedule for the coming week.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information.

Does the gentleman know which day we will consider the vocational education bill?

Can the gentleman tell me what type of rule is anticipated? Will it be open or modified open rules on these two bills?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

I note, Mr. Deputy Whip, that the supplemental is not on the announcement, is apparently not on the calendar for next week. Obviously this is a very important bill. It is a very important bill to our country and our troops. We passed this bill some time ago. Can the gentleman tell us when that bill might be before us?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. Before we conclude, I would like to ask a couple of questions. I understand the gentleman may not know the answers.

Our side, as you probably know, is very concerned about what transpired this week on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. We are very concerned because three Members on our side offered amendments. Those amendments were pretty straightforward, subject to, obviously, an up-or-down vote. They were allowed by the Committee on Rules. But the report of the Committee on the Judiciary starkly mischaracterized those amendments. As the gentleman knows, a motion has been filed on those. A ruling was not made in order as to whether or not that filing will be in order Tuesday or the next day. We raised this issue at the time of the consideration of the bill. We raised it again, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary raised it.

Has the gentleman had an opportunity to discuss this, and does the gentleman know whether or not there is a possibility or probability that what we believe to be egregious language that was substituted for a

straight definition, which, by the way, the Committee on Rules did correctly, but which the Committee on the Judiciary did not, does the gentleman know whether that is being corrected?

Late Tuesday afternoon?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman know how late that will be? Of course, votes will not be scheduled until 6:30, so most Members will not be back.

I appreciate that information, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly notify the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), one of the sponsors; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), another one of the sponsors; and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), another one of the sponsors. I regret that we need to go ahead with the issue of the privileges of the House. I will tell the gentleman I do not know that I have seen an amendment as mischaracterized as this amendment was, and I was hopeful that we could simply resolve it. But if that cannot be done, then we will have to have it subject to debate.

I thank the gentleman for his information.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

I would observe at the outset that if the arguments propounded by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the distinguished chairman of the Ethics Committee, which they have made repeatedly over the last 4 months, were agreed to by the American public, we would not be here today. But those arguments were rejected.

A vote on this important legislation which will restore the bipartisan ethics rules that were originally adopted in 1997 and which functioned well in every Congress since then is long overdue. And I believe that it was inevitable.

Today is not a day for those of us on the Democrat side of the aisle to gloat. However, it is a day for those who instigated and supported these partisan rules changes in January to recognize that a serious mistake in judgment was made. That does not seem to be the case.

The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) will observe, as he has in the past, that this is the first time, and I have served here for 24 years, the first time that the rules of the Ethics Committee were changed in a partisan action. As the former chairman, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) stated 2 weeks ago, ``We can't make rule changes unilaterally.'' We've never made rules for the Ethics Committee ``unilaterally.'' ``The way it was done was wrong.''

Today the Speaker recognizes the validity of that statement and seeks to rectify this error. It is a good step. However, let me say as clearly as I can, this legislation marks a beginning, not an ending. It is in reality a procedural prerequisite to a real, meaningful ethics process that ensures the American people of the integrity of this great institution. Surely every one of us wants that to be the reality.

In the last several months a great number of issues have become public that warrant an inquiry by the Ethics Committee. The press has asked me numerous times over the last 3 months, Are you going to file a complaint? And I have said, No, I am not going to file a complaint. And the reason I am not going to file a complaint is because I believe it is the responsibility of the Ethics Committee, particularly when ethics questions are raised in the public arena, that the Ethics Committee address those issues so that the public's confidence can be kept intact.

It is imperative now that the committee organize as soon as practicable so that it may conduct its important business. Let me also urge the chairman and the ranking member to honor the letter and the intent of the 1997 rules package by agreeing to hire a nonpartisan professional staff. I say that because the chairman indicated that he was going to treat this like any other committee and install his chief of staff.

His chief of staff, I am sure, has high integrity and great ability. I do not question that at all. But it is incumbent upon us to make sure that both sides have confidence in the leadership of this staff as was intended by the rules.

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Committee is the only mechanism that this institution has to police itself. Today we have taken a vital step in restoring procedural vitality to our ethics process and ensuring public confidence in this institution. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, and I thank her for her leadership on this very important issue.

Cleverness says that when you are going to lose, declare victory. That is what the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) is going to do; he is going to declare victory, because what he says is there is consensus on his rhetoric. He is correct.

What there is not consensus on are the policies pursued by the chairman, the Committee on the Budget, and the majority. The chairman's budgets have put America $2.4 trillion in additional debt from when he took over just 4 years ago. As a result of putting us $2.4 trillion in additional debt, we are having trouble paying our bills.

This year alone we are going to have a budget deficit of half a trillion dollars. They do not count some of it. They pretend some of it is emergency spending, and they do not even count AMT fixes. There are a lot of things they do not count. But the fact of the matter is that their policies undercut their rhetoric, and the reason the chairman is going to support the gentlewoman's resolution is because of this chart: 44 of his Republican colleagues who said this is bad policy, do not do it. Not Democrats, Republicans. Forty-four of them.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for signing on to that letter, because you knew that the policies proposed by the Republican budget were, in this instance, not policies you wanted to pursue.

Madam Speaker, less than 4 weeks ago, on March 31, the President of the United States said, ``The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak.'' On that very same day, the majority leader in this body, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), stated, ``The one major responsibility of a government is to protect innocent, vulnerable people from being preyed upon.''

I absolutely agree that we not only have a duty but we have a moral responsibility to protect the weakest and most vulnerable citizens in our Nation. That, I tell the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, is what Medicaid is all about. And the gentleman's rationalization that Medicaid must be fixed, in which he is also correct, we all agree. But like your Social Security solution, of privatizing Social Security because it has financial problems, realizing full well that your privatization does not affect solvency at all, is an empty solution, because you do not know how to solve it yet because you

have not come across with a suggestion.

All you have said is to cut the legs out from the most vulnerable, which Medicaid serves. That is what you have said. That is why these 44 colleagues of yours, not Democrats, Mr. Chairman, Republicans, 44 signed this letter.

You know you are going to lose this motion, and so you are going to agree with this motion on some rationalization that we suggest a commission to come up with a solution, because you are right, absolutely right: we know that we have to come up with a solution because we cannot let down the most vulnerable in our society.

But I do not understand, notwithstanding the Speaker's rhetoric, notwithstanding the rhetoric of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), notwithstanding the chairman's rhetoric, notwithstanding the President's rhetoric; if the President, the majority leader, and the House Republicans are truly concerned about protecting the weak and vulnerable, why are they so intent on slashing Medicaid funding so deeply?

The fact is, Medicaid finances health care for more than 58 million Americans, including 28 million low-income children, nearly 16 million parents, and nearly 15 million elderly and disabled citizens. Yet the House Republicans' budget would cut Medicaid funding by $20 billion over 5 years, a cut so draconian that 44 House Republicans, as I said, have said no to that cut.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct. My understanding is the chairman is going to support it. I am pleased about that, but nobody ought to misunderstand that ``this is a political judgment that we are going to lose, so we will pretend that we win.'' He did the same thing when the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) offered his motion and we were going to win last year.

We need to protect our vulnerable citizens. The President of the United States is correct, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is correct. Vote for this motion to instruct. Not only that, I hope the Chairman will take this motion to instruct not just as a request, but as a moral duty.

Madam Speaker, I say to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, my suggestion is to come forward with a reform program. Let us consider it. But do not cut vulnerable people prior to coming up with solutions. Do not make them pay the price of losing Medicaid while we are trying to solve the problem. Let us solve the problem.

The gentleman is right, and we are not going to come to the floor saying there is no problem. But we are going to come to the floor and say, do not have vulnerable people let down while we are trying to solve that problem.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is on the Committee on Ways and Means. Pass it and make it policy.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the coming week.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

Mr. Leader, I noticed that the budget conference report is not listed on the schedule next week. The gentleman and I talked about that last week. Can the gentleman tell us when the gentleman believes the budget conference will be appointed and when we might have that on the floor?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. If I could raise one additional issue, it is my understanding that one of the reasons we have not appointed conferees and we have not gone to conference is the issue of the Medicaid cuts.

I understand a substantial number of Members on your side have suggested that those cuts are not advisable. Obviously, the Senate did not include those cuts. Can the majority leader tell me at this point in time if there has been any resolution of this issue, as to where we might stand on those Medicaid cuts.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for that information. Again, I do not know the accuracy of the letter in terms of the numbers of people, but there seemed to be a fair number of people, there were over 40, on the letter which appeared to agree with the Senate's view, obviously a large number on this side who share that view as well.

Perhaps we might have some discussions about reaching agreement on that issue at some point in time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his information, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the previous speaker's comment. This is not a bipartisan bill. That does not mean that some Democrats will not vote for it, but none of the ranking members were involved in this policy, and they are not voting for it.

Mr. Speaker, the United States of America needs an energy strategy that not only reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil, but also strengthens our national security.

As a bipartisan group of 26 national security officials, including Robert McFarlane, President Reagan's National Security Adviser, and Jim Woolsey, President Clinton's CIA Director, recently stated in a letter to President Bush: ``It should be a top national security priority of the United States to significantly reduce its consumption of foreign oil. The United States' dependence on imported petroleum poses a risk to our homeland security and to our economic well-being.''

Yet, Mr. Speaker, this Republican energy bill does virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on petroleum products. In fact, at a time of record profits for the oil and gas industries, these traditional energy producers stand to reap 93 percent of the tax incentives in this bill, or $7.5 billion.

Do we know who said they did not need it? The President of the United States, George W. Bush said that just a day ago.

Renewable energy and conservation receive only 7 percent of the resources allotted in this bill. This bill is simply a rehash of the same policies and incentives that have made us more, not less, energy dependent.

It would provide more than $22 billion to the oil and gas and other energy industries in tax breaks, direct spending, and authorizations. Does anybody who is paying $2.50 or $3 at the pump think that the energy companies are hurting for dollars? I think not.

It would shift the costs of MTBE cleanup from manufacturers to the American taxpayers. I think most Americans do not think that is a good

policy. Furthermore, the problem with it is, that is why we do not have an energy bill, because the majority leader demanded of the Senate that that be in there, and the Senate would not take it.

It would weaken the Clean Air Act and, unbelievably, this Republican bill would actually increase gas prices by 3 cents per gallon, according to the Bush administration's own Energy Department. Apparently, this Republican majority believes you need to pay more for gasoline.

There is a reason that this energy bill is going nowhere fast. It is bad policy, and it fails to address the energy needs of this great Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.