Dennis Cardoza

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure and gratitude that I rise today to recognize the Merced County VFW Honor Guard for their many years of selfless service on behalf of their fellow veterans of the United States of America. I am particularly honored to recognize this team of individuals as they served as Honor Guard at the burial service of my own father, Manuel Cardoza, who served in the U.S. Merchant Marines during World War II. For many years, members of the Winton VFW Post #7792, the Atwater VFW Post #9946, and the Merced VFW Post #4327 worked together to help conduct proper burial services for our local veterans. These individuals have worked long hours and gruesome schedules in order to serve their fellow veterans. Within the last few years, they have averaged 157 burial services, dedicated 4511 man hours, and traveled more than 4800 miles each year. I would like to take a moment to recite the names of the veterans who have dedicated their time, energy and resources to providing their fellow veterans with honorable burial services as members of the Honor Burial Team. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring those members of the Honor Guard who have gone before us: Louis Gonzales #9946, Paul Gunderson #7792, Ernie Dominquez #4327, Wyn Aguirre #9946, David Barrone #9946, John Aue #9946, Mel Hode #9946, Vern Kolander #7792, Bill and Evelyn Petrie #7792, Bill Butler #9946, Charles Hickman #9946, Frank and Mary Gaffney #9946, and Bryce Tillman #9946. And it is with great sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the current members of the Merced County Honor Guard: Commander Richard Clerkin #7792, Chaplain Ken Wenrich #7792, Honorary Chaplain Father Tom Timmings, Rifle Team Captain George Stroud #7792, Bugler Bill Dacus #4327, Quarter Master Don Dean #9946, Ray Baker #7792, Dick Darby #7792, Ernie Connor #7792, Judge Brown #7792, Gerald Dunker #7792, Byron McNamara #9946, Ken Henn #9946, John Douglas #9946, Bill Oliver #9946, Tony Castro #9946, David Loeser #9946, James Tyson #9946, Willie Kimoto #7792, and Ishmael Hernandez #9946. Throughout our history, brave men and women have risked their lives to preserve freedom for future generations. It is a tradition unlike any other. Each member of the United States Armed Forces is an inspiration to the American people in their patriotism, skill, and selfless dedication to the ideals that make this Nation great. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Merced County VFW Honor Guard for their service and for their selfless commitment to honoring their fellow veterans with the most appropriate and necessary military burial. I wholeheartedly extend my sincerest appreciation to each individual of this outstanding team. Thank you for serving our country with bravery and honor, and thank you for continuing to serve your fellow veterans.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. I thank the gentleman for his extraordinary leadership and for his indulgence of his time.

Mr. CARDOZA. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. It is long past time for a change of direction in Iraq. For far too long, this institution merely acted as a rubber stamp and never asked the hard questions necessary of the Administration. That begins to change today. The passage of this bill will require the Administration to confront the consequences of their bad choices and, more importantly, set us on a responsible path for ending our involvement in Iraq. This legislation would begin the responsible redeployment of U.S. troops within 120 days and complete redeployment by April 1, 2008. In addition, troops could remain in Iraq for the limited purposes of fighting terrorism or to train Iraqi forces. This bill is a measured response to the quagmire we find ourselves in. As has been clear for some time, Iraq is currently engulfed in a vicious civil war. This strife between Sunnis and Shiites goes back 1400 years and the American people never signed up for refereeing a civil war. Moreover, this bill expressly allows for our troops to remain in the region for the purposes of fighting terrorism or to train Iraqi forces. Our enemy in this conflict is Al Qaeda. They are the ones who attacked us on 9/11, they are the ones who declared war on the United States, and they are the ones we were told were in Iraq. This bill allows our troops to do whatever is necessary to root out Al Qaeda and ensure they will not be able to use Iraqi territory as a safe haven. Moreover, by augmenting our ability to train Iraqi police forces, this bill places the onus for Iraqi security squarely where it belongs--on the Iraqis themselves. This Administration has only given lip-service to the importance of training Iraqi soldiers and has allowed the bulk of the security responsibility to rest on the shoulders of our brave American men and women. This is not only unfair, it is counterproductive. We keep hearing-- ``we'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up.'' This bill, by beginning the belated shift of responsibility from the American military to the Iraqis, will finally force the Iraqis to stand up. As many have said, the problem of Iraq will not be solved militarily. No less than our military commander in Iraq--General Petraeus--has said that Iraq will not be solved with military means. Only by engaging the full weight of our diplomacy we will be able to force the political compromises necessary that will bring some measure of stability to Iraq. This bill, by redeploying our troops and thus signaling our recognition of the importance of diplomacy, will finally put the Iraqis on a path towards peace. The time is now. The American people are clamoring for a change in our Iraq policy and, despite the recalcitrance of the Administration, a change in policy will come. After close to 5 years, billions of dollars spent, thousands of our soldiers dead, maimed, or wounded--we simply must chart a new course. As always, this Congress stands ready to work the President to find a bipartisan solution to Iraq. However, veto threats and refusals to deal with the reality on the ground are no longer tolerable. We must all negotiate an end to this conflict in good faith with a clear and honest recognition of the challenges we face. For my part, I stand ready to work with my colleagues to engage in such a constructive dialogue. Mr. Speaker, let's end this. Let's bring our soldiers home and thank them for a job well done. Let's pass the Responsible Redeployment Act.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I ask to withdraw the amendment that I just brought forward.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, shortly into my tenure as a Member of Congress in 2003 the General Services Administration, the GSA, notified me that my office space at the Bell Station in Merced, California, which I shared with the post office and the IRS would no longer be available for lease. My office was in an historic building, and, most importantly, I was conveniently located downtown for my constituents. Despite my vigorous protests, I was literally kicked out of the Federal building. If that wasn't enough of a slap in the face to my constituents and myself, 2 years later the GSA declared the Bell Station post office to be surplus property. The GSA closed the post office with no rhyme or reason and started to dispose of it, with no community input and no plan to replace our post office. The GSA's handling of this situation was deplorable. The GSA turned a deaf ear to my constituents and ignored the needs of a local community. In my 4\1/2\ years in Congress, nothing has elicited as many phone calls and letters and editorials to my local paper than the GSA's handling of post office closure in my hometown. The GSA's blatant disregard for a community's needs hasn't only occurred in my district. This has been repeated with reckless abandon in districts across the country. Make no mistake about it. This can happen to any Member of this Congress, and every community across America is at risk. Three local entities in my home county attempted to obtain a historic building from GSA for public benefit use. However, in the blink of an eye, and without advance notice to the applicants, the GSA reversed course. The GSA indicated it would put the building out for public auction and sell it to the highest bidder. I have confirmed with the GSA experts that the GSA's activities are not only inconsistent with its mission, but are also well outside proper protocol. I have made countless efforts to work with the GSA to rectify this situation in my district so that local communities can obtain the building. My repeated requests have been ignored. The GSA even refused to respond to a simple letter I wrote until I submitted amendments to this bill that would cut the GSA budget by 10 percent. After panic set in at GSA, GSA sent a useless response that doesn't address a single one of my concerns, and leaves just enough wiggle room to back out of any promise of working with the original applicants. The GSA then delivered to a letter to other Capitol Hill offices, not to my own. When I was told that GSA representatives were in the Cannon Building today, they didn't even have the common courtesy to speak to me or my staff. Mr. Chairman, this reeks of mismanagement. It shows a lack of oversight and accountability at GSA. My amendment is very simple. It provides an additional $6 million to GSA's Office of the Inspector General. It is paid for by cutting the GSA's policy and operations account, including the Office of the Administrator and the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. The Inspector General will ensure that the agency is operating in the best interest of taxpayers and is not beholden to the political process or to special interests. It is absolutely critical that the Inspector General's office has the tools and resources it needs to hold the agency accountable for its actions. And it is critical that we, as Members of Congress, ensure that government is meeting the needs of our communities. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. The gentleman from New York is correct. I will be happy to withdraw my other amendment if, in fact, we adopt this amendment that is more acceptable to the committee.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee is expected to meet the week of July 9 to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 30 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 11 a.m. on Tuesday, July 3. Members are strongly advised to adhere to the amendment deadline to ensure the amendments receive due consideration. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and Labor. A copy of that bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee. Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gohmert clearly doesn't realize that under Mr. Reagan we had a $1.41 trillion deficit. Under Mr. Bush 1, we had a $1.04 trillion deficit. Under Bush 2, we had a $1.69 trillion deficit, for a total of $4.14 trillion under Republican administrations. Under Mr. Clinton, we actually had a $62.9 billion surplus. So I would like to ask the gentleman who is truly responsible for the national debt? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I will say that it seems ironic to me that they blame the Democrats for everything, yet this proposal that is being put forward by the gentleman from Georgia was originated under the speakership of Mr. Hastert and was planned during that period of time. And, frankly, it was a good idea. It's something that needs to be done. The other point I would just like to make at the outset of my discussion here.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California and I agree on one thing absolutely, and that is that Mr. Cleaver is a great Member of Congress and offers thoughtful amendments. The problem with his amendment was that it was simply unworkable. It required that vehicles be E85 ethanol-compliant. And, for example, in California, in Mr. Dreier's and my own State, there are only two gas stations that provide E85 fuel. I drive a hybrid. I think it is an important thing for Members of Congress to lead on this issue, but the fact is that the amendment was unworkable. We discussed that in Rules Committee yesterday. I discussed that with Mr. Cleaver, and, in fact, the committee did see fit not to make that amendment in order. The gentleman raises a number of other points, but I would like to talk about the $16 million and the FDA building that the gentleman raised and the fact that the appropriations subcommittee is, in fact, bringing fiscal accountability and better standards to the construction process of the Capitol, and that this proposal that the gentleman from California refers to was actually initially brought to the House by former Speaker Hastert. And, in fact, we are continuing the prior administration's priority in this area. The subcommittee has changed the way this building will be managed and procured in that the GSA will manage the construction and retrofit of this new building that is being acquired in order to provide swing space and allow the operations of Congress to continue as we revamp other buildings here in the Capitol complex. The $16 million in security enhancements this bill provides for the FDA building are critical if we are to use the building for additional House office space. The project was originally approved, as I said, by former Speaker Hastert and is now being carried forward in this bill. It is critical so that we can get the swing space ready for the House to use when we begin the badly needed renovations to the Cannon Building, which is nearly 100 years old, and to the Longworth Building, which is nearly 75 years old. We need flex space to move offices while those buildings are being renovated. The FDA building fits the bill. GSA is ready to invest $150 million in the renovations of this building. This additional funding is to bring security from the generic government building level up to meet the requirements of congressional office space. This is a long-term investment. If we don't put this money into getting the FDA building ready now, we will have to delay much-needed renovations to our existing buildings. I would also say that I believe it is important for our staff to get the same kind of security that we would get as Members. We know that in the post-9/11 world, as we have talked about many times on the floor before, Members of Congress and this Capitol complex are targets, and it is imperative that we provide our staff with the same security that we ourselves demand.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I enjoy the comments and the colloquy that my colleague from Texas and I and the rest of the committee engage in. We seem to have this conversation quite a bit these days. I'd like to remind the gentleman that, while it's true that we have made three amendments in order this year, two Republican and one bipartisan, last year there were four Democratic amendments made in order on this particular appropriations bill. The prior year, however, there were 11 amendments offered in committee, and only one Democratic amendment was offered in this bill. Why I raise this number, I want to point out that this is not unusual for this Legislative Branch appropriations bill to be a structured rule in prior years. And, in fact, there's good reason for that. My distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Dreier, mentioned in committee yesterday, in fact, that there is potential for demagoguery on both sides of the aisle on this Legislative Branch appropriations bill, and that he has agreed in the past, and this year, on a structured rule. Now, honorable men and women can disagree on the merit and the substance of particular amendments, the number of which are not as important as the fact that we are arguing about substantive language, about health and safety, about meeting our constituents' needs. And I think it's important that we talk about that substance, rather than just the number on the bill. And so, Madam Speaker, I think that we've done a good job producing a fiscally accountable bill for the Congress. In fact, the President asked for $275 million more than our subcommittee is providing under this legislation. The President asked for a 15 percent increase in this appropriation, and Congress saw fit to only offer 4.1 percent. I think the subcommittee has done a good job crafting this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 502 provides for consideration of H.R. 2771, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides H.R. 2771 with 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration except for those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule also waives points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for three amendments, two offered by Republican Members and one bipartisan amendment. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, the legislation we will consider today, H.R. 2771, funds the legislative branch of our government. This includes funding for the House of Representatives so Members of Congress have the resources we need to serve our constituents. It includes funding for the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Compliance and other government agencies. The bill also takes a bold step forward and begins implementing the Speaker's Green the Capitol Initiative. For the first time ever, the House of Representatives will take steps to address the threats of global warming by ensuring the House operates in a carbon-neutral manner. The bill provides initial funding to Green the Capitol by switching to 100 percent renewable wind energy for the House's electricity needs, increasing the use of cleaner-burning fuels, and making congressional offices more energy efficient. This is necessary as Members of Congress must set an example for our constituents by being as environmentally friendly as possible, especially as we ask them to do the same in their own homes. Most importantly, however, this bill shows the Democratic majority's commitment to change the way our government is run. This bill demonstrates a commitment to fiscal responsibility, increased oversight and increased accountability. Madam Speaker, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have attested to, this bill is fiscally responsible. It provides an increase of only $122 million, or 4.1 percent over the 2007 enacted level. This is significantly lower than the 13 percent increase requested by the President. And much of the increase is attributable to unavoidable expenses that come in a Presidential election year. Reducing the President's budget request by nearly one-quarter of a billion dollars shows that the Democrats are committed to holding the line on unnecessary spending, while ensuring that government is still able to deliver services to the American taxpayer. While funding is increased by 4.1 percent over the 2007 enacted level, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee chose to invest heavily in critical life and safety and security measures for the Capitol complex. The world changed on September 11, and we now know that the United States Capitol will forever be a target of a terrorist attack. We owe it to our staff members, our visitors, our constituents, our distinguished guests, and to ourselves to ensure that the Capitol complex is as safe and secure as possible. In a post-9/11 world, we cannot be too lax when it comes to securing the Capitol complex. Security enhancements are no longer an option. They are a necessity. The Legislative Branch appropriations bill provides almost $50 million for security and lifesaving projects, including $5 million for new, interoperable police radios, $275,000 for utility, tunnel, health and safety process, $1.2 million for visitors escape hoods, $16 million for building security enhancements, $1 million for emergency exit signs and lighting in the Capitol, and $4.4 million in emergency lighting upgrades for the Rayburn Building. The bill also provides a 7.7 percent increase for the Capitol Police Department and a 23 percent increase for the Office of Compliance so they can ensure health and safety of the Capitol complex. Finally, Madam Speaker, one of the defining traits of the Democratic Congress has been increased government oversight. As such, this bill provides the tools Congress needs to hold the government accountable to the American taxpayer. The Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee is determined to crack down on unnecessary spending by government agencies. The subcommittee held 11 agency budget hearings and is requiring government agencies to reexamine their needs based on priority, cost effectiveness, and fiscal responsibility. The bill provides for additional staff at the Government Accountability Office to enable the GAO to better support congressional oversight efforts and address important issues such as health care, changing security threats, education, and continued audit work on the war in Iraq. The Congressional Budget Office receives an increase in funding to better advise Congress on controlling runaway health care spending. Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz and I discussed CBO staffing in a colloquy during a Rules Committee hearing on Wednesday. We both agree that the current funding staff levels are insufficient to meet our needs. We'll work together with CBO Director Orzag to address the staffing and enhance this important agency's efforts in the future. The bill increases support for the Inspector General overseeing the Capitol Police Department. It also establishes a statutory Inspector General at the Architect of the Capitol. It is absolutely essential that there is stringent oversight of the Architect's office to improve its financial and management practices. The subcommittee is 100 percent committed to improving the oversight and completion of the Capitol Visitors Center. I have personally toured the Visitors Center, and it is a beautiful addition that, when finished, we will all be proud of. However, no Member of Congress is proud of how this edifice has been produced. The project has spiraled out of control due to an inexplicable lack of oversight and accountability in prior Congresses, resulting in unnecessary delays and massive cost overruns. This bill assures that there will no longer be a blank check and no questions asked. The subcommittee has held, and will continue to hold, monthly hearings, and the Architect will be required to submit a detailed plan to the House and Senate before one cent can be spent. Madam Speaker, this bill delivers on the promises that Democrats made. It's fiscally responsible. It focuses on life, safety, and security measures, and provides much needed accountability to the process. I would like to thank Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee for all their hard work and thoughtful work that went into this legislation. In particular, I want to thank the gentlelady from Florida, Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz. She has been a true champion for the Democratic majority's efforts to bring efficiency, fiscal responsibility, accountability to the Federal Government, and to this Chamber. Madam Speaker, this bill is well thought out, well crafted, and sets the right priorities. I urge my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 502.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would just like to respond to the gentleman from Georgia by saying that, in fact, the Rules Committee did offer Mr. Jordan's amendment from Ohio that one-ups the gentleman from Georgia. In fact, the gentleman from Georgia said he wanted to cut overall the entire operations in Congress and legislative branch by 1 percent. Mr. Jordan offers a 4 percent cut. And so we made that in order so that the Congress can have the debate that Mr. Price from Georgia has indicated that he wants to have on the House floor. It is a very open process. And, in fact, I will tell you that this is a very bipartisan bill. Mr. Wamp and Ms. Wasserman Schultz came to the Rules Committee and indicated absolutely that they had worked on a bipartisan basis on this bill and that they thought that they had done a good job working on a bipartisan basis. We have, in fact, offered the debate. We will, in fact, have a debate on cutting overall administration. In fact, this is a responsible bill in that we have cut $275 million from the President's request, 11 percent less than the administration asked for the operations of the legislative branch. This is a fiscally responsible bill. The committee has worked together to craft it in a bipartisan way, and I think that we in fact have a very good piece of legislation before the Congress today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also want to point out that Mr. Kingston is talking about immigration and the lack of accountability with regard to illegal workers on government projects. I would like to remind the gentleman that it is his President that is in charge of enforcement, it is the administrative branch of government that is in charge of adjudicating and prosecuting illegal aliens, and that it is their Department that is awarding the contracts. And so if the gentleman is concerned about this, he should talk to his President down the street. And with a single conversation, he should be able to get the administration to do what he wants, since he is of the same party. With regard to this building that we're talking about, when we had the anthrax scare here in Congress, I am aware that they actually had to displace Federal workers to house congressional employees in that building. That was only for a couple of weeks. To do this for months on end while a building is being renovated is simply unacceptable. Further, Mr. Kingston's amendment was argued in the subcommittee and it was put forward in the subcommittee and it was rejected by the subcommittee on a bipartisan basis. We need this swing space to be able to do the renovation. And I think this goes back to a very simple thing that Mr. Dreier said, that this can be demagogued. Clearly, we can have disagreements, but we need to do the right thing by the American people to provide for the safety of Congress. This $16 million appropriation is for Capitol security. Either you support security for Members, for the staff and for the general public, or you don't. You either support security or you don't. And I say that the bipartisan workings of the committee were the correct action and that the amendment that the gentleman offered was previously rejected in committee. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. No, I will not yield.

Mr. CARDOZA. I was not.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.