Doris Matsui

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. MATSUI. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill is critical to our warfighters, to our national security, and to our long- term strategic interests. It reaffirms the unwavering commitment all Members have for Armed Forces now more than ever. Once again, I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha for their hard work in crafting an excellent bill that will allow our Nation to achieve these goals. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. I am prepared to close. Thank you.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I would like to inquire of the gentleman whether he has any additional speakers.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, passage of H. Res. 877 will allow the House to consider the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill under an open rule. I would like to thank subcommittee Chair Young and my good friend Ranking Member Murtha for their hard work to craft a responsible bill for consideration by this House. It provides robust support to our troops stationed in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe. In particular, I would highlight the increased funding to test new jammers for IEDs and additional funds for troop body armor and Humvees. Importantly, the bill also focuses significant resources toward rebuilding our military. This includes addressing the strain placed on our National Guard. Wisely, the committee provided funding to maintain the Guard's current force size. In addition, they provided critical resources to ensure these men and women have equipment necessary to accomplish their mission. I appreciate the committee's intense focus to mitigate the effect Iraq has had on eroding our military readiness. I would like to highlight a few provisions which I feel are particularly forward-thinking. Many Members, including myself, felt that the House missed an opportunity last week to engage in substantive debate with regard to our policies toward Iraq. For that reason, I am very pleased that this bill contains a real policy proposal. It clearly states that it is not the intent of the United States to build permanent bases in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, intentions matter. For too long this House has passed on opportunities to clarify our intentions in Iraq. Not only is such a statement in the best interest of our troops, but it is critical if we are to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. I would like to commend Mr. Murtha for his leadership in bringing this issue to the House for consideration. This bill also begins to bring funding for the Iraq war into the regular budget process. Since the start of the war, the majority leadership has been engaged in a shell game. We pass budget resolutions that pretend we are not at war, and in doing so, we ignore the idea of shared sacrifice. Only a select few are paying for the costs of this war, the men and women in uniform and their families, and those who rely on critical domestic programs which have been cut to finance the war. Let us admit we have lost the principle of shared sacrifice. This bill will be a first step toward again embracing that idea. Commend the subcommittee for returning to this path. In closing, Mr. Speaker, the bill made in order under this rule reaffirms our ironclad support for our men and women in uniform in two fundamental ways. This legislation upholds our part of a solemn pact to provide our Armed Forces with everything they require, and it fulfills our duty to act responsibly in our Nation's interests. I commend the committee for achieving both goals in one bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jack Wagner, the clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. This week, Jack will retire from a truly distinguished career of public service that spanned over thirty years. As his friends, family and colleagues gather to celebrate his career, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the dedicated service of one of the federal court system's long-time public servants. Jack began his career of service to the courts in 1972 in Toledo, Ohio, with the Lucas County Common Pleas Court. From there he was named Clerk of the U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and later the Clerk of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles. In the summer of 1990 the judges of the Eastern District of California selected Jack to join their team as Clerk of the Court. For 16 years Jack has successfully administered the 6 District Court offices that stretch from Bakersfield to Redding which make up California's Eastern District. During his tenure, he has overseen the construction of two new beautiful courthouses in Sacramento and Fresno. He was deeply involved in the planning, design and construction of each building, both of which now stand tall as proud symbols in the Central Valley's skyline. Jack's work on the Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse won a Design Award from the General Services Administration and Bob surely is proud to have his name on such a beautiful building. In 1998, Jack was a recipient of the Director's Awards for Outstanding Leadership from Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The award paid tribute to his efforts in developing the Capital Construction Training Program that he co-created with Bruce Rifkin. This program grew out of his work as a member of the Capital Construction Committee and has helped train court personnel from across the country on how to successfully plan and build new courthouses. This innovative program encourages effective partnerships in court construction projects with a goal of reducing cost overruns. Jack has also worked closely with the U.S. Court's Administrative Office and taken a leadership role in the court's community. In the early 1990's he was a member of the Standing Committee on Gender, Race, Religious and Ethnic Fairness. Through this committee he contributed greatly to the Early Dispute Resolution Plan adopted throughout the circuit in 1999. As he prepares to leave his position with the U.S. District Court, Jack leaves behind a legacy of strong leadership. I and my staff have had the honor and privilege of working with Jack in the Sacramento Courthouse and know the judges of the Eastern District appreciate his hard work and dedication. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to one of Sacramento's most distinguished citizens, Jack Wagner. As his wife Milani, his children and friends gather to welcome him into retirement I ask all my colleagues to join me in wishing Jack, continued success in his future endeavors.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is long overdue. For the past 3 years, the United States has had a military presence in Iraq. In fact, when the authorization for war in Iraq was authorized, I was not a member of this body. Yet this is the first extensive public debate Congress will have had on the most important issue of the day. Even now, however, the rule put forth by the House leadership asks Members a simplistic question: Do you accept or renounce the President's vague appeal to stay the course and be patient? Such a narrow focus does a disservice to our role as representatives of the people. The American people want to hear practical, well-thought-out ideas from their elected representatives. Today we could have had that honest, engaged and realistic debate. I had hoped to discuss the reality of Iraq right now and how we may best help a political solution to emerge. This isn't a debate we should be afraid of. We can have this debate and can have it respectfully. But the House Republican leadership has decided to pass on this opportunity. What should we be debating? I believe there are several things upon which all Members can agree, Republican and Democratic alike. The first is that the United States has no desire to control Iraq's oil supply. The second is that we will not build permanent bases in Iraq. Taken together, these statements say clearly to the Iraqi people that the United States presence in Iraq is not permanent. And it says clearly to the administration that our strategy in Iraq must reflect the fact that we will not be there forever. But, Mr. Speaker, the focus of this House must move beyond these specific details and rapidly toward our broader policies on Iraq. We all want a free, stable and prosperous Iraq, and we have an important diplomatic role to play. But ultimately, it is up to the Iraqis to achieve those goals through the political process. The United States should continue to offer support for Iraqi security forces; and regardless of our troop deployment, the United States must maintain its responsibility to assist in rebuilding the country's economy and infrastructure. But beginning to draw down troops stationed in Iraq can be done while keeping all of these goals in mind. I respect several redeployment proposals put forth by Members of this body for those reasons. The President's exhortations to ``stay the course'' remain disconnected from the reality on the ground and from a sincere engagement on the policy details. In contrast, the proposals put forth by several Members of the House were developed after much thought. The Members struggled to mold the chaos in Iraq into a workable solution that upholds the best interests of the Iraqi people and that of the American people. These proposals and ideas deserve to come to the floor. They deserve to be debated, and they deserve a vote. Unfortunately, under the rule reported out, this will not happen. Instead, we will have a gripping session that yields no results. Congress is part of this government. In fulfillment of its responsibilities, this House should reject this rule and bring real policy to the floor.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in tribute to Jim McClatchy, a legend within the newspaper business who helped set the standards for journalism in northern California and across the globe. As his family and friends gather to honor and remember his life at a funeral service next week, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Jim McClatchy for his service to our Nation, to journalism and to the Sacramento community. The son of C.K. and Phebe McClatchy, Jim McClatchy was born into a family steeped in journalistic tradition. Early on it was clear he would follow his great-grandfather, grandfather and father into the newspaper business. His studies at Stanford University were interrupted by World War II where Jim served our Nation in the Army Air Corps. Jim returned from World War II, completed his Stanford education and went on to earn a Master's in Journalism from Columbia University. Jim made his mark as a hard-working reporter with both the Sacramento Bee and the Fresno Bee. Early in his career, he covered subjects ranging from State politics to education and advanced through the ranks to the Bee's Washington Bureau where he covered the 1956 presidential election and Congress. While serving the public as a reporter, Jim continued to serve our Nation in the Army Reserves and was called to duty during the Korean War. In 1980, Jim became Chairman of the Board of McClatchy Newspapers and in 1987 he was elevated to Publisher. He served on the company's board until his retirement in 2004. Throughout his tenure, McClatchy newspapers received numerous Pulitzer Prizes, advancing the family's commitment to excellence in journalism. Jim's commitment extended beyond Sacramento and the McClatchy family of papers to strengthening the international free press. Jim worked with the Inter American Press Association in 1994 to help write the Declaration of Chapultepec, a document that established the role of a free press in democratic societies. Dozens of heads of state signed the Declaration of Chapultepec, including President Clinton. Closer to home, Jim was instrumental in actively planning the Central Valley's future. He led the drive to create Valley Vision, a non-profit that facilitates discussions to solve regional problems. Jim also created an endowment in the name of his mother to support the classics and bilingual education at California State University, Fresno, where he received an honorary doctorate just weeks before his passing. Mr. Speaker, as Jim McClatchy's family, friends and colleagues gather to honor his legacy, I am privileged to request that the U.S. House of Representatives commemorate his life as a patriot, a community servant and man who always strove for the highest standards of journalistic integrity.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I was participating in a very important briefing by the Army Corps of Engineers on flood protection in my district on Monday, June 12, 2006 and missed 5 votes. Please note in the appropriate place in the Congressional Record that had I been present, I would have voted as noted below: Rollcall vote 255: ``nay''; rollcall vote 254: ``yea''; rollcall vote 253: ``yea''; rollcall vote 252: ``yea''; rollcall vote 251: ``yea.''

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to honor Rabbi Brad Bloom, the Senior Rabbi at B'nai Israel since 1995, who is leaving this week for a new pulpit after a distinguished professional career here in Sacramento. As his friends, family and coworkers all gather to celebrate his farewell, I ask all my colleagues to join in honoring his community leadership and many remarkable accomplishments. After Rabbi Bloom completed his BA in History from the University of Wisconsin and his Master's in Social Work from the University of Maryland, he realized his calling in life: the rabbinate. He began his career by serving as the Associate Rabbi at Congregation Beth Am in Los Altos Hills. Following his service with the Congregation, Rabbi Bloom was Associate Rabbi at the Sinai Temple of Champaign-Urbana in Illinois. In 1995 he became the Senior Rabbi at Congregation B'nai Israel, where he has served with distinction for the past 11 years. Rabbi Bloom has been a strong leader for B'nai Israel. He guided a devastated congregation and the greater Sacramento community through one of its darkest hours in June of 1999, when arsonists attacked three of Sacramento's synagogues, including his own. Rabbi Bloom's calm, uniting voice emerged from the dense fog of hate and fear in the weeks and months following the attacks. He revived the community's spirits and helped bring forward a united front against hate. In order to build a dialogue, he helped create the Children of Abraham group, which brings together clergy and congregants of Muslim, Jewish and Christian faiths. And under his leadership, the synagogue opened its door to gay and lesbian Jews to perform commitment ceremonies inside the sanctuary. Through it all Rabbi Bloom has been dedicated to cultivating a strong and thriving Jewish community. With his gifts as a teacher, he has shown a commitment to life-long learning and instilling that value in others. He has led adult education groups, including Talmud classes, Kabbalah courses and a women's book group. These unique programs have helped educate and unite the Jewish community. Since 1995, Rabbi Bloom has been a strong voice for B'nai Israel, and helped foster compassion and understanding throughout our community. On behalf of the people of Sacramento and the Fifth Congressional District of California, I ask all my colleagues to join me in thanking Rabbi Brad Bloom for his public service as we wish him success in his future endeavors.

Ms. MATSUI

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

Ms. MATSUI

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

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend this rule, closed rule, and allow the House to consider the Boucher-Dingell Strategic Refinery Reserve substitute. This substitute was offered in the Rules Committee when this rule was reported last month, but was blocked on a straight party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, when I was home in Sacramento last week, one constant topic of conversation was gas prices and energy policy. I heard several different perspectives on the issues. Many working families told me they are having to adjust their monthly budgets to offset the cost of $3 a gallon gas. Other individuals expressed concern about global warming and how our dependence on fossil fuels is driving dangerous climate change. Still others told me they are worried that our economy and our national security are frighteningly dependent on unstable oil producing countries like Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria. From speaking with my colleagues, it is clear that Americans are echoing these concerns across the country. So I would hope that we could all agree that our constituents, from Sacramento to Miami, want Congress to do something substantive about gas prices and energy policy. Unfortunately, today's debate represents another missed opportunity for strategic long-term national energy policy. Today we could be addressing the pressing issues raised by my constituents and yours. But we are not. This resolution would provide for debate for H.R. 5254. This bill purports to address the problem we saw in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, the vulnerability of America's energy infrastructure to supply disruptions. Because of last year's hurricanes, many refineries in the gulf are running at reduced capacity, or were knocked offline entirely. This tightened supplies and played a role in the rapid rise in gas prices. So there is an issue here for Congress to address. But there is some disagreement on exactly what the problem is. During debate on this bill, you will hear conflicting explanations for why no new refineries have been built in the United States since 1976. The majority might cite the environmental permitting process saying it has impeded the ability of companies to build new refineries. They will argue that if Congress just pushed the permitting process harder, if we can do some more streamlining, then new refineries will start sprouting up across the country. However, the reality is a different matter. The central provisions of this bill are designed to streamline the environmental permitting process for new refineries. Yet, there is no evidence these changes would actually lead to the construction of one new refinery. That is because there has not been one convincing example of a situation where the permitting process prevented, held up or stalled the construction of a refinery. You don't have to take my word for it. You can refer to the testimony of the energy company executives. During Senate testimony last year, even they could not cite such an occasion. The fact is, new refineries have not been constructed because it has not been in the interest of industry to do so. And that is fine. It is their right to not to construct refineries. But Congress should not respond to profit motivated decisions by altering permitting processes that are functioning just fine. Furthermore, the refinery permitting process was altered just last year in section 103 of the energy bill so why are we doing it again? Let's see if that process works before revising it again. This flawed bill reflects the manner in which it was brought to the floor. The Energy and Commerce Committee has not held hearings on H.R. 5254. It hasn't been marked up either. If this is truly an important piece of legislation, shouldn't it come to the floor in regular order? If the House wanted to truly address the issue of refinery capacity, we should be taking up H.R. 5365, offered by Congressmen Dingell and Boucher. Their legislation would enhance America's refinery capacity by creating a Strategic Refinery Reserve to complement the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Unfortunately the majority on the Rules Committee did not allow a vote on this legislation. This is a commonsense proposal because in emergencies like Katrina, even when the President releases crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we may not have the refinery capacity to process it. The Dingell/Boucher bill would direct the Energy Department to establish a Strategic Refinery Reserve that can produce 5 percent of daily demand for gasoline. This reserve would ensure that additional refinery capacity is available during emergencies, strengthening our national security while helping to mitigate upward price pressures. And in non emergencies, it would provide refined products to the Federal fleet, easing demand on the rest of the market. This is a forward-thinking and logical proposal. I was disappointed that the Rules Committee voted against making it in order as a substitute, because if we had passed a Dingell/Boucher bill, at least I could tell my constituents Congress did something substantive to deal with America's energy challenges. When I return to my district next week and in the coming weeks and months, I would like to be able to tell my constituents that Congress understands what you are dealing with in terms of gas prices and energy. We know we can't fix everything overnight. But we have got a real plan for the future. I want to be able to tell them that we are going to reduce demand by promoting energy conservation and fuel efficient forms of transportation. And we are going to work to develop renewable sources of fuel and other innovative technologies. Taken together, these will help America move towards energy independence. And we are going to stop providing subsidies to companies that are making record profits, and instead, we are going to help working Americans deal with high gas prices. I really wish I could say all of those things. But that is not going to be possible if the House continues to consider unnecessary and misguided legislation like this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule because this bill did not go through regular order, because it comes to the floor under a closed rule which does not allow for its improvement, and because it does not allow the commonsense Dingell/Boucher substitute. I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill. Such a vote will reject this misguided approach to energy policy. A ``no'' vote on this legislation would send a message that Congress is ready to consider truly substantive legislation that addresses the energy crisis this Nation faces. Please join me in sending that important message. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, in January, the Department of Homeland Security made significant changes to our homeland security effort. They announced the areas eligible for fiscal year 2006 UASI grants. For the first time, Sacramento and San Diego were not identified as high-risk areas. While Sacramento and San Diego did receive fiscal year 2006 funding, the new eligibility guidelines have put our funding for next year and beyond in jeopardy. Sacramento is the capital of the sixth largest economy in the world and home to dozens of critical Federal and State governmental buildings. Much of the State's water, electricity, and telecommunications systems are managed from Sacramento. Of considerable concern is an attack on Sacramento's dams and levees, not only because of potential loss of life and impact to Sacramento's families, but an economic impact as well. According to a Sacramento Bee analysis, the economic impact of a major flood in Sacramento would cost the region $35 billion. This is damage to homes, loss of jobs, and government revenues. The San Diego area contains the Nation's seventh largest city adjacent to a heavily trafficked international border, a busy port, and tourist attractions. Nor should it be overlooked that a number of naval and Marine bases are located in San Diego, including the largest naval base in the country. With fewer installations after four rounds of BRAC, an attack on even one could result in even greater impact. An attack of either of these cities would have repercussions well beyond our region. Therefore, Congressman Filner and I have very real concerns about DHS's new eligibility guidelines accurately addressing our homeland security needs. We all agree that a risk-based grant program is an effective use of our limited resources. However, policy is only as good as the information that goes into it. DHS has already acknowledged that it failed to take into account the catastrophic downstream impact to my district if there were an attack on Folsom Dam. This only raises the question of what other targets have they overlooked. That is why we need to ensure that DHS properly considers the catastrophic and cascading effects of an attack on critical infrastructure such as dams and levees, as well as determine a way to factor in the presence of drug trafficking and other organized crime activities that relate to terrorism and strategic defense considerations. This amendment would withhold funding until DHS has properly addressed these issues. It would ensure accountability. It is important that DHS address these concerns. We need increased transparency and understanding of the process before the next UASI review is conducted. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that a DHS reauthorization bill will come to the floor before the next risk assessment begins. As a result, we must take this opportunity to require DHS to perform a thorough threat assessment of each urban area. We have an obligation to ensure we are meeting our national security needs. But the questions surrounding the UASI grant eligibility draw into question whether we are meeting that need. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman would withdraw his point of order.