Doris Matsui

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, to correct the record, there has been no clean vote to raise the minimum wage, and it is that important. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) to respond.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so the House can immediately take up five important bills that actually do something to help Americans and make them safer. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, my amendment provides for immediate consideration of the following five bills. One, a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Two, legislation to increase the minimum wage to $7.25. Three, a bill to give authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices for senior citizens and people with disabilities. Four, a bill to repeal the massive cuts in college tuition assistance imposed by the Congress and would expand the size and availability of Pell Grants. Five, a bill to roll back tax breaks for large oil companies and invest those savings in alternative fuels to achieve energy independence. Mr. Speaker, every one of these bills will make important changes to help hardworking Americans and their families. These bills should have been enacted a long time ago. But there is still time and opportunity to do something today. All it takes is a ``no'' vote on the previous question. For once, let's do the right thing and help the people we were sent here to serve. Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and the underlying bill. This is a debate about whether we are willing to preserve the fundamental protections our Nation has fought for centuries to maintain. As written, the underlying bill rejects these essential protections in favor of vague assurances and provisions open to interpretation. The potential erosion of our legal safeguards is a serious matter. That is why several members of our armed services raised these concerns when they testified to Congress several weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, certain rights are considered so fundamental to our Nation and to our Constitution that they cannot be sacrificed. The right of every American to have his or her day in court is one such right. But a number of law experts, including Martin Lederman, who worked at the Department of Justice for both President Clinton and President Bush, believe that this legislation would put that right in jeopardy. As written, this legislation could be used by the President as evidence of congressional agreement of a number of his legal assertions. That includes his assertion that holding an American citizen indefinitely without access to a lawyer is legal. From my family's personal experience, I know something about what can happen to the rights of Americans when the executive branch overreaches in a time of war. Restricting the legal rights of our citizens is something which, if done at all, must be done carefully and with a proper balancing of concerns. I know that Members of both Chambers tried to meet that standard with the administration on this legislation, but this proposal fails to achieve that balance. For that reason alone, we should reject this bill. I am also concerned because the history of this legislation fits a pattern we have seen before, one in which officials assert expanded powers while ignoring their career professionals in the process. A few weeks ago, Congress heard from a long line of generals and judge advocates general. Their collective testimony outlined a swift, tough approach to these tribunals that protected our troops, and it did so while preserving our moral authority in the world. This bill disregards their testimony and their expertise. They argued forcefully for detainees to see the evidence presented against them, with some adjustment for classified evidence. They stated that evidence obtained through torture should not be permitted, not only because it is morally offensive but also because it is inherently untrustworthy. They clearly reiterated their position that judicial review must be preserved. And, above all, they argued strenuously that any legislation must affirm the United States' commitment to the Geneva Conventions. They believe this because they know, better than anyone, that these safeguards protect our troops fighting on battlefields around the globe. Unfortunately, Congress did not listen to these experts in military law. Instead, the bill made in order under this closed rule would permit evidence obtained through torture in some cases. The legislation does include a list of certain grave breaches of the law. Beyond those, however, it gives the President the authority to determine what is and what isn't torture as long as he publishes it in the Federal Register first. These provisions undermine our Nation's moral authority, and, once given away, it will be that much harder to earn back. In closing, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is vague when it should be specific; it is casual with regards to important legal protections when it should be vigilant; and it is a fundamentally flawed approach to prosecuting terrorists. I urge all Members to reject this rule and to vote against the underlying bill.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I will proceed to closing. Mr. Speaker, we had a very spirited debate here today, and those in the Chamber here understand that many important things are happening in this world and in this country. We are dealing here also with this conference report, and this conference report made under this rule is a fair and responsible agreement. It does state clearly our support to the troops and our military. As Congress considers the remaining appropriation bills later this year, I would urge my colleagues to follow this example, Democrats and Republicans working together to craft a responsible bill providing for the national defense. This agreement and this working together is all the evidence we need that national security is not a political issue, it is an American issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us makes in order a conference report for the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill. It will be the first conference agreement to pass both Chambers, and it would do so on time. That should be commended. However, the majority leadership has yet to come to an agreement on much else. As a result, the conferees were forced to include a continuing resolution that will keep the Federal Government open for business through November 17. Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement itself is a responsible effort to support our troops in the field. Thanks to the effort of Subcommittee Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha, we will continue to invest in modernizing our military. But, just as important, we will fund the training and equipment our troops need to complete their mission, wherever they are stationed. No one disagrees that the war in Iraq has placed a significant strain on our Armed Forces. An article in yesterday's New York Times describes the situation starkly: ``Other than the 17 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan, only two or three combat brigades in the entire army, perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops, are fully trained and sufficiently equipped to respond quickly to crises, said a senior army general.'' [From the New York Times, Sept. 25, 2006] Unit Makes Do as Army Strives To Plug Gaps (By David S. Cloud) Fort Stewart, GA.--The pressures that the conflict in Iraq is putting on the Army are apparent amid the towering pine trees of southeast Georgia, where the Third Infantry Division is preparing for the likelihood that it will go back to Iraq for a third tour. Col. Tom James, who commands the division's Second Brigade, acknowledged that his unit's equipment levels had fallen so low that it now had no tanks or other armored vehicles to use in training and that his soldiers were rated as largely untrained in attack and defense. The rest of the division, which helped lead the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and conducted the first probes into Baghdad, is moving back to full strength after many months of being a shell of its former self. But at a time when Pentagon officials are saying the Army is stretched so thin that it may be forced to go back on its pledge to limit National Guard deployment overseas, the division's situation is symptomatic of how the shortages are playing out on the ground. The enormous strains on equipment and personnel, because of longer-than-expected deployments, have left active Army units with little combat power in reserve. The Second Brigade, for example, has only half of the roughly 3,500 soldiers it is supposed to have. The unit trains on computer simulators, meant to recreate the experience of firing a tank's main gun or driving in a convoy under attack. ``It's a good tool before you get the equipment you need,'' Colonel James said. But a few years ago, he said, having a combat brigade in a mechanized infantry division at such a low state of readiness would have been ``unheard of.'' Other than the 17 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan, only two or three combat brigades in the entire Army--perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops--are fully trained and sufficiently equipped to respond quickly to crises, said a senior Army general. Most other units of the active-duty Army, which is growing to 42 brigades, are resting or being refitted at their home bases. But even that cycle, which is supposed to take two years, is being compressed to a year or less because of the need to prepare units quickly to return to Iraq. After coming from Iraq in 2003, the Third Infantry Division was sent back in 2005. Then, within weeks of returning home last January, it was told by the Army that one of its four brigades had to be ready to go back again, this time in only 11 months. The three other brigades would have to be ready by mid-2007, Army planners said. Yet almost all of the division's equipment had been left in Iraq for their replacements, and thousands of its soldiers left the Army or were reassigned shortly after coming home, leaving the division largely hollow. Most senior officers were replaced in June. In addition to preparing for Iraq, the Army assigned the division other missions it had to be ready to execute, including responding to hurricanes and other natural disasters and deploying to Korea if conflict broke out there. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, who took command in June, says officials at Army headquarters ask him every month how ready his division is to handle a crisis in Korea. The answer, General Lynch says, is that he is getting there. Since this summer, 1,000 soldiers a month have been arriving at Fort Stewart, 400 of them just out of basic training. As a result, the First and Third Brigades are now at or near their authorized troop strength, but many of the soldiers are raw. The two brigades started receiving tanks and other equipment to begin training in the field only in the last month, leaving the division only partly able to respond immediately if called to Korea, General Lynch said. ``I'm confident two of the four brigade combat teams would say, `O.K., let's go,' '' General Lynch said in an interview. ``The Second and Fourth Brigades would say, `O.K., boss, but we've got no equipment. What are we going to use?' So we'd have to figure out where we're going to draw their equipment.'' Meanwhile, the division is also preparing for deployment to Iraq on an abbreviated timeline. The brief time at home does not sit well with some soldiers. Specialist George Patterson, who reenlisted after returning from Iraq in January, said last week that he was surprised to learn he could end up being home with his wife and daughter for only a year. ``I knew I would be going back,'' Specialist Patterson said. ``Did I think I would leave and go back in the same year? No. It kind of stinks.'' Instead of allowing more than a year to prepare to deploy, the First Brigade training schedule has been squeezed into only a few months, so the brigade can be ready to deploy as ordered by early December. Though the unit has not yet been formally designated for Iraq, most soldiers say there is little doubt they are headed there early next year. Some combat-skills training not likely to be used in Iraq has been shortened substantially, said Col. John Charlton, the brigade commander. ``It's about taking all the requirements and compressing them, which is a challenge,'' he said. The timetable also leaves officers and their soldiers less time to form close relationships that can be vital, several officers said. And soldiers have less time to learn their weapons systems. Many of the major weapons systems, like artillery and even tanks, are unlikely to be used frequently in a counterinsurgency fight like Iraq. The division has only a few dozen fully armored Humvees for training because most of the vehicles are in use in Iraq. Nor does it have all the tanks and trucks it is supposed to have when at full strength. ``There is enough equipment, and I would almost say just enough equipment,'' said Lt. Col. Sean Morrissey, the division's logistics officer. ``We're accustomed to, `I need 100 trucks. Where's my hundred trucks?' Well, we're nowhere near that.'' Last week, in training areas deep in the Fort Stewart woods, First Brigade soldiers were still learning to use other systems important in Iraq, like unmanned aerial vehicles, which are used for conducting surveillance. Standing at a training airfield with three of the aircraft nearby, Sgt. Mark Melbourne, the senior noncommissioned officer for the brigade's unmanned aerial vehicles platoon, said only 6 of the brigade's 15 operators had qualified so far in operating the aircraft from a ground station. All of them are supposed to be qualified by next month, but the training has been slowed by frequent rain, Sergeant Melbourne said. This week, the First Brigade began a full-scale mission rehearsal for Iraq. Normally, armored units preparing for Iraq are sent to Fort Irwin, Calif., for such training, but transporting a brigade's worth of equipment and soldiers there takes a month, which the schedule would not permit. So the trainers and Arabic-speaking role players, who will simulate conditions the unit is likely to encounter in Iraq, were brought here to conduct the three-week exercise in a Georgia pine forest, rather than in the California desert. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the conferees recognize this growing crisis in the military and took steps to mitigate it. Specifically, the conference agreement provides $20 billion in additional funds to ensure that the needs of the Army and the Marine Corps for fiscal year 2007 are fully funded. This agreement also includes forward-thinking provisions. Ranking Member Murtha included language in the House bill prohibiting permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. I was pleased to join many of my colleagues in supporting that language. I appreciate that conferees preserved and strengthened this policy in the final agreement. Quite simply, intentions matter. And clarity in the United States' intentions is needed more so in Iraq than anywhere else. There are many other smart provisions included in this agreement. The bill includes a 2.2 percent pay increase for all members of the Armed Forces. It increases mental health and posttraumatic stress syndrome research, and it provides funds for the replacement of National Guard and Reserve equipment lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, finally, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this agreement for the simple fact that it is on time. Conferees worked together over several weeks to produce a very balanced conference agreement. It should be a model for the work Congress still has to do. With only a few days remaining in this fiscal year, not a single appropriations bill has been signed into law. This is not new. In the last 5 years, only six of the 68 appropriations bills were finished on time. Some may try to shift blame to the other Chamber, but the majority has no one to blame but itself. Again, I turn to another article in yesterday's New York Times, which summarizes the situation quite clearly: ``While Republicans prefer to blame Democrats for the backlog, intramural fights and sharp differences between House and Senate Republicans have been chief impediments to major legislation.'' [From the International Herald Tribune, Sept. 25, 2006] Congress Winds Down, With Much Business Unfinished (By Carl Hulse) Washington.--A Congress derided as do-nothing has a week to do something, and the prospects are cloudy. Procrastination, power struggles and partisanship have left Congress with substantial work to finish before taking a break at the end of the week for the midterm elections. The fast-approaching recess and the Republican focus on national security legislation make it inevitable that much of the remainder will fall by the wayside. At best, it appears that only two of the 11 required spending bills will pass, and not one has been approved so far, forcing a stopgap measure to keep the federal government open. No budget was enacted. A popular package of business and education tax credits is teetering. A lobbying overhaul, once a top priority in view of corruption scandals, is dead. The drive for broad immigration changes has derailed. An offshore oil drilling bill, painted as an answer to high gas prices, is stalled. Plans to cut the estate tax and raise the minimum wage have foundered, and an important nuclear pact with India sought by the White House is not on track to clear Congress. New problems surfaced over the weekend for the annual military authorization bill. And numerous other initiatives await a planned lame-duck session in mid-November or a future Congress. ``It is disappointing where we are, and I think Republicans need to be upfront about this,'' said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia and a member of the House leadership. ``We have not accomplished what we need to accomplish.'' Given the practical and political realities, Republicans have chosen to concentrate on legislation emphasizing their security credentials, like the bill governing interrogations and trials of terrorism detainees, a National Security Agency surveillance program and spending on the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security. ``With obstruction from the Democrats at an all-time high, we have focused on four security issues in an effort to enact some solid, substantive accomplishments,'' said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, who is stepping down at the end of this session. While Republicans prefer to blame Democrats for the backlog, intramural fights and sharp differences between House and Senate Republicans have been chief impediments to major legislation. The fissures over terrorism detainees and how far to go in changing immigration law are merely the latest and most public examples of serious policy differences among Republicans. Circumstances have changed in Washington from the days when Republicans were famous for party discipline. President George W. Bush, weakened by his sliding popularity, has been unable to hold sway over Congress. The Republican leadership in the House and the Senate is in transition and lacks the muscle of the former House majority leader, Tom DeLay. Republican lawmakers, many facing their most serious electoral opposition in years, are fending for themselves. ``We have no central core of political authority driving things in Washington,'' said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. ``Individuals and expressions of individual will by committees, and also by strong people like John McCain, have dominated, and the result is internal fighting.'' Democrats have made no secret of their intention to try to brand this Congress as worse than lackluster. ``When we say this is the most do-nothing Congress in the history of our country, this isn't just flippant,'' said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. ``This is true.'' Besides denouncing the legislative output, Democrats are mounting an effort to chastise Republicans as failing to conduct sufficient oversight of the Iraq war. Republican leaders dispute the notion that this has been an unproductive session, pointing to legislation on bankruptcy, class action, highway spending, energy policy and pensions, as well as to two Supreme Court confirmations. And they say they already plan to be back Nov. 13 to finish whatever remains at the end of the week. Democrats have been happy throughout the year to stand almost united in both the House and the Senate against many of the Republican initiatives, forcing the majority to find enough votes to pass legislation from its own membership. That has often forced major concessions from the leadership. In other cases, Republicans in the House and the Senate have simply been unable to find common ground. ``In the 26 years I have been here,'' said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, ``I don't think I have ever seen so much tension between the House and the Senate, and it is all among Republicans.'' The immigration measure was a notable example as House Republicans refused to entertain the bipartisan Senate bill that took a comprehensive approach to the flood of illegal immigrants. A push for a formal budget plan collapsed because of differences over spending between House and Senate Republicans. A House-Senate Republican feud over the handling of a pension measure, which ultimately passed, left a collection of tax breaks in limbo despite nearly unanimous support in Congress. Those tax benefits included a deduction for college tuition costs and a research and development tax credit for businesses. The leadership has been reluctant to bring the benefits to a vote independently because they could be used to help advance more contentious legislation, like the cut in the estate tax sought by Republicans. A new struggle between rank-and-file Republicans and the leadership threatens to engulf the must-pass spending measure for domestic security. Lawmakers were insisting that a provision allowing Americans to bring back cheaper prescription drugs from Canada be added to the bill even though House leaders and the pharmaceutical industry oppose the Plan. Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress has had fewer voting days than almost any other Congress in history. We have lost precious weeks on politics as we debated bills that would never become law; and, as a result, Congress will leave Washington this week with many of the American people's priorities unfinished. There will be no lobbying reform, no comprehensive immigration reform. Congress will have ignored the millions of seniors stuck in the prescription drug benefit doughnut hole. As I said last year when I also managed a prior continuing resolution, this Congress needs new and better priorities. Until then, delays will continue and deadlines will be missed and we will end up here every year with last-minute solutions to keep the Federal Government open for business. In closing, Mr. Speaker, the conference report made in order under this rule affirms our support for the men and women of the United States military. I commend the conferees for their work, especially Subcommittee Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha. They made great progress in a short time by working together. I would challenge the rest of my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, while this bill is entitled the Federal Election Integrity Act, that is highly deceptive. Make no mistake; there is no integrity in trying to deny thousands of legal voters their right to vote. Voting is a sacred right. A right that, unfortunately, seems to be under attack in this Congress. It was barely two months ago that this body voted on a bipartisan basis to reauthorize crucial provisions of the Voting Rights Act--the nation's most effective mechanism for protecting minority voting rights. But now, as we debate H.R. 4844, that vote seems disingenuous. H.R. 4844 is a misguided approach that would add unnecessary obstacles to the voting process. Congress should not be in the practice of disenfranchising voters under the guise of protecting the right to vote. Unfortunately, that's precisely what this bill would do. This legislation is quite likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court. As recently as yesterday, state photo ID laws were found to be unconstitutional. This is because photo ID laws disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, people with disabilities, rural voters, students, the homeless, low-income people, and frequent movers. Many of our constituents would be at risk of not being able to vote because they do not have the time, money or ability to obtain their birth certificates or their passports. And let us not forget the hundreds of thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims, now dispersed across the country, who lost their birth certificates in the muddy waters left by the hurricane. Since consideration of this bill began, many of our colleagues have shared their own personal stories of not being able to obtain their birth certificates, or being turned away at the voting booth. The same is true for one of my constituents in Sacramento who contacted me because he was experiencing difficulty proving he was an American citizen. Adopted as a child by a member of the Armed Forces, the crux of the problem centered around the fact that his adopted father was born in the south and did not have a birth certificate. If this legislation were in place, my constituent may have been turned away at the polls. That is unforgivable and it is unconstitutional. I am sure this is just one example of many. What's even more alarming is that we are debating a bill that seeks to rectify a problem that hardly exists. Worse still, there are already laws on the books to address this very issue. Instead of just enforcing those laws, this bill is an attempt to scare voters by inferring that illegal immigrants and others in our country are misrepresenting their identity when they go to vote. The truth is that there is little proof of that. What we do have proof of are the problems with our voting system. That's what Congress should be working on now. We need to be working on laws that ensure that our voting machines are not susceptible to tampering and that those machines have a paper trail--laws that ensure every vote is counted. That is what my constituents are writing to me in the hundreds about. They are distrustful of the voting machines and with good reason. Just last week, a professor at Princeton hacked into a Diebold e-voting machine. Clearly our voting machines are vulnerable to malicious attacks and potential voter fraud. Rather than address these serious concerns before a major election, this Congress has decided to take up a bill that seeks to limit the rights of legal voters. Congress must work on ways to encourage voter participation, not create undue obstacles to vote. I urge Members to vote against this denial of voting rights.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, one year after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it is clear that more needs to be done to protect and prepare homeowners from future catastrophic flooding. Which is why I have introduced the ``Flood Insurance Community Outreach Grant Program Act of 2006.'' The intent of this legislation is to increase the overall participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) while moving the program toward long-term stability and solvency. My legislation will forge a stronger partnership between the federal government and local floodplain managers. It will: Create a grant program within FEMA to educate property owners about their flood risk and about the importance of flood insurance; and Funds this grant program at $50 million dollars annually over five years. People at risk of flooding need to know their options and our local floodplain managers are our best partners in this effort. To put it quite simply, with 20,000 participating communities in NFIP--one size does not fit all. Our local partners know the risks, they know the landscape and in many cases they know the people. They know how to reach out to the people in their flood plain. They can focus on the estimated 20 to 25 percent of property owners who have fallen through the cracks of our flood insurance system. People who are supposed to carry flood insurance, but do not carry it. Or use the money for an educational campaign directed towards people living in areas protected by levees, but not subject to the federal flood insurance requirement. Spreading the message: Levees can fail or overtop in severe weather. So it is common sense to carry flood insurance, even if the federal government no longer requires it. This program can work. Last year, with the support of a $162,000 FEMA grant, my local flood protection body, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), conducted just such a flood insurance outreach initiative. SAFCA reached out to more than 45,000 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policyholders in the American River floodplain. In February 2005, this densely populated region was released from the Federal flood insurance requirement. SAFCA's efforts yielded impressive results. More than one year after SAFCA conducted outreach, 74 percent of the 45,000 NFIP policyholders who were removed from the Federal requirement had maintained their flood insurance protection. Of this group, 43 percent now carry Preferred Risk flood insurance. Preferred Risk Policies provide property owners, who have been released from the federal requirement, but remain at risk of flooding, with full flood insurance protection for about half the price of a Standard flood policy. Because of their lower cost, it is likely that these Preferred Risk Policies will result in a higher level of policy retention over time. Through this partnership with SAFCA, FEMA was able to retain a high number of flood insurance policies in the Sacramento region--a region that accounts for nearly 1 in 4 of all flood insurance policies in California. Increasing the number of people who carry and hold on to their flood insurance will only strengthen the National Flood Insurance Program. And as Katrina made painfully clear: We need a strong and functional program to be there for our constituents in times of crisis. While this grant program would be funded at $50 million annually and authorized for 5 years, I want to emphasize that this grant program has an excellent return on its investment. For FEMA to recoup its initial grant to SAFCA, 550 Preferred Risk Policies had to be sold to property owners who otherwise would have canceled their flood insurance. SAFCA accomplished this . . . more than 20 times over. Because of the FEMA and SAFCA partnership, more than 35,000 property owners who did not have to carry flood insurance stayed in the federal flood insurance pool. What is more, nearly 13,000 policyholders in the American River floodplain switched to Preferred Risk Policies. In short, FEMA got its money's worth. And this says nothing of the Sacramento premiums that will continue to come into the Federal flood insurance pool each year these policyholders maintain their flood insurance. Again, most of these policyholders no longer have to buy flood insurance. They do so because it is the safe thing to do. Because SAFCA has alerted them to the ongoing flood risk in their community. And because they saw what happened on the Gulf Coast. If we can have this type of success in Sacramento, I am confident it can be replicated across the country. These local outreach efforts will augment and benefit FEMA's existing marketing program by targeting property owners who are most likely to leave the NFIP--those who have been or will be released from the Federal flood insurance requirement. The lesson learned here is that people whose houses, apartments and businesses are vulnerable to flooding are willing to enter and stay in the National Flood Insurance Program when they are informed of the risk they face and the options available to them. Let me be clear; I speak from experience. When it comes to flood risk, my district of Sacramento is the most at-risk river city in the Nation. My highest priority is to provide the city of Sacramento, my neighbors and my constituents with the best flood protection possible. We are making strides in strengthening and reinforcing the levees in Sacramento and making improvements to Folsom Dam--but whenever I talk about these efforts, I remind my constituents, ``If you live behind a levee, you should purchase flood insurance.'' Finally, I am encouraged by the efforts we are making as a Nation to develop a comprehensive flood protection agenda. FEMA is in the process of implementing their Map Modernization Program that will update our Nation's flood maps. Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a national levee inventory. When completed, this inventory will provide communities with a greater understanding of their flooding vulnerabilities. It will also provide us with a good indication as a country as to what long-term investments need to be made toward our flood protection infrastructure. Both the FEMA Remapping Initiative and the levee inventory are important to the long-term safety and economic security of our country. The ``Flood Insurance Community Outreach Grant Program Act of 2006'' would be an excellent resource for communities to augment these initiatives. This bill is a step in the right direction in providing for comprehensive flood protection for property owners and communities. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding real reform of Congress. This bill isn't it. The second session of the 109th Congress began with Members on both sides of the aisle deeply concerned that the dignity of this great institution had been tarnished. Newspapers across the country ran stories almost every day about the illegal practices of well-connected lobbyists. Stories discussed the ways in which unethical conduct had become the cost of doing business in Congress. We read about the K Street Project. We read about legislation written in secret by lobbyists and about back-room deals to benefit narrow special interests. Editorial boards from all 50 States called for reform. In May, the House passed a fundamentally flawed approach to reform. It included some new restrictions on lobbyists, yes, but we showed no willingness to demand reform of ourselves. That sent a terrible message to our constituents. There is a better approach. I have joined many of my colleagues as a cosponsor of the Honest Leadership Open Government Act. It injects transparency and accountability into Congress itself. There would be no more K Street Project. There would be no more meals or gifts from lobbyists. No more travel on corporate jets. And it would ensure better legislation. Members would be guaranteed 24 hours to read a bill before voting on it. And we would end the common practice of last-minute provisions slipped into conference reports. The majority is interested in none of this. The legislation was rejected in May along party lines. And since then, the House has not shown any interest in moving ahead with any meaningful reform. So here we are in the waning days of the 109th Congress debating only a narrow earmark reform resolution full of exceptions and unlikely to pass. Every Member of this House knows that this bill is not what the American people demanded of us at the beginning of the year. Certainly, this resolution will not restore the integrity of the institution in which we serve. Mr. Speaker, the American people want real reform. They will not be fooled by fig leaves. We still have time to act in a unified fashion to restore the dignity of this House. Unfortunately, this resolution falls far short of that necessary effort.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Members to support the rule and the underlying bill. Congress should do the right thing for America's horses by ending the cruel practice of horse slaughter. But, Mr. Speaker, there are a larger set of priorities which must be addressed. The American worker deserves an increase in the minimum wage, and our Nation's seniors deserve lower prescription drug prices. Almost 5 years after September 11, failing to secure America's ports and airports is unconscionable. Democrats are committed to staying here until these priorities are accomplished. I would urge all my colleagues to join us in this effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the rule before the House would make in order H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This bill has the support of 203 bipartisan co-sponsors, myself included. Passing this bill will end the cruel and barbaric practice of horse slaughter. It will ensure that horses are treated humanely up until their deaths, which is a goal that both supporters and opponents of the legislation can support. It will also improve conditions for living horses. In my home State of California, for example, we have experienced no increase in cases of horse abuse or neglect since we banned their slaughter in 1998. Horse theft cases in California have declined by 35 percent since then as well. Simply put, horses are an integral part of our country's culture and history. They do not deserve to be slaughtered in the brutal conditions which they must currently endure before death. American horses deserve better treatment. But the American people deserve better treatment as well. Unfortunately, the Republican majority in Congress appears focused exclusively on issues which do little to improve the lives of Americans. A few days ago, we celebrated Labor Day. Yet it is clear that people who work for a living have very little to celebrate. The minimum wage remains unchanged. Our constituents face ever-rising energy prices. Seniors continue to be burdened with high costs for prescription drugs. College graduates are saddled with debt. Other young people cannot afford to attend college at all. And nearly 5 years to the day after September 11, our Nation is still not secure. These are some of the pressing and critical problems the American people deal with on a daily basis. Congress could easily devote an entire week to each issue, and yet we find ourselves procrastinating. Instead of addressing these challenges that confront our constituents, real issues that impact real people, the majority has chosen to authorize commemorative coins. This Congress cannot bring itself to allow a clean vote to help hardworking Americans by raising the minimum wage, though not for lack of Democratic proposals to do so. My colleague, Congressman George Miller, has introduced a bill that will raise the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade, and Congressman Hoyer's amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill will do the same. Unfortunately, these sensible proposals to give working families a boost have either been stalled by the Republican leadership or loaded with poison pills to ensure that Americans go yet another year without a minimum wage increase. We owe it to the hardworking voters who send us to Washington to increase the minimum wage before we adjourn. Instead, the leadership has turned our attention to horses. The majority also refuses to take action to combat skyrocketing energy costs. Democrats have advocated for an innovative and strategic national energy policy, one which rolls back tax breaks for oil companies and invests the savings in alternative fuel sources. Not only will such action lower energy costs over the long term, but it will also help our Nation break our dependence on foreign oil. The American people deserve an energy policy that is responsible, innovative, and independent. Dozens of promising proposals for such a policy have been introduced, proposals which could be brought to the floor today. However, the leadership has decided instead to use one of our few remaining legislative days to debate horses. Even before this energy crisis, the steady rise in health costs threatened to drive many middle-class families out of our health care system altogether. Most of the 3 million people who have lost health coverage since 2002 make over $50,000 per year, and some make over $75,000 per year. This figure is frightening, for it indicates that high insurance costs are affecting more and more Americans. Additionally, seniors have already begun to hit the ``doughnut hole'' in the Medicare prescription drug program, which has forced them to bear thousands of dollars in unexpected costs. The Democratic plan for the future gives the Federal Government the freedom to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. It also provides millions of American families with urgently needed health insurance. We owe it to our constituents to reform the health care system to make it more affordable before we adjourn. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this Congress has done little to help American seniors. Sadly, younger Americans have not fared much better. The Republican leadership has left our Nation's students saddled with ever-growing amounts of student loan debt. Democrats have offered a new direction for higher education, centered on expanding Pell grants and restoring the $12 billion in cuts to student aid which Republicans passed earlier this year. This will ease the debt burden for recent graduates and put the dream of a college education within reach for more young Americans. We owe it to our students and to the families who support them to increase tuition assistance before we adjourn. However, the leadership has ignored this opportunity to make higher education accessible and affordable. Instead, the majority has decided to take another long weekend, with no votes scheduled on Monday or Friday. As we can see, the list of misplaced priorities in the 109th Congress is long. However, perhaps none is as disappointing or as dangerous as Congress's refusal to secure our homeland. The majority has refused to fully implement all the recommendations of the September 11 commission. In doing so, it has left unnecessary holes in national security and has failed to fulfill its primary responsibility to ensure America's safety. Before we adjourn for the year, Congress must secure our borders, and we must do more to protect our ports and airports. Democrats have offered legislation to do so, legislation which will also provide our first responders with the resources they need to respond to a terrorist attack or other national emergency. These proposals to protect American lives and families are on the table, and Democrats stand ready to pass them with the help of our Republican colleagues. And yet as we return from a month-long break, we have been presented with a paper-thin legislative agenda. This week's schedule illustrates how out of touch this Chamber's leadership is from American families and the problems they face every day. As a result, on the floor of the House of Representatives this week, we will focus on improving the welfare of America's horses. What we should be doing is improving the welfare of America's people. My Democratic colleagues and I have offered a new direction, a plan to raise the minimum wage, ease our reliance on foreign energy sources, lower prescription drug prices, make college more affordable, and strengthen our Nation's security to combat terrorists. We will continue to fight to pass this package of urgent national legislation, and we await the cooperation of Republican colleagues to do so. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, before we begin this debate, I urge each Member to ask themselves, why did you first seek election to this House? It is my hope that it is similar to my reason: to represent my hometown, to craft laws and policies that will serve the best interests of the families and businesses of that community, and to ensure that the world we leave behind is better than the world you and I inherited. Of late, I think Congress has forgotten that. When I compare the laundry list of items important to my constituents and the American people to what Congress is doing, a disconnect is apparent. An overwhelming majority of Americans think it is long past due to increase the minimum wage. Over the past 6 years, this Congress has done little, if anything, to help those earning the minimum wage and the families who depend on them. The buying power of the minimum wage is now at its lowest point in 57 years. At the same time, the cost of key necessities like health care, education, and gas have been rising faster than inflation. Yet during the past 8 years, Members of Congress have raised their own pay seven times by nearly $30,000. In those same years, minimum-wage workers have not gotten a single raise. They continue to earn an average of $10,700 a year. Raising the minimum wage is a real tangible policy decision to significantly help 7.5 million Americans who this Congress has virtually ignored. We can make this choice only by allowing an up-or- down vote on Congressman Miller's bipartisan bill. This bill would gradually raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour. Since February, nearly 200 Members have signed the petition that would force and up-or-down vote on this measure, and that is what we should have today. The only reason we have not had a vote on it is because of the Republican leadership. They resisted the will of the American people and a bipartisan coalition of Members. And now that the minimum wage increase will finally be debated by the House, it has once again been loaded down with poison pills. If the Republican leadership really cared about raising the minimum wage, they would not have waited until the eleventh hour before the House leaves for recess. This is a transparent election-year ploy. I am confident the American people will see it for what it is. When a party holds three votes to roll back the estate tax, but refuses to allow a clean vote on the minimum wage, it is clear where its priorities are. While raising the minimum wage will help millions of Americans, the estate measure will primarily benefit just 7,500 families. Looking at the majority's record, we should not be surprised. There is the series of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest among us, the massively flawed Medicare prescription drug benefit and subsidies for oil and gas companies. But for those in the middle class and working families, there is not much to talk about, nothing to help get access to decent health care or build on the promise of stem cell research, or lower the price of gas or make college more affordable. At the end of today, the majority certainly cannot claim to have made a good faith effort to raise the minimum wage. And that is truly a shame, because you have squandered an opportunity to help the constituents that need your help the most.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress recognizes the importance of health information technology. It holds the potential to save lives by reducing medical errors, and it can make our health care system more efficient by providing better care while keeping costs down. In short, we could revolutionize the way our health care is delivered. What exactly is the potential? Physicians could have access to every relevant part of a patient's medical history at the precise moment a life-or-death decision needs to be made. It is the tens of thousands of lives saved because of fewer medical errors. It means the newest ``Physicians Desks Reference'' and the most cutting-edge medical research on a hand-held device that a doctor can have at the patient's bedside. This is not pie-in-the-sky ambition. Some health care leaders have already begun to adopt these ideas with great success. In the year 2000, the Veterans Administration implemented the most advanced electronic medical records system in the United States. A recent article in Business Week noted that ``while studies show that 3 to 8 percent of the Nation's prescriptions are filed erroneously, the VA's prescription accuracy rate is greater than 99.99 percent, a level most hospitals only dream about.'' It should not be surprising that while many patients lost their paper medical records in the terrible aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, veterans did not. Veterans living in New Orleans were able to access their medical records at other VA hospitals because of health information technology. Another example comes from my hometown of Sacramento. The UC Davis Medical Center has a world-renowned telemedicine program which connects patients in 80 rural areas across California to an immense amount of specialty care in Sacramento. Let me tell you the story of Levi, a child who lives on a ranch in a nine-person town 60 miles north of Sacramento. After accidentally suffering third-degree burns on his leg, his parents took him to the closest hospital. Because of UC Davis's telemedicine program, Levi was treated by one of the few pediatric burn specialists in this country remotely from Sacramento. Information technology could make this amazing program even better. Widespread adoption of this technology would enhance this expert advice by allowing the rural doctor to send Levi's medical history to the specialists at UC Davis instantly. UC Davis has begun to implement electronic medical records, but many of these outlying areas cannot afford this technology without seed money. That is the goal of establishing a national health information infrastructure. But we know such a comprehensive program isn't cheap. It could cost individual hospitals several million dollars and individual physicians $20,000 or $30,000 apiece. So the issue needs more than Federal guidelines. It needs Federal financial support, seed money in a sense. Unfortunately, the bill we will debate today falls far short. It provides only $40 million in Federal grants. In a $1.3 trillion health care system, this does not even scratch the service. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, says the bill, as written, will do almost nothing to encourage health information technology. According to their analysis, it will not significantly influence the rate at which health information technology is adopted, nor will it ensure better quality technology. Democrats have proposed a more effective proposal, backed by Federal seed money, just like the bipartisan Senate bill does. We would also add new privacy laws to strengthen patient protections. This would prepare us for the health information age. It would require patients to give their consent before their health information could be shared with other people. It also requires data encryption to protect these health information networks from hackers. It sides with patients by making sure that everyone, every individual and every health entity, complies with privacy protections. Unfortunately, late last night the Rules Committee denied the House the opportunity to debate the Democratic alternative on the floor. As a result, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question and defeat this rule. Mr. Speaker, information technology will bring our Nation's health care system tremendous benefits, but the devil is often in the details. This technology will not install itself. It will spread only with the right kind of Federal leadership. So, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute and support the responsible approach to national health information technology. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.