Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our distinguished ranking member, the lead Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations for his leadership for his very important motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, before I get into talking about the bill, I want to commend both the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and our distinguished ranking members on the Committee on Appropriations and Subcommittee on Defense. Over the years, they have worked very hard and provided great leadership for our men and women in uniform and for the security of our country. There is much about this bill that I support. I have some concerns which I will express but none of that diminishes the regard and appreciation I have for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time since the President ordered the invasion of Iraq 2 years ago, Congress has been asked to provide funds for the war outside the regular budget. With nearly 140,000 troops in dire need of equipment and supplies, this legislation will be overwhelmingly approved and I will support it. A willingness to provide our troops the support they need, however, should not be mistaken for support for the repeated failures in judgment that first put our troops in harm's way and that keeps them there today. Two years ago this week on May 1, 2003, President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier under a banner that proclaimed ``Mission Accomplished.'' Considering the events that followed and what has been disclosed since then, if the President were to stand under a banner today it would have to read ``Credibility Demolished.'' We are in the war's third year. Daily headlines are grim reminders of how far we are from a stable and secure Iraq, and the President has yet to provide a plan to get us to that place. We are fast approaching sadly 1,600 U.S. military deaths and thousands of more have suffered grievous and lasting wounds. I have had the privilege to pay my respects to troops in theater and in hospitals in Europe and in the United States. Whatever our disagreement about the policy which brought us into the war, whatever our disagreement on the lack of planning to end it, it never diminishes the regard that we have for our men and women in uniform. We respect them and we appreciate their courage, their patriotism and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. And on any opportunity that many of us have, we express that to them personally. The President's rationale for the invasion was discredited long ago. Iraq remains unsafe. I talked about credibility in terms of the lack of planning. There is also a lack of credibility in budgeting. Although appropriations for Iraq approaches $200 billion, the President's budget requests no money for the war on the grounds that the cost is unknowable. Instead, the President chooses to include a figure for the war's cost, zero, that everyone knows to be wrong. Here we are today on Thursday talking about a supplemental with a set amount in it of emergency funding for our troops, and we passed the budget last Thursday. It was not one week ago we did not know what the cost would be and now we do this week. This is simply not an honest way to do our budgeting. Our troops need relief and their equipment needs repair and replacement. The risk assessment released by the Joint Chiefs of Staff this week shows the strain on our military is real and unsustainable. And it is clear that the figure in the supplemental is really not enough to meet to meet the measure that the chairman mentioned. Providing money alone as this bill will do is not enough. A way out must be provided as well. We must focus on quality rather than quantity when training Iraqi security forces, accelerate Iraq's reconstruction in ways that give Iraqis a major stake in rebuilding their country, and step up regional diplomatic efforts to heal the strife on which the insurgency thrives. I was pleased to be part of the bipartisan delegation that visited Iraq during Holy Week, and I can tell you that firsthand that we have a long way to go to reaching those goals. Our experience in Iraq strongly suggest that if we do not take these steps and soon, about training the security forces, accelerating Iraq's reconstruction, and stepping up regional diplomacy or as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) would say, Iraq-atize, internationalize and energize, if we do not do this and soon, Americans may wonder for years to come if the end will ever be in sight. The funds provided for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the relief of those devastated by the tsunami, to aid those suffering in Darfur and elsewhere, and to promote Middle East peace are necessary and important. Were conferees able to focus solely on these issues, their final product would have been much stronger. However, since this bill is must-pass legislation, House Republicans demanded the inclusion of controversial immigration provisions. These provisions would be much better considered as part of a comprehensive immigration reform effort. These provisions will make asylum harder to obtain for those seeking a haven from persecution and place a huge unfunded responsibility on the States to verify information used to support a driver's license application. This is an unfunded mandate. This is an unfunded mandate and it is not part of the Contract With America, no unfunded mandates. Since this is a conference report, we cannot have a ruling from the Chair that will allow us to discuss some specifics about the unfunded mandate, the driver's license application that is in the bill. It sounds like a good idea. But if you are at the desk at the Department of Motor Vehicles and you have now become an immigration officer because you have to prove the citizenship, or at least the legality of somebody being in the country, it is a big burden, it is costly, and it is unfunded. We have given a mandate without the money and really without the consideration that this provision should have been given. In addition, we unwisely vest in the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to weigh Federal and State environmental and labor laws. This in the name of securing our borders. Securing our borders should be a national priority, which makes it all the more inexplicable that the President did not request in his budget the extra border patrol agents and detention beds authorized by Congress last year in response to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Bipartisan efforts in the Senate do more for border security in this bill and were rebuffed by House Republicans in favor of provisions that trample on the rights of individuals and States, and may result in the diminishment of the safety of the American people. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for offering his motion to recommit to fund border security at the Senate levels. He also had this as a motion to instruct when the conferees were named, to add $1 billion so that we could have the border security that was recommended by the 9/11 Commission. But that was rejected. So we talk a great deal about securing the border, but we are not putting the resources there to do the job. Thank heavens Senator Byrd prevailed with part of the money in the Senate. We can do more. We should have done more. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has been a champion on this issue year in and year out as far as this discussion has been going. Again, border security, border security, border security, and then we can talk about a comprehensive immigration policy. I hope that all of our colleagues will give an overwhelming support of this body to the Obey motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, for many reasons, this is not an easy bill to support. The legitimate emergency needs to which it responds, particularly the needs of our men and women in uniform overseas, are real and must be addressed. A much better job, though, must be done to create conditions to allow large numbers of them to come home and to come home soon. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the gentleman from Wisconsin's motion to recommit.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the month of May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and to pay tribute to the contributions of the Asian American and Pacific Islander community, including immigrants, refugees, and natives. As the Representative of California's 8th District, it is my privilege to represent a strong Asian American and Pacific Islander community that is a vital part of San Francisco's world-renowned diversity. As the Democratic Leader in Congress, I am proud to join my colleagues in honoring more than 13 million Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs), representing a diverse community of backgrounds, cultures, and experiences, who make their homes in the United States. Their unique contributions enhance the moral fabric and character of our great country. As we celebrate the significant progress made by Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, it is right for us to honor the memory of great leaders of the AAPI community who have recently passed away--including Fred Korematsu, who dared to challenge the U.S. government over the Japanese internment camps, John Tsu, former chair for the White House Initiative on AAPIs and longtime community activist, Patrick Okura, a great civil rights leader and Japanese American internee, and Magdaleno Duenas, a Filipino veteran and community leader. Mr. Speaker, let us remember our former colleague and my dear friend Congressman Robert Matsui, who despite imprisonment in an internment camp during World War II, never lost faith in our country. He went on to become a national champion for all of America's seniors, and the first Asian-American to serve in the leadership of the House of Representatives. Their legacies are part of the ongoing struggle of all Asian American and Pacific Islanders, who, in spite of having to overcome great hardship and discrimination, maintain an abiding and unbreakable belief in the promise of our country, and move forward to make remarkable contributions to our country. In memory of these great figures in the history of our Nation, it is only fitting that this year's theme for Asian Pacific American Heritage Month is `Liberty and Freedom for All.' Each of these individuals leaves us with a legacy that still burns to be fulfilled. For despite the great progress that we have made, we still have a long way to go to ensuring equality and expanding opportunities so that all Americans have a chance to achieve their full potential. Their work will continue on in all of us. This year we also commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Immigration Act of 1965, and the 30th Anniversary of the Refugee Assistance Act of 1975. These laws demonstrate our national commitment to serving as a beacon of hope for all those in search of the opportunity and freedom that are the promises of America. In the three decades since the signing of the Refugee Assistance Act, the United States has provided shelter to millions of refugees escaping persecution, tyranny, and often, unspeakable tragedies. Each time we look into the face of diversity, we see great heroism and personal dignity. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage month, let us rededicate ourselves to answer their enduring call to service, and fight for justice in our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member, the lead Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me time, and for his great leadership to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, the oath of office that we all take. I, too, want to express my respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the committee. I know that all the members of the Committee on the Judiciary have a difficult task. I commend all of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary for the very important responsibility that they have in protecting the civil liberties of our country. There are so many complicated issues where there are differences of opinion but, hopefully, respect for that diversity of opinion, which is intrinsic to our democracy. Mr. Speaker, I am very sad that it is necessary to come to the floor to speak on a resolution offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), again the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary. I think it is important to note why we are here. I understand why our Republican colleagues want to talk about the bill and not talk about this privileged resolution, because this resolution strikes right directly to the heart of our democracy and our right of freedom of speech on this floor and how our words are interpreted. Questions of privilege, according to the House rules and manual, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Speaker well knows, questions of privilege shall be those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings. It is that last point, the integrity of our proceedings, which is what is under assault by the Republicans in this action that they took last week. Truth and trust, they are the fundamentals of our work. We must speak truth so that we will be trusted. I view what the Committee on the Judiciary leadership did on this bill as just another extension of the abuse of power of the Republican majority in the Congress of the United States, both in the House and in the Senate. In both bodies, and let us just speak to our own, there is an attempt to limit the opportunity for Members to speak on the floor, to have substitutes, alternative amendments, that can come to the floor; and on the occasions when they do allow an amendment, they decide to misrepresent the amendment. Just when we think we have seen it all on the part of curbing debate in this House, the Republicans not only curb the debate; they decide what it is that we said and what it is that we wrote in our amendments that we were putting forth. The disgusting misrepresentations that were advanced by the Republicans demand an apology by the chairman of the committee and a pledge by the Republican leadership in this House that this will never happen again; that this will never happen again. We must be mindful of a standard we must uphold, not only for ourselves, but for the American people, to conduct ourselves at all times in a manner which shall reflect credibly on the House of Representatives. In doing so, the House must maintain the integrity of all of its proceedings, as the rules of the House dictate in the House Rules and Manual. What happened last week to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) was an outrage. An official report that the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary prepared to the legislation at hand deliberately and purposely mischaracterized their amendments in a manner that was insulting and derogatory. Again, no wonder the Republicans do not want to talk about what is on the floor right now, which is a privileged resolution addressing the gross abuse of power of the Republicans. We had tried to say at meetings, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) tried to get an agreement with the majority that they would change the record and apologize; to admit that there was something wrong with what happened last week, and that would have made a difference in bringing this resolution to the floor. But, no, there was no admission that there was anything wrong with misrepresenting, not telling the truth about what was contained in those amendments. Administrative functions, such as reporting of amendments and descriptions of these amendments, relate to the integrity, again, of the proceedings of the House and must be fairly described. If there is a controversy, then you go to the maker of the amendment and say, what is it, how would you characterize your amendment, you who are the maker of the amendment? But no, we had placed our trust that the majority would fairly describe something as administrative as an amendment offered by a Member. In short, this should not even be an issue we need to be reviewing and scrutinizing. If this were to pass without discussion, think of the precedent that it would create; that the majority, on a regular and repeated basis, could use their power and abuse their power to write any characterization of any amendment that anyone made. Its simply wrong. The behavior exhibited by the Republican majority with the Committee on the Judiciary report flies in the face of the comity and civility and honesty that we should all strive for. It is a further reflection, again, of the abuse of power we have seen here. It is an embarrassment to the House. I was deeply disappointed to learn that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has refused to apologize on his own accord. Our rules, Mr. Speaker, are our best defense. They are what make the debate and the democracy work. As I said, Mr. Speaker, you even see in this close on this important debate that there is an interest in stopping the conversation. I hope that the Speaker and the Republican leadership will reflect on their obligations to the House, and indeed, to all the Members of both parties, and that they will ask the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to apologize for the affront to this House and the blatant abuse of position as the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. This is, in my view, an aberration for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). As I said, many of us, while we may disagree on issues, have held him in great esteem and respect. He is an articulate spokesperson for his point of view. But his point of view is not necessarily the point of view of everyone in this body, and his point of view should not be the description of the amendments that Members in the minority are presenting to the Congress. The leadership has a responsibility to ensure that this will not happen again. I want to commend all the Members of the Committee on the Judiciary once again, Republicans and Democrats alike. I think you have a very challenging task. I want to particularly commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the people who were offended by this, though all of us were, but particularly in terms of the retelling of their amendments, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by thanking the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his courage, because it takes a degree of courage to bring a privileged resolution to this floor when you know there will be a continuation of a misrepresentation of what happened last week. We are doing this not because of this bill, we are doing this because it is our responsibility to have an honest reflection of the proceedings of the House. I urge our colleagues to support the resolution of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time, and also, more importantly, for his very distinguished service to our country through his leadership on issues relating to our budget and other matters of concern to working families in America. I thank him for his great leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided budget resolution because it is a missed opportunity. Instead of strengthening Social Security, this budget spends 100 percent of the Social Security surplus, $160 billion for this year alone, on tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. Instead of being an engine of growth, this budget and its deficits will put the brake on job creation. Do not take it from me. Chairman Greenspan said just recently, ``The Federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years. Unless this trend is reversed, at some point these deficits would cause the economy to stagnate, or worse.'' A missed opportunity, because instead of being a blueprint of positive initiatives for the future, this budget is an assault on our values. The budget calls for $10 billion in Medicaid cuts, maybe more, despite the fact that both this House and the other body explicitly rejected such cuts. That is a cut that is deeper than was even originally proposed by the President. Republicans must explain to the American people, who oppose Medicaid cuts by 4 to 1, why they insist on slashing funds for sick children, seniors in nursing homes and the disabled. Governors across the country, both Democrat and Republican, oppose these cuts, because they know the devastating impact they will have on Americans, more than 1 million of whom will likely lose their health coverage. The reckless Republican budget does not stop with cuts in Medicaid and Social Security. Its wrong priorities mean cuts in education, medicare, student loans, and changes in the pension guarantee program which will cause American workers to lose their pensions. Democrats have a better idea. During the last years of President Clinton's administration, the entire Social Security trust fund surplus was saved, and we were on a budget path to continue saving that money. We were on a path of $5.6 trillion in surplus. America would have been debt-free by 2008. Think of it: our country would have been debt-free by 2008. No more spending a big chunk of our budget on debt service interest payments which soon will be bigger than all of our domestic discretionary spending. But the Republicans have turned that $5.6 trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit; a $10 trillion, I repeat, a $10 trillion failure of leadership on the part of the Republicans. This budget we are passing today will pass mountains of debt on to our children and grandchildren, jeopardizing economic security by increasing our debt to China and Japan and other foreign investors. The Republican budget does not do justice, it does great harm, to our country. Instead of being a statement of our values, the Republican budget is an assault on our values. I urge my colleagues to return to fiscal discipline, to honor our values, and to oppose this disgraceful Republican budget.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for upholding a high ethical standard in the House, and I rise in strong support of the resolution before us. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for the American people. Across the country they have spoken out and editorial boards have reflected their views throughout our nation that not any one of us is above the law. No Member of Congress is above the law. I come to this podium as the House Democratic leader, but I also would note that I bring to my office that I serve in now and to this podium the experience of serving on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for 6 years, and an additional 7th year to be part of the Livingston task force. Mr. Livingston, a Republican Member, chaired our committee, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) was our ranking member on the task force that wrote the rules that we have been talking about this evening. They were very important. We came together in a bipartisan way, hammered out all of the challenges that Members proposed, and came up with bipartisanship. When we did that, we were acting in the tradition of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the House of Representatives, bipartisan in nature in terms of writing the rules and in implementing them. My friends, we all should be deeply indebted to all of the Members who have served on the bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Anyone who has served on it will tell Members it is not an easy task, and one that any one of us would like to avoid. It is very hard to pass judgment on your peers. What I learned on the committee was that there are only three things that matter in the discussion: the facts, the rules of the House, and the law of the land. Anything else, discussion, hearsay and the rest of it was irrelevant to the decision-making. So in a bipartisan way, friendships were developed, we worked together. Members are down in the lower levels of the Capitol for long, long hours; and it was sometimes very difficult and sad to make those judgments. We deliberated; we exchanged ideas. Indeed, we even prayed over our decisions because we knew what impact they would have on the lives of our colleagues. In short, we took our responsibility to act in a bipartisan way very, very seriously. And so should the committee regarding the rules that we will be returning to now. They should be taken in the most serious way. I hope when we vote on these rules tonight, we will have a big vote and that big vote will show not only our support for this resolution but our respect for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and its need to act in a bipartisan way. One concern that I do have that has not been addressed is something that has happened not by a rules change but by a practice, a one-time practice. Mr. Speaker, this book is called the ``House Rules and Manual,'' and it determines how we function in the House and how each of the committees functions. This rule says here: ``All staff members shall be appointed by an affirmative vote of a majority of the committee.'' The rules governing staffing have been the standing rules of the House since the bipartisan task force recommendations were adopted in the 105th Congress, in the 106th Congress, the 107th Congress, the 108th Congress, and they are indeed the rules of the House now even without action being taken tonight. Central to a bipartisan upholding of a high ethical standard is nonpartisan staffing of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Certainly the Chair and the ranking member have their staff person for liaison purposes to the committee, but the work of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct must be done in a nonpartisan way. Those are the rules of the House. They must be upheld. They have been departed from in this Congress. I would hope that it is implied in what we do here that the intent of Congress is to obey the rules of the House. If any Member has a different view of the intent of Congress regarding the hiring of staff for the committee in a nonpartisan way, I think that Member should speak up now because the intent of Congress should be clear, unequivocal, and not controversial. I want to commend those that served during the 108th Congress, and especially the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley); and I agree with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) whole-heartedly: if there are rules changes that need to be made, let us subject these rules to the scrutiny that Members feel they should have, and let us do it in a bipartisan way. In fact, on at least two, maybe three, occasions, I have brought that very proposal to the floor in a privileged resolution by saying, ``let us form a bipartisan task force to examine the rules and see how we go forward.'' We can still do that, but we cannot do it until these rules are in place for the committee to function and then to review them. I commend the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and am so proud of the dignified, serious way he approached his responsibilities to upholding a high ethical standard. And the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) is absolutely right, we will not compromise ever on the integrity of the House. I support the gentleman's statement and associate myself with the gentleman's statement in that regard. And as we return to bipartisanship in upholding a high ethical standard in the House, let us also heed the voice of the American people who want us to return to bipartisan cooperation in growing our economy so we can create good-paying jobs in our country. Let us expand access to affordable health care for all Americans. That is what the American people want us to do. Let us work in a bipartisan way to broaden opportunities for our children so no child is left behind and so our children can go to college without going into crushing debt. Let us listen to the American people who want us to work in a bipartisan way to truly protect our homeland, to strengthen Social Security; and let us listen to the American people when they say, ``we need relief at the pump now. We cannot pay these high prices at the pump. We cannot pay these high prices at the pharmacy.'' I contend that ethics impact policy. Certainly a high ethical standard is its own excuse for being. Integrity of the House should be unquestioned, and part of our responsibility is to uphold that ethical standard. But ethics does impact policy. The American people must believe that we are working in this House in the public interest and not in the special interest. A higher ethical standard is essential to creating policy which is consistent with our values. And so I support this resolution, and I urge our colleagues all to vote for it and hope that the strong vote that it will receive will not only speak to the resolution but speak to the respect that we all have for the ethics process, for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, for upholding a high ethical standard, and for saying not any one of us is above the law.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I commend her for her leadership in bringing this very important motion to instruct to the floor. It is crystal clear, Madam Speaker, that a majority of Members in both bodies oppose cuts to Medicaid. The other body voted to remove such cuts on the floor of the Senate. With 44 House Republicans signing a letter calling for no Medicaid cuts and a solid Democratic opposition, a majority of this body also prefers a solution with no Medicaid cuts. The regular order, as my colleagues know, Madam Speaker, is to appoint conferees, instruct those conferees, resolve differences with the other body, and report back a conference agreement. But the Republican leadership knew they could not defeat a motion to protect Medicaid, so rather than follow the regular order, they negotiated behind closed doors to include Medicaid cuts in the final budget report, regardless of how the majority in both Houses vote and how we vote in this House on the motion to instruct. I usually do not like to talk about process in the House, but this is a time when process has a very direct impact on policy, and a policy that has a direct impact on the health of the American people. Press reports indicate that the final agreement between the House and Senate will contain between $8 billion to $10 billion in Medicaid cuts. This conference report would not only ignore the will of the majority of both houses but, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it would include deeper cuts than originally proposed by the President, and vehemently opposed in both houses. Madam Speaker, States have undergone a wrenching budget process. When the President first proposed Medicaid cuts in early February, many Republican Governors spoke out against them. One of them, Republican Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, said, ``People need to remember that to balance the Federal budget off the backs of the poorest people in the country is simply unacceptable.'' It is unacceptable but, unfortunately, it is standard operating procedure for the Republican leadership in Congress. I am hopeful that a significant number of Republicans will join our motion to instruct, being true to the letter that they sent opposing cuts, and protect Medicaid. If Congress cuts Medicaid funding, States will be forced to reduce Medicaid coverage or benefits, jeopardizing needed services for low- income Americans. Over the last 4 years, more than 5 million people have joined the ranks of the uninsured. That number would more than double if it were not for the Medicaid program. Make no mistake: Cutting Medicaid funds will increase the number of low-income Americans who are uninsured to partially pay for $70 billion in tax cuts. Many of these uninsured poor Americans are children. I do not think that it really is a statement of our values in a budget to cut the health care for our children, for the poorest children in America, in order to give the tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America. And yet at the end of the day, this budget will do all of that and increase our deficits. This is wrong. This is unjust. And I urge my colleagues to vote for this very important motion to instruct to return a conference report to this body with zero Medicaid cuts.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time, and I thank her for her leadership on protecting the environment and the health of America's children. I particularly commend her for her resourcefulness in bringing this amendment to the floor. Because of a letter dated April 19 from the Congressional Budget Office which deems the MTBE giveaway an unfunded mandate, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) was able to bring this amendment to the floor. I thank the gentlewoman from California. It is important to all who care about the health of our children. I rise in support of the gentlewoman from California's amendment to strike, really, this disgraceful MTBE giveaway, and I commend her for seizing the opportunity to offer this amendment. Mr. Chairman, as we discussed yesterday in general debate, a few drops of MTBE can poison an entire drinking water system. But the industry lobbied for MTBE to be added to gasoline, anyway. The dirty little secret is that the industry knew all along that MTBE could leak out of gasoline storage tanks and contaminate groundwater. In fact, there was a deliberate attempt by the MTBE producers to hide the groundwater impacts of their product from Congress. Today, communities across America are suffering the effects of MTBE. MTBE contamination of groundwater and surface water is a major problem in my State of California, and many drinking water wells have had to be shut down because of this contaminant. MTBE contamination has been detected in all 50 States, and a recent study indicates that it costs between $12 billion and $63 billion to clean it up. It will cost between $12 billion and $63 billion to clean it up, to clean up something that the industry knew was dirty to begin with and withheld information about that from Congress. Not surprisingly, the MTBE producers and the big oil companies want to be protected from liability for contaminating our drinking water supplies. And not surprisingly, Tom DeLay and House Republicans are happy to oblige. The gentleman from Texas insisted on the MTBE provision in the last Congress, even at the cost of killing the energy bill. He insisted on it again this year. In fact, this is the majority leader's bill we are debating today. Instead of eliminating MTBE now, the Republican energy bill gives 9 years for a phaseout, 9 years of MTBE leaking into our water supply. And a loophole in this very law may even allow MTBE to be used indefinitely. It gives MTBE producers liability protection in contamination lawsuits, and it gives a $2 billion subsidy to MTBE manufacturers. Let me repeat: this is a contaminant, a small supply of which can poison a water supply. And this bill is giving the manufacturers 9 years to phase it out and a loophole that may even make the use of MTBE indefinite. It is saying that you have no liability, MTBE manufacturers, for contamination, no liability, long term to phase out, if ever; and third of all, we are going to fund it. For $2 billion, we are going to give a subsidy to MTBE manufacturers. According to the Republican Congress, the punishment for polluting the groundwater, if you pollute our groundwater, you get $2 billion. That is your gift for contaminating our groundwater. Republicans are not even giving MTBE polluters a slap on the wrist. They are giving them a pat on the back. But in their attempt to shield MTBE producers and big oil companies from accountability, Republicans have created a huge unfunded mandate for States and localities, and it is taxpayers who are stuck with the bill. Remember unfunded mandates? Was that not principle number one of the Contract with America, no unfunded mandates? Here it is. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan CBO, says that this amounts to an unfunded mandate. That is why the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) was able to get this amendment made in order under the rules. And then in their attempts to shield MTBE producers and big oil companies from accountability, Republicans have created this unfunded mandate, which is called such by the National Water Resources Association, the American Public Works Association, Western Coalition of Arid States, American Water Works Association, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors. These organizations say that this provision agrees with the Congressional Budget Office that it amounts to a massive unfunded mandate on local governments and citizens. Republicans used to oppose these, as I mentioned; and the rules of the House still allow us to strike them. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). I urge my colleagues to support the Capps amendment and to demand accountability and to stop the outrageous MTBE giveaway.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Marla Ruzicka who was tragically killed on Saturday in Iraq at the age of 28. Marla's courageous work on behalf of civilian victims of war demonstrated the compassion of the American people and extended a hand in friendship to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Marla gave so much of herself in her short life; it grieves us to think how much more she had to give. She devoted her life to making the lives lost count. Marla's death is a loss to the world. Ms. Ruzicka was born in Lakeport, Calif. and came to San Francisco at the age of 17 to start her career at Global Exchange. During her time with Global Exchange, she worked with African AIDS victims, Palestinian refugees, and Nicaraguan campesinos. When her work took her to Afghanistan during the war to remove the Taliban, she came face to face with the human costs of the conflict and dedicated the remainder of her life to aiding the civilian victims of war. Two years ago, Ms. Ruzicka founded the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict. With little staff and scarce funding, she successfully lobbied Congress for $2.5 million to help Afghan war victims. The fund has since grown to $7.5 million, and she has secured $10 million for Iraqi victims. Ms. Ruzicka worked not just in Washington, but on the literal frontlines of the conflicts. In Iraq, she was the leader of more than 150 volunteers who went door-to-door to compile a list of civilian casualties to determine the civilian cost of the war. She was a fierce advocate for the victims' families, serving as the point of contact between affected Iraqi civilians and the U.S.-led forces. Ms. Ruzicka helped direct aid where it was most needed, and she helped many Iraqi families begin to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives. On April 16, Ms. Ruzicka was on her way to visit another Iraqi family devastated by the conflict when a suicide bomber attacked a nearby U.S. convoy. She died in the blast. Mr. Speaker, Marla Ruzicka reminded us of the immense scale of human suffering that war brings. She gave her time, her energy, and ultimately her life to help ease the suffering of its victims. She is an inspiration to people around the world. I hope that it is a comfort to her parents, Clifford and Nancy, her brothers and sisters, and all her family and friends, that so many people share their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) who I am very proud of for yielding me time and for his leadership. I want to commend four of our ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) of the Committee on Science for their exceptional leadership in presenting an alternative view to the Republican bill that is on the floor today. Unfortunately, we will not have a Democratic substitute, contrary to what the gentleman said. Madam Chairman, the American people deserve an energy policy that is worthy of the 21st century, not one mired in the policies of the past, but a bill that looks forward, not backward. It is imperative that our country have an energy policy for the future, and it is a matter of national security that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that we will be able to take care of our own security and not have to send our troops in harm's way for oil. It is critical to our environment that we invest in emerging technologies and renewable energy and invest in energy efficiency and conservation. It is vital for our economy that our country's economic growth is not constrained by the price of oil and that our consumers do not have to pay such a serious price at the pump for gasoline. The opportunity is here, really, for an energy bill that would put our country on the right path. But this bill that the Republicans have put forth today misses that opportunity. Instead of a positive plan for moving our country forward, the Republican bill is warmed-over stew of old provisions and outdated policies. The Republican bill is anti-consumer, anti-taxpayer, anti- environment, and with its MTBE provisions, it is harmful to children and other living things. The Republican bill was conceived in secrecy. It was written with the influence of the energy lobbyists, and it shows. It should be rejected by this Congress. First, this bill is anti-consumer. Gas prices are soaring, and this bill makes matters worse. The price of gasoline is approaching $3 in some parts of our State; and nationwide, gas prices are up 42 cents above a year ago. When it costs nearly $50 for an American worker to fill his tank, it is time for relief. Yet it is the fifth year of the Bush administration, and there has been no meaningful action to lower gas prices at the pump. Madam Chairman, according to the Bush administration's own Department of Energy, this Republican bill will actually increase gas prices by three cents a gallon and will have almost no effect on production, consumption, or prices. The consumer is not served well when the public interest is not served, and the public interest is not served by this bill. Indeed, it is a gift to the special interest. This bill is wrong because by its electricity provisions it fails to protect the public from Enron-style fraud and abuse. By arbitrary caps on private spending to improve the reliability of our Nation's electricity grid, the bill goes wrong. It is also wrong by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which protects consumers and investors from corporate abuses. Second, the bill is anti-taxpayer, and I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and some of the members of the Committee on Ways and Means addressed some of these concerns. The bill is loaded with tax breaks and royalty relief for oil and gas companies. Of $8.1 billion in tax incentives in the bill, $7.5 billion, a staggering 93 percent, is for traditional energy sources such as oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and electricity transmission. Even President Bush has said that when the price of oil is over $50 a barrel that the oil industry does not need relief; and yet the President wants this bill to come to his desk from Congress as soon as possible. Democrats have better ideas. I particularly want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their amendment to lower gas prices, promote energy efficiency, advance emerging technologies for energy efficiency and conservation and to improve consumer protection. This bill is anti-environment, as the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) pointed out. It will open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, all for the sake of a 6-month supply of oil that will not even be available for 10 years. If this unspoiled place is not special enough to save for our grandchildren, what is? Once they despoil the ANWR, nothing else is sacred. Indeed, this bill makes it easier for oil drilling in protected areas off our magnificent coastlines. The bill contains other anti-environmental provisions, including weakening the Clean Air Act, weakening the Clean Water Act, weakening the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Finally, this bill is harmful to children and all living things. The provision on the gasoline additive MTBE, a few drops of which can poison entire drinking water systems, the provisions in this bill for MTBE are a breathtaking example of pandering to special interests. Instead of eliminating MTBE now, remember I said a few drops can poison entire drinking water systems, instead of eliminating it now, the bill gives the MTBE industry 9 years for a phase-out, and it would give MTBE producers liability protection in contamination lawsuits. Okay. You are poisoning the water supply, you do not have to stop for 9 years, you have no liability for contamination, and on top of that, we are going to give you $2 billion in subsidies, $2 billion in subsidies to help MTBE manufacturers. The dirty little secret is that the MTBE industry knew all along that it would leak out of gasoline storage tanks and contaminate groundwater, but they lobbied for it to be added to our gasoline anyway. Now they do not want to pay for the cleanup. They want taxpayers to pick up the tab. The provision on MTBE included in this bill, at the majority leader's insistence, killed the bill in the last Congress, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, is insisting on including it again this year. In fact, this is the majority leader's bill that we are debating today. Madam Chairman, it is time for us to look forward. It is time for an energy policy worthy of the 21st century. This Republican energy bill is clearly designed to help energy companies make more money, not to help Americans consumers save money. I urge my colleagues to stand up for a forward-looking energy bill to ensure our national security, to grow our economy, to protect our environment, and to keep our water and air safe for our children. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Democratic amendments for an energy policy for the future, and I urge my colleagues to ``just say no'' to the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. DeLay) disgraceful MTBE giveaway and his outdated boondoggle of an energy bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution to name the United States courthouse in Sacramento, California after my dear friend and our beloved former colleague, Bob Matsui, who passed away so suddenly on New Year's night. Time and time again, Bob's constituents elected him to serve as their Representative in the United States Congress. As all of us know, he rose to national prominence as a senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, a national spokesman for Social Security, and as the first Asian American in leadership of the Congress. Bob was a living combination of intellect and passion--someone who understood the complexities of the Social Security system, and who never forgot what it meant to the lives of America's seniors. As an architect for a better America, Bob expanded opportunities for our county's children, built a more secure future, and protected precious freedoms for all of us. In our more than 30 years of friendship, I deeply admired Bob's personal courage. Despite being imprisoned in an internment camp as a very young boy during WorId War II, Bob always had hope in the promise of America. He loved America enough to want to make it better. In fact, he worked tirelessly to pass legislation that awarded payments and an apology from the government to Japanese Americans who had been sent to internment camps. When it came to politics, Bob was a maestro, orchestrating campaigns across the country that addressed the aspirations of the American people, particularly on his signature issues of economic opportunity, civil liberties, and retirement security. It seems like only yesterday that Bob was among us, doing the people's work here in Congress. Bob's spirit and energy have been greatly missed. We are saddened by the loss of our dear friend and colleague, but we are fortunate to have his wife Doris here to continue and build on Bob's outstanding work. President Bush rightly called him a ``dedicated public servant and a good and decent man who served with distinction and integrity.'' I know that our friends on the other side of the aisle miss Bob as well, and join in paying him this tribute. Bob Matsui was a true patriot who had a dream for a better America. I urge my colleagues to support naming this courthouse in his beloved Sacramento in his honor.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and thank him for his distinguished leadership as the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary and his important statements on this bankruptcy bill today. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that every person in our country must be financially responsible, that we take responsibility for our action, for our debts and we do so in a way that is honorable. In the course of our country's history, our economy, our government has always provided for people to get a fresh start under the bankruptcy law to enable them to go forward to make a contribution to our economy and our society. Recognizing that tradition and recognizing the appreciation that we have for personal responsibility, I regretfully rise in opposition to this bill because this bankruptcy bill seeks to squeeze even more money for credit card companies from the most hard-pressed Americans. It would bind hardworking and honest Americans to credit card companies and other lenders as modern day indentured servants. I think it is our duty to speak up for those who would be hurt by this bill. This duty is paramount because we have been shut out of the process here, the legislative process to bring any amendments to the floor. That would have been an amendment on identity theft, which this week's news accounts demonstrate there are real problems of identity theft, and an amendment was rejected. We tried to take a legislative course of action in our previous question, which is a technicality, is a procedure here on the floor; but we were not able to get any Republican support to address the issue of identity theft and how individuals can be protected from identity theft under the bankruptcy bill. According to the sponsors of this bill, 1.6 million Americans who filed for bankruptcy last year are deadbeats who are avoiding their debts. That is really the essence of what they are saying with this bill. Proponents claim that there is a bankruptcy tax in which honest Americans are footing the bill for abusive users of credit cards. We should be vigilant for any abuse of any legal process. There is no evidence, however, of widespread bankruptcy abuse. In fact, a recent study indicated that 45 percent of those filing for bankruptcy had skipped a needed doctor's visit, 25 percent had utilities shut off, 20 percent went without food. They are not using this money that they should be paying in for luxuries. They just simply do not have money to survive. As a distinguished group of law professors wrote: ``Some people do abuse the bankruptcy system, but the overwhelming majority of people in bankruptcy are in financial distress as a result of job loss, medical expense, divorce, or a combination of those causes. This bill attempts to kill a mosquito with a shotgun.'' I have a problem with the bill on several counts as to what is contained in the bill. The bankruptcy bill fails miserably, I believe, on its merits. It employs, for the first time, a stringent and unworkable means test that limits access to chapter 7 and forces individuals into payment plans that will fail. It frustrates a key goal of the bankruptcy code, to give individuals who suffer economic misfortunes through no fault of their own a fresh start. That is an American tradition. The bill neglects the real causes of bankruptcies, as I just mentioned, medical concerns, divorce, in some cases death, while rewarding irresponsible corporate behavior. It lets those who truly abuse and game the bankruptcy system, the wealthy debtors who shield their assets in asset trusts and homestead exemptions, keep their loopholes and get off, in some cases, scot-free. It is wholly unnecessary. Current law already allows a bankruptcy judge to deny a discharge in chapter 7 to prevent abuses. That is why bankruptcy judges are uniformly opposed to the bill. I just would like to quote Keith Lundin, a Federal bankruptcy judge in Tennessee and an authority on bankruptcy repayment plans. Judge Lundin says, ``The folks who brought you `those who can pay, should pay' are pulling the stuffing out of the very part of the bankruptcy law where debtors do pay.'' He says, ``The advocates aren't trying to fix the bankruptcy law; they're trying to mess it up so much that nobody can use it.'' They interviewed dozens of bankruptcy judges, whose names have been suggested by proponents and opponents of this legislation, for their standing on this issue, to speak out; and the reasons why these judges are opposed are several reasons. One is the judges now have broad discretion to determine how much a debtor must pay to creditors and on what schedule, and the schedule is very important, after declaring bankruptcy under what is known as chapter 13; but under the legislation, that discretion would be substantially curtailed. The new legislation would bar courts from reducing the amount that many debtors would have to repay on their cars and other big-ticket items. It would also extend the length of time people would have to make repayments and impose repayment schedules that critics describe as so onerous that debtors would fall behind. It just prescribes that they would. The bankruptcy judges say the result would be the collapse of more repayment plans, forcing debtors out of bankruptcy court protection. Creditors could then force debtors to pay the full amount owed, not the reduced amount, and by moving to repossess their belongings. Many people would have to pay creditors far into the future and thus be unable to restart their economic lives, a long-held aim of bankruptcy. I will submit this article from the Los Angeles Times for the Record at this point. [From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 29, 2005] Judges Say Overhaul Would Weaken Bankruptcy System. (By Peter G. Gosselin) For nearly a decade, proponents of overhauling the nation's bankruptcy laws have described their aim as ensuring that Americans who enter bankruptcy court do not escape bills that they can truly afford to pay. But only weeks before Congress is likely to approve the long-sought overhaul, bankruptcy judges across the country warn that the measure would undermine the very section of the law under which debtors are now repaying more than $3 billion annually to their creditors. These judges say the effect of the overhaul would be to discourage most forms of personal bankruptcy, which--for nearly two centuries has served as a safety net for people in economic trouble. ``The folks who brought you `those who can pay, should pay' are pulling the stuffing out of the very part of the bankruptcy law where debtors do pay,'' said Keith Lundin, a federal bankruptcy judge in the eastern district of Tennessee in Nashville and an authority on bankruptcy repayment plans. ``The advocates aren't trying to fix the bankruptcy law; they're trying to mess it up so much that nobody can use it,'' Lundin charged. In interviews, a dozen current or former bankruptcy judges, whose names were suggested by proponents as well as opponents of the overhaul legislation, described what they saw as the problems that could result from key provisions of the new measure. Judges now have broad discretion to determine how much a debtor must pay to creditors and on what schedule after declaring bankruptcy under what is known as Chapter 13. But under the legislation, that discretion would be substantially curtailed. The new legislation would bar courts from reducing the amount that many debtors would have to repay on their cars and other big-ticket items. It would also extend the length of time people would have to make repayments and impose repayment schedules that critics describe as so onerous that many debtors would fall behind. The result, the judges said, would be the collapse of more repayment plans, forcing debtors out of bankruptcy court protection. Creditors then could try to force debtors to pay the full amount owed--not the reduced amount a judge had ordered--by moving to repossess their belongings or bringing legal actions. Many people would have to pay creditors far into the future, the critics said, and thus be unable to restart their economic lives, a long-held aim of bankruptcy. Repayment plans ``are pretty fragile documents to begin with, but they're going to get a lot more fragile under these conditions,'' said Ronald Barliant, a former bankruptcy judge from the northern district of Illinois in Chicago. ``It's going to take away a lot of the incentives'' for people to enter repayment plans, said David W. Houston III, a bankruptcy judge from the northern district of Mississippi in Aberdeen. Overhaul proponents respond to such criticisms by contending that the current bankruptcy system is rife with fraud and abuse and is stacked against creditors. Many proponents are deeply scornful of bankruptcy judges, who they charge have let the system spin out of control. ``They're part of the . . . problem,'' declared Jeff Tassey, a Washington lobbyist who heads the coalition of credit card companies, banks and others that has spearheaded the overhaul drive. ``They're not real judges, not Article 3 judges,'' Tassey said. He was referring to Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution, under which judges in the regular federal court system are appointed for life. Bankruptcy judges are appointed under Article 1 to 14-year renewable terms. As matters now stand, financially distressed Americans generally have two options in bankruptcy. They can file a Chapter 7 case, in which they forfeit most of their assets in return for cancellation of most debts and a debt-free ``fresh start.'' Or, they can file a Chapter 13 case, in which they get to keep most of their property but must agree to repay a portion of their debts over a period of time. Some advocates for changing the system have contended that these provisions should be rewritten to address a kind of moral laxness in bankruptcy practices. ``When you have seen a system that has gone from a few hundred thousand cases to 1.5 million last year--most of that increase during the fat years of the Clinton administration-- you must conclude something is not right,'' said Edith H. Jones, a federal appellate court judge in Houston who served on a blue-ribbon panel to review bankruptcy law in the 1990s and is widely believed to be seen as on President Bush's short list for a position on the Supreme Court. ``People have been encouraged to see bankruptcy as an easy way out of uncomfortable situations,'' Jones said. Overhaul proponents have also said that the new measure is so narrowly cast that it would affect no more than 15 pecent of bankruptcy filers. The legislation would require courts to check whether people make more than their state's median income and can pass a ``means test,'' which gauges whether they have enough to cover allowable living expenses, pay secured creditors such as mortgage lenders and still have some left over for unsecured creditors such as credit card companies. Those who are above the median and have the means would no longer be allowed to file under Chapter 7 and wipe out most of their debts, but would have to file Chapter 13 cases and agree to a repayment plan. Nearly all congressional Republicans, together with many Democrats, support the overhaul measure, which the president has warmly endorsed and said he would sign. The Senate passed the measure this month in a 74-25 vote. Approval from the House is expected next month. However, largely overlooked in the debate has been a series of proposed changes in Chapter 13 that critics say would make it harder for debtors to stick with repayment plans--the opposite effect of what supporters say they want. Critics, including bankruptcy judges in California, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Florida say there is nowhere near the fraud in the system that advocates claim. They cite a study by the nonpartisan American Bankruptcy Institute, which concludes that only about 3 percent of those who wipe out their debts in Chapter 7 could afford to repay a portion in Chapter 13. Lobbyists for the credit card and banking industries estimate that 10 percent or more would be able to pay. Those opposed to the changes contend that most people who file for bankruptcy are truly distressed finanacially--and say the success that courts have in collecting as much as they do under Chapter 13 shows the system is working. According to figures from the U.S. Trustee Program, a Justice Department agency, Chapter 13 debtors repaid almost $3.6 billion in 2003, the latest year for which figures are available. But critics say the courts' success with Chapter 13 is threatened by several little-noticed elements of the proposed legislation: Under current law, those who file under Chapter 13 must repay car loans only up to the amount the car is worth at the time they enter court, or they risk losing the vehicle. A debtor who bought a $24,000 sport utility vehicle and filed for bankruptcy two years later, for example, might have to pay far less because the vehicle had depreciated. By reducing what debtors owe auto lenders in this fashion, the law ensures more money for other creditors. And, according to bankruptcy experts, it means that auto lenders are treated on an equal footing with other ``secured'' creditors--they are promised repayment only to the value of the item they could repossess. Under the new measure, debtors would have to pay the full amount on any vehicle purchased within 2 \1/2\ years of bankruptcy, or risk losing the vehicle. The change may seem minor to an outsider, but not to Chapter 13 debtors or bankruptcy judges. ``That's going to be a big deal,'' predicted A. Thomas Small, a bankruptcy judge for the eastern district of North Carolina in Raleigh. It would mean that many repayment plans that work now would fail under the new measure, he said. Under current law, the debtor and his lawyer work out a repayment plan that they think represents the most the debtor can pay and still cover basic living expenses. A bankruptcy judge must eventually approve the plan, which usually has reduced or stretched-out payments to creditors. In the meantime, the debtor immediately begins making payments to a court-appointed trustee. Under the legislation, many debtors would have to make full payments on such big-ticket items as houses, furniture and appliances. They would have to make those payments directly to the lenders. And at the same time, they would have to start paying the court-appointed trustee for debts to doctors, credit card companies and other unsecured creditors. Many bankruptcy judges say debtors who come before them often do not have enough income to make both sets of payments. The result, they warned, would be that many debtors' plans would quickly fail. Under current bankruptcy law, two guiding principles are that debtors should not be required to repay indefinitely, or they effectively become indentured servants to their creditors, and that they should eventually be given a debt- free ``fresh start'' on their economic lives. The legislation would require debtors to agree to repayment plans with a five-year minimum repayment schedule, up from the current three-year minimum. It would also boost the chances that debtors would be required to continue paying some debts even after a plan's successful completion. Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia, said the shift away from the ``fresh start'' philosophy is justified because another bedrock American value--that people who incur debts should pay them--is being sullied under the current system. But many bankruptcy judges and independent experts warn that equally compelling values would be lost if the proposed measure becomes law. Practically, they warn, debtors who would no longer qualify for Chapter 7 and fail to complete Chapter 13 repayment plans would either have to keep paying creditors indefinitely or drop out. ``If you're confronted with a mountain of debt and have no hope of getting out from under it, you're either going to go underground or turn to crime,'' said Kenneth N. Klee, a former Republican congressional staffer who was one of the chief authors of the last major bankruptcy law change in 1978 and now teaches law at UCLA. More broadly, say judges and others, the ability to start over after running into financial problems should not be discounted. ``Loads of people have filed bankruptcy--Mark Twain, Buster Keaton, Walt Disney,'' said Lundin, the Nashville-based bankruptcy judge. ``Bankruptcy is a very American safety net. ``It's part and parcel of the American dream.'' Mr. Speaker, while this bill fails to improve the bankruptcy system, the bill succeeds in being harsh, punitive and mean-spirited. The bill is particularly harsh on women who are often the primary care givers for their children or their parents and are the largest single group in bankruptcy; on older Americans who are the fastest growing group in bankruptcy due to medical costs; and on children. Parents seeking child support will compete with credit card companies and other lenders in State courts, but will have little protection and fewer resources than the large credit card companies they are up against. Finally, the bill does a disservice to those who serve our Nation, especially our National Guard troops and Reservists who are not protected by an amendment passed by the other body. National Guard and Reservists make up nearly 40 percent of those serving in the Iraqi theater. They often leave behind small businesses and jobs and incur debt, but they do not have the benefits and services offered to active duty Armed Forces. This bill would not stop abusive creditors who are stalking down military families while their loved ones are serving our Nation bravely and heroically. I would hope that our Republican colleagues would join us in a bipartisan way to support our motion to recommit that would give some opportunities for the National Guard not to be treated this way under the bankruptcy bill. As for the bill, instead of addressing real causes of bankruptcy, this bill rewards irresponsible corporate behavior and fattens the already large profits of the credit card industry. While bankruptcy filings have increased 17 percent in the last 8 years, credit card profits have increased more than 160 percent, from $11 billion to more than $30 billion. There are now 5 billion credit card solicitations a year stuffed into our mail boxes and many targeted at teenagers with no jobs, no income, no visible means of support to pay these credit card bills. It is an industry with little oversight and loose underwriting that charges enormous fees and unfair interest payments. The legislation does nothing to address these failings. In fact, the other body rejected an amendment to tell customers how much it would cost in additional interest if they make only minimum payments on their credit card bills. For these and other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I sadly oppose this bill. I say sadly because this is an area where there should not be any major disagreement. If the point is to honor a tradition in our country where people are entitled to a fresh start so they can begin contributing back to our economy and to our society, then we should uphold that; and if people are abusing the system, existing law already covers that. Instead, we have a situation where it is mean and harsh to those who can least afford to pay back and gives opportunity to the wealthiest, the wealthiest, and corporate abusers of the system. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am giving my reasons for why I oppose the bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise in regard to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution that would create a bipartisan task force to return to ethical rules of the House.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and his recognition on this very important legislation that is before us today. I am very proud of the work of the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), our Member of Congress, a very distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for his initiative and leadership in presenting to the Congress today an alternative that makes sense to the American people, that is fair to America's families. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) speaks with authority on the issues that impact rural America, small business, and America's families and certainly America's family farms. He has their interests at heart. He knows firsthand what their challenges are. That is what makes his proposal so wise, and we all appreciate his leadership. Mr. Speaker, in the 20th century, in the early part of the 20th century, our country made a decision to honor our American value of fairness by moving forward toward a progressive system of taxation. But under 10 years of Republican rule, this Congress has consistently passed legislation that has moved away from a progressive Tax Code. Republican tax policies have rewarded wealth over work. In its analysis of the President's budget, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the tax rate on wage income is nearly twice the rate of capital income, unearned income. And now today Republicans have come to the floor with an estate tax bill continuing their harmful approach. The Republican estate tax bill again rewards extreme wealth. The Republican approach would hurt more people than it helps by increasing taxes and administrative burdens on more than 71,000 estates. And it comes at a staggering cost of nearly $1 trillion over 10 years once it takes full effect. Democrats want to be fair to all Americans, and we support being able to pass a better life on to our children and our grandchildren. But we cannot support putting the luxuries of the super-rich before the needs of America's families. The difference between the Democratic and Republican bills is that Democrats take a more responsible, indeed, a responsible approach that gives immediate tax relief to small businesses and farmers across the country. The Pomeroy substitute would provide relief to 99.7 percent of estates in America, 99.7 percent; and .3 percent of estates would not be covered under the bill. That is a small percentage, but a huge amount of money being deprived from the National Treasury. The savings achieved by pursuing the more fair and targeted approach put forth by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) would cover about one half of the long-term shortfall facing Social Security. Think of it: if we pass the gentleman from North Dakota's (Mr. Pomeroy) bill, the savings would cover one half of the shortfall in Social Security down the road. It would strengthen Social Security for generations to come. That is the choice we are facing today. Do we want to put the wealthiest .3 percent of estate holders ahead of millions of American workers who have earned their Social Security benefits with a lifetime of work? Do we want to continue reckless Republican tax policies or return to a fair system of taxation? This is a remarkable choice before us, and I hope that the American people can avail themselves of the information to understand what is at stake here. Basically, it all comes back to our deficit, to our budget, and whether we have fiscal soundness in our budget or not. What the Republicans are proposing is saying to average working families in America every day they go to work, and every paycheck money is taken from their paycheck for Social Security. What the Republicans are doing today is putting their hand into that pot and saying we are taking that money and we are going to subsidize the super-rich in our country, the largest, wealthiest estates in our country, .3 percent. Mind you, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) has covered 99.7 percent, which is most, of course, 99.7 percent of the people in America. So anyone listening to this is not, odds are, affected in any positive way by what the Republicans are proposing. In fact, they will be hurt because of what it does to Social Security and what it does in terms of capital gains for over 71,000 families in America. So I think the choice should be clear, to choose to reward work. We respect wealth. The creation of wealth is important to our economy. But that does not mean we take money from working families to give more money to the wealthiest families in America. And this at the same time as the tax cuts that the administration has proposed to make permanent, that would give people making over $1 million a year over $125,000 in tax cuts. Who are we here to represent? This is the reverse Robin Hood. We are taking money from the middle class and we are giving it to the super rich, and not only the super rich but the super, super, super rich. So let us come down and vote for America's workers, let us come down in favor of America's families, and let us recognize that everybody, the wealthiest as well as those not so wealthy, everyone in America benefits when we have fairness in our Tax Code, where we have balance in our budget in terms of our values and in terms of our fiscal responsibility. I urge our colleagues to support the very responsible Pomeroy resolution and vote no on the irresponsible and reckless Republican proposal.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my fellow California Representatives Mike Honda, Barbara Lee, Doris Matsui, and Pete Stark, I rise today to pay tribute to a true champion of the civil rights movement, Fred Korematsu. Mr. Korematsu passed away on March 30, 2005 at the age of 86. As a Japanese American facing internment during World War II, Fred Korematsu challenged government authorities by standing up for his rights as an American citizen and refusing to back down. He has earned a place in American history among our most determined fighters for justice. We will miss him greatly. Born in Oakland, California in 1919 to Japanese immigrants, Fred Korematsu's early life was similar to many other hard-working Americans. He held a job as a welder in the San Francisco shipyards and had dreams of getting married and starting a family. Two months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, however, his dreams were suddenly taken away. Under baseless fears of Japanese American disloyalty, Executive Order 9066 was signed, authorizing the removal of more than 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent from their homes along the West Coast to guarded camps in the interior of the United States. It displaced families and uprooted entire communities. On May 30, 1942, Fred Korematsu was jailed for evading authorities. He was sent to Topaz Internment Camp in Utah for 2 years. He bravely filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, and took his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, unjustly declared that the internment of Japanese Americans was necessary in a time of war and that allegations of racism by the government were unfounded. Mr. Korematsu, though, did not give up, and, 40 years later, he was vindicated in a ruling by the Federal District Court in San Francisco. Mr. Korematsu's dedication to protect civil rights did not end with his own exoneration. His courage prompted lawmakers to right the wrongs committed against Japanese Americans during World War II, and in 1988, an official apology and reparations were issued by the government. His work was recognized in 1998 when President Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Korematsu continued to fight the backlash against Arab, Muslim, and Middle Eastern communities, recounting his own struggle against discrimination. Today, we honor Fred Korematsu for his courage and recognize him as a symbol of justice, determination, and the true American spirit. His passing leaves the Asian American and Pacific Islander communities with a profound sense of loss. I hope it is a comfort to his family and friends that so many people share their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Mr. PELOSI

Mr. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Deanne Fitzmaurice of the San Francisco Chronicle for winning the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography. This award, the most prestigious in American journalism, is presented to only one photographer every year for a distinguished example of feature photography. Deanne Fitzmaurice earned this award for her moving photo essay on an Oakland hospital's effort to mend an Iraqi boy nearly killed by an explosion. Her powerful photographic narrative captures the story of this young child as doctors strive to give him a chance at a new life. With the accompanying articles written by Meredith May, these poignant photographs tell an overlooked but significant side of the Iraq war. Deanne has worked at the San Francisco Chronicle for the past 16 years. Her work has been featured in numerous publications including TIME, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report. She was named the Bay Area Press Photographers Association's Photographer of the Year in 2002. Deanne's collection is indicative of the high quality of work at the San Francisco Chronicle. The Chronicle is committed to excellence in journalism, as evidenced by Deanne's photography and its fine reporting. Congratulations to Deanne Fitzmaurice and the San Francisco Chronicle on this magnificent honor.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time and for his kind words. It is indeed a privilege to be part of a delegation to the funeral of the Holy Father. I also thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. I know how much he respected and admired the Holy Father. I thank him for his leadership in helping us express our condolences as well. Mr. Speaker, my mother used to always say of John Paul II, ``He is a saint walking the Earth.'' Indeed, he was. It is in that spirit and with deep sadness at his passing but with great thanks and joy for his life of good works that I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was one of the great spiritual and humanitarian leaders of our time. His deeds, his words and his indomitable spirit of love were a blessing to this world, and the entire world mourns his passing. Again, I am very honored to be part of the congressional delegation to the Pope's funeral on Friday, and I hope that our delegation can help convey the thoughts, prayers, and deep sympathies of the American people on his passing. We will be pleased to join our President in doing that. Pope John Paul II was a man of God, and he was a man of the people. He was passionate in his commitment to doing God's work here on Earth. St. Francis of Assisi, who was the patron saint of my city of San Francisco, said, ``Preach often, sometimes use words.'' The life of John Paul II was a sermon he preached every day by example. His ministry fed the hungry, cared for the sick, and invited the stranger. He was a champion for the poor, promoting justice and economic development around the world. His work built on the legacy of Pope Paul VI, not his immediate predecessor, except for 33 days his predecessor, who believed, ``If you want peace, work for justice.'' Pope John Paul II helped to bring justice and healing to the relationship between Catholics and Jews, and I know how important that is to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). His commitment to nonviolence and to peace on Earth was heartfelt and steadfast. With a concern and caring for all of God's children, John Paul II reached out to people of all ages, nationalities, and faiths. As we all know, he traveled to so many countries in his service as Pope, and he spent more than 2 years in his papacy outside of Rome. I like to say that he was aptly named John Paul: John, the Apostle of love, and Paul, who preached the Gospel to such a wide range of people in the earliest days of Christendom. In doing so himself, Pope John Paul II brought the redemptive message of the Catholic Church to places it had never been, and he inspired millions of individuals who saw in his conviction and in his example the light of God. He had a special bond with the youth of the world. I remember when I met him in San Francisco when he came there, and it was so exciting for us to welcome the Holy Father, and when he landed at Crissey Field in a helicopter, it was so dramatic. And when I met him, our Archbishop, Archbishop Quinn, said, as we were chatting, ``Your Holiness, I have confirmed the Congresswoman's children.'' And he said, ``That's good, that's good.'' And he said, ``Your Holiness, I have confirmed the Congresswoman's five children.'' And he said, ``That's very good, that's very good.'' And as I said, he had a special bond with the youth of the world. He spoke with them as a spiritual leader, but also as a teacher and as a friend. The guidance he offered to today's youth will benefit the world for years to come. Likewise, his influence on world events will be felt for generations. John Paul II played an enormous role in the fall of communism and ending the Cold War, and that has been mentioned here. He was a man of peace. As a priest in Poland, he waged a persistent struggle for nearly three decades against the Communist Government over the building of churches and the right of his people to worship as they choose. He continued that work as Pope, inspiring the Polish people and the Solidarity movement, and offering spiritual strength to others working to free themselves from Communist regimes. In his later years, the Pope offered the world a very different but significant form of inspiration. Suffering from Parkinson's disease and with failing health, he struggled until the end to share God's word. He taught us about the dignity of every individual and showed us that we must always seek to make a difference on this Earth. It is written in the Book of Genesis, ``Thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.'' John Paul II is with our Father now. We were blessed that he preached peace in this world for so long. As we honor his memory, as we sing his praises, we must also heed his message. The Catholic Church recently gave us a guide, the compendium of Catholic social justice, for how we can address some of the issues the previous speaker talked about, addressing the needs of the poor, the vulnerable, and the weak. President Bush mentioned that when he gave His Holiness the Presidential Medal of Freedom, he mentioned that he had championed the work for the poor, the vulnerable, the needy, he said, and the weak. We must do that in our work here. It would then be an appropriate honor and remembrance for the life, leadership, service, and holiness. My mother said, as I said in the beginning, he is a saint walking this Earth. Anyone who was ever in his presence knew they were in the presence of a holy man. Because he lived and we observed him, we have a responsibility to follow his lead.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his great leadership in putting together a budget that is a statement of our values, that is balanced in terms of our priorities and balanced fiscally. He has always conducted the process of creating a budget in a way that has informed Members, has done so with great dignity and great fairness and great respect for all points of view. I wish we would all join in acknowledging the great leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina, our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Chairman, in 1994, the first item in the Republicans' Contract with America was the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Republicans pledged ``to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.'' More than 10 years later, an out-of-touch Republican majority has taken fiscal responsibility to a new low. It is clear that in the 10 years the Republicans have become addicted to deficits. The budget deficit for this year is a record $427 billion. The February budget deficit, my colleagues, of $114 billion for the month of February, a deficit of $114 billion, is the highest monthly deficit ever and the first time it ever went over $100 billion in one month. In 2001, President Clinton left President Bush with a projected $5.6 trillion in surplus. In just 4 years, President Bush has turned that record surplus into a record deficit of nearly $4 trillion, a $10 trillion swing in the wrong direction. Make no mistake, these deficits are the direct result of Republican policies, huge tax cuts for the wealthy, a refusal to pay as you go, poor planning for a war of choice in Iraq. The list goes on and on and on. America is awash in red ink because of Republican budget irresponsibility. Tragically, this Republican budget is yet another missed opportunity to return to fiscal discipline. Not only is this budget fiscally irresponsible; the Republican budget is dishonest. It does not cut the deficit in half as Republicans claim. In fact, it makes the deficit worse. Republicans leave out the realistic cost of the war, the cost of expiring tax provisions, the true cost of fixing the alternative minimum tax and the cost of any changes to Social Security. The budget is dishonest in another way: it fails to show any deficit figures at all after 2010. In our New Partnership for America's Future, Democrats have made a commitment to honor the value of accountability, including eliminating deficit spending and holding those in power accountable for their actions with a high ethical standard. Democrats support honest, accountable budgets that pay as you go. The Democratic alternative offered by the gentleman from South Carolina achieves balance by 2012. The Republican budget never reaches balance. It heaps tons of debt onto our children and grandchildren, and it will eventually lower our standard of living. We cannot let that happen to our country. And on top of all of that, the Republican budget undermines the solvency of Social Security. While Republicans ignore the real crisis of ballooning budget deficits, the President falsely claims there is a crisis in Social Security. But just because the President says it does not make it so. He is simply wrong. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security's trust fund will grow every year until a high of $8.3 trillion in 2032 and continues to be solvent until 2052. I want to call your attention to this chart, my colleagues. The left bar represents the deficit in the general fund between now and 2035, a staggering $15 trillion. The Bush administration has taken us onto a trajectory of reckless budgeting that will take us to $15 trillion in deficit in 2035. From 2006 to 2035, $15 trillion in deficit. This bar here, the second bar, Social Security, 2006 to 2080, twice as long, more than twice as long, the Social Security deficit is $2 trillion. It is clear that there would be plenty of money to deal with the Social Security trust fund if the President were not using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America. Instead of doing that, we have a moral and legal obligation to pay back to the trust fund the money the President has taken out. We cannot let the President do this. By running enormous deficits, the Republicans want to force the government to break its promises to the elderly. How on Earth are they going to pay the Social Security trust fund back if they have gone broke on the other side by running up these deficits in the general fund? Democrats will keep America's promises to our seniors. Democrats have done it before, and we will do it again. When Bill Clinton was President, we had 3 years of surpluses. And with the surpluses, imagine, think of it. Zero deficits. $427 billion in deficit for this year, over $100 billion in deficit for the month of February alone, this year. And when President Clinton was President, the 3 years at the end of his term, we had zero deficits. And with the surpluses that were produced he was able to pay nearly $400 billion off of our indebtedness, strengthening the solvency of Social Security. Likewise the Democratic alternative that was offered today included pay-as-you-go rules that would block new tax or spending legislation that is not paid for. Not only is the Republican budget fiscally reckless and dishonest, it is morally irresponsible. The leaders of five Protestant denominations, the Episcopal Church USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church recently called President Bush's budget unjust. They reminded us of the words of the prophet, Micah, who said, ``What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God?'' Does this budget do justice for Americans? You be the judge. Is it doing justice to our children to give tax cuts to people making more than $500,000 a year, while underfunding Head Start, No Child Left Behind, student loans and grants and other education initiatives by $2.5 billion? Is that doing justice to our children? Is it doing justice to our communities to give tax cuts to the wealthy while funding for community police and local fire fighters who are vital to our homeland security by cutting them by $280 million? Is that justice? Is it doing justice to those who serve in uniform to give those tax cuts while underfunding health care benefits for veterans by $14 billion short of what is needed over the next 5 years? Is that justice for our veterans? And is it doing justice to give tax cuts to the wealthy while launching a shameful attack on the poor? This budget cuts $20 billion from Medicaid, a cut that Governors, on a bipartisan basis, oppose, and which the other body today has just rejected. Let us hear it for the other body. It undermines the Community Development Block Grant Initiative with all considered restructuring and a massive 35 percent cut. It makes huge cuts to the earned income tax which takes 2 million children, lifts 2 million children out of poverty. But this budget, the Republican budget, makes cuts there. No. The Republican budget does not do justice, it does great damage to our country. Instead of being a statement of our values, the Republican budget is an assault on our values. And it is a blueprint for financial disaster. I urge my colleagues to return to fiscal discipline, to honor our values and to oppose this disgraceful Republican budget. Thank you, my colleagues. Vote ``no'' on this budget.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in a few days we will mark the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and the start of a war that, in my judgment, did not need to be fought. At the time, the war was rationalized on intelligence estimates of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction capabilities that were wrong, and on suggestions that Iraq was somehow connected with the September 11 al-Qaeda attacks on our country that were never true. The President now says that the war is really about the spread of democracy in the Middle East. This effort at after-the-fact justification was only made necessary because the primary rationale was so sadly lacking in fact. The one constant in 2 years of combat has been the courage, dedication, and skill of the men and women of our Armed Forces. For more than 1,500 of our troops, service in Iraq required the ultimate sacrifice. That is a loss for which our country mourns each day. Thousands more have been wounded--their lives, and the lives of their families changed forever by this war. Similar losses have been experienced by families in Spain, in Italy, and, of course, in Iraq. The bill before us provides another $75 billion for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This enormous sum was not requested through the normal budget process, not subjected to any hearings, and not counted against our massive budget deficits. In fact, this will be the third largest appropriations measure this year. And this $75 billion will be on top of the more than $200 billion previously appropriated, mostly by the supplemental appropriations process, for these military operations. How much of this cost would have been unnecessary had the administration taken the time and the care to plan adequately for a war of choice? We will never know. But we do know--because these supplementals are evidence of it--that our troops were sent into combat without the equipment they would need for a protracted insurgency operation. Our responsibility now is two-fold. First, to ensure that our troops have what they need to do their jobs effectively and as safely as possible. And second, to develop a strategy for success that will contain clear benchmarks by which the American people can measure progress toward the time when our forces will be brought home. That strategy for success must include an aggressive plan for transferring responsibility for their country's security to the Iraqis, an improved plan for Iraq's reconstruction, and an intensification of diplomatic efforts in the region. Other countries--the Netherlands and Italy among them--are making plans for the return of their forces. The United States does not need to adopt their timelines, but we do need clear criteria for judging certain fundamentals, including the capability and willingness of Iraqi security forces to deal with the insurgency and protect the country. Somewhere between an open-ended U.S. commitment to Iraq and a timetable for withdrawal must be a strategy for ending our military involvement. That fact was the heart of the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran, which this House adopted yesterday. The President owes it to the American people and this Congress to develop such a plan, clearly describe it, and provide an assessment of how much it will cost and how long it will take. I understand and share the frustration that will lead some to vote against this bill. We are being asked, again, to clean up a mess that many of us argued strongly against creating. Putting aside our frustration with this administration so that we can provide our troops what they need does not, however, mean that we will forget the mistakes, miscalculations, and misrepresentations that brought us to the point where these billions are necessary. The time is long past due for an accounting for those failures. We in Congress understand our responsibility to provide for the common defense. The administration must understand its responsibility to use the money this Congress provides effectively, and with a transparency that can withstand scrutiny.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time, and I, more importantly, thank him for his tremendous leadership, for his leadership on the Committee on the Budget. He has presented budgets that are statements of our national values, that are balanced in terms of their priority and balanced in terms of their fiscal soundness. He has been a great teacher to the country and the Congress on this issue. We are indeed blessed by his exceptional leadership. Mr. Chairman, with today's vote on the previous question, Republicans told their constituents exactly where they stood on Social Security. They want to privatize it. Defeating the previous question would have ensured that payroll contributions of millions of Americans are protected and are not diverted away from Social Security to fund private accounts, but Republicans voted unanimously to undermine Social Security with private accounts. Even though Social Security privatization is the President's number one priority, the Republican budget hides the cost in and the harmful effects of Social Security privatization by refusing to include any details on the plan in the budget. The Republican budget also continues the Republican raid on the Social Security Trust Fund by spending every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund over the next 10 years, totaling $2.6 trillion. The previous speaker or colleague the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) referenced that when President Bush came into office he came in at a time of surplus. Indeed, for the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, there was zero deficit. In fact, there were surpluses, and that tightening of the government's budget under President Clinton enabled the Clinton administration to pay back over $350 billion of our indebtedness, reducing the national debt. We were on a course of action in the budget of being debt free by the year 2008, debt free for our country, and what that means in terms of the budget and the debt service is remarkable. Yet, President Bush came into office with his reckless tax cuts for the superwealthy. Not all of them were for superwealthy. We supported those for the middle class, but because of the size of the tax cuts for the superwealthy has driven us deeply into debt to the tune this year, if we include the supplemental, of about a half a trillion dollars in debt for 1 year, this is unconscionable. The course of action that the Republican administration is on makes it nearly impossible for them to pay back the Social Security Trust Fund, the money they have taken from it to date. Secondly, the private accounts and the transition costs of around $2 trillion for the transition over the next 10 years, is huge and, again, undermines Social Security. So the deficit in the budget is directly related to undermining Social Security. It is essential that the President be stopped in creating these private accounts which drain money out of the Social Security Trust Fund, thereby weakening Social Security. It is essential that the President and the Republicans be stopped from their reckless deficit spending, their raid on the Social Security Trust Fund and their further deficit spending with their tax cuts for the superrich that will make it impossible for them to pay back the money to the trust fund. This is money that the American workers have placed into the trust fund, that American businesses have matched by placing into the trust fund for retirement insurance. This money belongs to the American people. It is not a slush fund for President Bush to give tax cuts to the superwealthy at the expense of working families in America. Democrats are committed to addressing the challenge which faces Social Security down the road. The first step towards strengthening Social Security is ensuring that Social Security contributions are used only to pay for the guaranteed benefit that American workers have earned through a lifetime of work, for retirement; for disabilities if, God forbid, that happens, a tragedy befalls their family; and again, for survivors and families who have lost a loved one. Privatization makes the challenge facing Social Security worse by slashing benefits by more than 40 percent for future retirees survivors, the people with disabilities, if what we know of the President's plan, indexing to prices rather than wage, is proceeded upon, saddling our children and grandchildren with massive debt and jeopardizing the retirement lifeline provided by Social Security's guaranteed benefit. Rather than diverting trillions with a T-R, trillions of dollars from the trust fund to fund risky private accounts, Democrats are committed to strengthening Social Security. Once privatization is off the table, Democrats want to work with Republicans in a bipartisan way to make any adjustments to keep Social Security solvent. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the issue is what we do about Social Security from the year 2050 to the year 2100. Contrary to what the President has put out there, there is no crisis facing Social Security. There is a problem down the road. We have time to deal with it in the right way, in a way that does not slash benefits, that does not increase the deficit, does not rob our trust fund of its funds and does not burden our children with all of that debt. So we will go to the table and say, with the amount of money that should be in the trust fund, and if the administration honors its moral and legal obligation to pay the trust fund back the money it has taken out, then the trust fund and interest on it should take us well into 2050. And after that, the benefits would be at 80 percent, and that is what we have to deal with. We can deal with it soon. We can deal with it in a bipartisan way. Just as President Reagan did working with Speaker Tip O'Neill in 1983, we can work it out in a bipartisan way to strengthen Social Security. Some say that the private accounts are an end in themselves. There are people who believe in private accounts. Others believe that the private accounts are just a decoy, just a Trojan horse that looks appealing to people because it is a new idea, that once they get it past the gates of the city that rotten underbelly of huge deficits will destroy Social Security. Either way, private accounts have got to go. They take money out of the trust fund, and this administration has no visible means of paying that money back. Today, again, the Republicans said with their vote that they want to undermine Social Security by privatizing it, while Democrats voted unanimously to strengthen Social Security for future generations. Let us honor our responsibility to future generations, to our children, also to America's workers. Morally and legally we are bound to give them the promise of America to pay their insurance; their retirement insurance; and, if in time of tragedy, their disability and survivor insurance as well.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, offer a privileged resolution that I noticed, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as the Members know, all of us in our country want to have our troops to have what they need when they go into harm's way. Sadly, that was not the case in the last 2 years. I hope that the $82 billion in this bill will redress some of those shortcomings, shortfalls, that our troops have had to suffer because they did not have the proper equipment. Never again should America send our troops into harm's way without the equipment they need to keep them safe and to bring them home as soon as they have finished their job. I rise, Mr. Chairman, to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for putting forth a very critical amendment to appropriate funds for a select committee to study the awarding and carrying out of government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I said, we want our troops to have what we need. We must be sure that the taxpayer's dollar is spent wisely. In their bipartisan work, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) have made clear that accountability in government is not a partisan issue. Their leadership has set the right tone for this vital debate. In 1941, Mr. Chairman, Senator Harry Truman got in his car and drove all across the United States, making unannounced visits to defense plants and corporate offices. The people running the plants did not recognize then Senator Truman. They did not bother to hide the corruption and waste that characterized their operations. This was at a time when Senator Truman was in a Democratic-majority Senate, there was a Democratic majority in the House, there was a Democrat in the White House, and our country was in a world war. But when he came home to Washington, Truman called the trip ``an eye opener,'' and he soon introduced a resolution to create the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program. I repeat, at a time of a Democratic House and Senate and White House, this Democratic Senator said we must subject this spending to investigation. It was estimated that by spending only $400,000 at the time, this Truman committee saved $15 billion. And it earned Senator Truman the gratitude of the entire Nation. Today we are considering whether to appropriate another $80 billion to the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in addition to the more than $200 billion that has already been made available. Spending of this magnitude demands strict accounting. Today it would be impossible to walk into a defense plant unannounced, of course; but while security measures have changed, our American values of accountability have not. There are honest differences about defense policy, but we should all agree in a bipartisan way that taxpayer money should always be spent efficiently and effectively. Sadly, the stories of abuse on contracts in Iraq are everywhere: Nearly $9 billion spent on Iraq reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management. The Pentagon's own auditors have now concluded that Halliburton overcharged by more than $100 million under its no-bid Iraqi oil contract. $100 million. A firm was paid $15 million to provide security for civilian flights into Baghdad, even though no planes flew during the term of the contract. This is a disgrace. This may be just the tip of the iceberg, though. We simply do not know. That is what we want to find out. We do know who has paid the price for this waste and corruption: American troops and American taxpayers. Our first priority must always be to force protection; yet sloppy contracting has meant that money has been wasted that could have been spent to provide our troops the equipment they need to do their jobs and protect themselves. Recently, we learned that a contract for bulletproof ceramic plate inserts was awarded to a contractor who had no practical means of producing them. It took 167 days for troops in Iraq to start receiving the insert, 167 days. How many injuries? How many deaths? We do not know. For taxpayers, every dollar that is wasted on corruption, and that is what this is, profiteering on the war is corruption, and incompetence, is one less dollar to pay down record deficits or to make Social Security solvent. Harry Truman led the way for a Democratic Congress to conduct oversight of a Democratic administration. In doing so, he created a bipartisan consensus that gave the public confidence in the war effort. We can and we must do the same today. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) would allow Congress to monitor the contracting process better, to meet the needs of our troops better, and to safeguard taxpayer dollars better. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and in doing so to support accountability in government spending and to stop the profiteering on the war in Iraq.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today is the 46th Anniversary of Tibetan National Uprising Day. We honor the many brave Tibetans who sacrificed their lives fighting for freedom, and we demand that the Chinese government release all prisoners of conscience including Tenzin Delek Rinpoche and the 11th Panchen Lama. I am proud that my constituents in San Francisco organize a peace rally and march commemorating this day every year. When China's People's Liberation Army invaded Tibet in 1949, Tibet was an independent state. The Chinese government imposed an agreement on Tibet recognizing Tibet's autonomy over its internal affairs. But, as the Chinese government consolidated their control, they repeatedly violated the treaty and open resistance to Chinese repression grew. On March 10, 1959, the people of Lhasa assembled together and called for the Chinese to leave Tibet, thus marking the beginning of the uprising. The Chinese crackdown was harsh. An estimated 87,000 Tibetans were killed, arrested, or deported to labor camps. In the years since the People's Uprising, more than 1 million Tibetans have been killed and more than 6,000 monasteries and irreplaceable jewels of Tibetan culture have been destroyed. We know that Tibetans are routinely imprisoned and tortured for nonviolently expressing their views. Beatings, prolonged exposure to extreme heat and cold, electroshock, sleep and food deprivation, and forced labor are among the techniques used to torture Tibetan political prisoners. Last month, the U.S. State Department published its annual ``Country Reports on Human Rights.'' The section on Tibet states that ``[Chinese] authorities continued to commit serious human rights abuses, including extra-judicial killing, torture, arbitrary arrest, detention without public trial, and lengthy detention of Tibetans for peacefully expressing their political or religious views.'' The Chinese government has not won the hearts and minds of the Tibetan people. Tibetans are as devoted to their traditional beliefs as ever, and the bond between His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people is fundamental and unbreakable. Attempts to drive a wedge between the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people have failed and have been counterproductive for the Chinese government. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the key to peace and stability in Tibet. Envoys of the Dalai Lama have traveled to China and Tibet three times in recent years to continue discussions with Chinese authorities on a permanent negotiated settlement. While open dialogue is a positive first step, it is time for the Chinese government to follow through with substance and not just process. It is time for China to take a step forward into a modern, open and free society. The survival of the Tibetan identity is an issue of urgent U.S. and international concern. If we are not committed to meeting the challenge of Tibet then we cannot be consistent when we talk about human rights in any other place in the world. As we honor the brave and heroic Tibetan people, we must heed the guidance of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. He is a constant reminder that the crisis in Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the world. We have not forgotten the people of Tibet in their struggle. Troops can crush a protest, but they can never extinguish the flame of freedom that burns in every human heart.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, for more than 10 years, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has helped protect women in this country from violence, abuse, sexual assault, and sexual predators. This landmark piece of legislation was achieved in part by the bipartisan efforts of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, of which I am proud to be a member. VAWA has provided improved access to services and resources for victims of violence and their families. It has made a real difference in the lives of women and children, who no longer suffer in silence. Community programs funded through VAWA aid law enforcement officers and prosecutors, encourage arrest policies, stem domestic violence and child abuse, establish and operate training programs for victim advocates and counselors, and train probation and parole officers who work with released sex offenders. VAWA has also led to the creation of battered women's shelters, rape prevention and education programs, the reduction of sexual abuse of runaway and homeless street youth, and community programs on domestic violence. Despite the success of this legislation, we still have much work to do. One out of every four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime. Equally alarming is that women ages 16 to 24 experience the highest per capita rates of intimate partner violence. VAWA is up for reauthorization in this Congress. We must come together to put forward a bill that strengthens and improves our efforts to combat violence against women, including doing more for violence prevention. An essential component of prevention must be to increase outreach to young people. We must also encourage adequate funding of VAWA initiatives. Unfortunately, each year we fall further behind in fulfilling the promises made in the authorization of VAWA. This year alone the Bush budget is more than $163 million short of the goal. As we recognize the vital role of the Violence Against Women Act, I urge my colleagues to reauthorize VAWA in a bipartisan way and to dedicate the necessary resources to fulfill its mission.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of Magdaleno Duenas, a World War II military hero who passed away on February 27 at the age of 90. We honor and thank him for his courageous military service and the sacrifices he made for our nation, as well as his lifelong struggle on behalf of Filipino veterans of World War II. His life is a symbol of the struggle for total recognition of Filipino veterans and a sad reminder of a shameful page in the history of our nation. Born and raised in the Philippines, Mr. Duenas joined the 101st Infantry in 1941. In 1943, he joined the guerilla forces in the mountains and was captured by the Japanese while procuring food for American soldiers. Under questioning, Mr. Duenas denied any knowledge of the whereabouts of the American soldiers. He escaped, and helped 10 U.S. soldiers escape the Japanese POW camp. Mr. Duenas came to the United States to claim his U.S. citizenship and military benefits, and fell into the hands of an abusive landlord in Richmond, Calif. He and 16 other veterans were held in captivity, beaten, chained and fed dog food, while their landlord kept their monthly government checks. After being rescued, his experience received news coverage. It brought public attention to the plight of elderly Filipino veterans who came to America expecting to receive previously promised veterans' pensions for their honorable U.S. military service, but instead learned that Congress had stripped them of those benefits and recognition. Thousands of Filipino veterans came to the U.S. seeking equity and have waited 60 years for the promise to be honored. After fighting for more than half a century for their right to U.S. citizenship, other issues related to their health and recognition remain to be addressed. Many live alone in poverty. It is a national tragedy to see our veterans suffer from neglect, despair and hopelessness. Mr. Duenas moved to San Francisco's Tenderloin district in 1993, where he was vibrant member of our community. This diminutive, gentle man worked tirelessly to improve the experience of Filipino Veterans in the Bay Area. All these years, he waited for the recognition of the U.S. Government for the services he rendered during WWII. He was featured in two documentaries: Tears of Old and Second Class Citizens. He died still waiting for the full equity bill to be passed by the U.S. Congress. We will not rest until the equity bill becomes law. Mr. Speaker, we will never forget his struggle on the frontlines of the battlefield and on the frontlines of the fight for equity for Filipino veterans. Mr. Duenas' courage and resolve moves all of us to continue the fight for justice in our country for all people. We will never forget the sacrifices Mr. Duenas and other Filipino veterans made for our freedom. We must dedicate ourselves as a nation to ensure that America fulfills its moral obligation to those who pay the high price for our freedom.