Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time and in jest describing the remarks I wanted to make. I want to join him, I know he is a friend of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). The two of them have worked together, despite their differences on some issues, in a very courteous and constructive way for this House. Mr. Chairman, I want to convey to you not only my personal congratulations and appreciation for your very distinct leadership on this committee but that of all the House Democrats. As a former member of the Committee on Appropriations, I saw firsthand the fairness, the intelligence, and the humor that you brought to the chairmanship. Our Congress was greatly served by your leadership, by your demeanor, by your friendship to each and every Member, and by the respect that you gave us all on the committee. You were a model of bipartisanship where you could be, where it was possible to be, and I think you always gave us the opportunity for that bipartisanship. I want to again congratulate you, wish you well in whatever the arrangement of chairs is on the Republican side, and to say not only to you but to Mrs. Young, thank you for the attention you have paid to our men and women in uniform, to our troops in battle and when they come back. Again, congratulations. Thank you, my friend, Mr. Young. I hope that bought you enough time. I have plenty more to say about you. I will just make one comparison. When Mr. Livingston came in as the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, my colleagues on the committee will remember he brought, some would call it a machete, but I think it was called something else in Louisiana, and he was swinging this blade around, and that was how we started the term. It was humorous to some, frightening to others, a mystery to most. In any event, when Mr. Young came, it was a much less menacing beginning and a much more fruitful, I think, opportunity for us all to work together. No offense to Mr. Livingston, but your approach and friendship was much more inviting. So, again, Mr. Young, thank you so much for your service and for your leadership. We are all in your debt.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to a former Member of this body, Tom Foglietta, who passed away so suddenly this week. Tommy was a gentleman, a diplomat, and a lovely and gracious man. We will miss him terribly. At age 26 Tom Foglietta, as a Republican, Mr. Speaker, became the youngest person in the history of Philadelphia to be elected to the city council. He served there for nearly 20 years, devoted to the city he loved. In 1980, as a Democrat, Tom was elected to the Congress. I saw firsthand his values and his effectiveness as a member of the Committee on Appropriations where we developed a strong working relationship and a close friendship and took pride in our mutual respect for our Italian American heritage. Tommy headed the Congressional Urban Caucus, promoted mass transit, and fought valiantly for the needs of Philadelphia, including the preservation of the Philadelphia Navy Yard. The entire country is in his debt for his relentless dedication to preserve and protect Philadelphia's Independence Hall, one of our Nation's sacred public places. In 1997 President Bill Clinton appointed Tom Foglietta to be the U.S. Ambassador to Italy, fulfilling a lifetime dream of his to serve his beloved America in his family's ancestoral home. Many of us heard him say over and over again that his grandparents came down the hill on a donkey in Italy to leave to go to America and he returned just two generations later as a U.S. Ambassador to Italy. It was in that role, in one simple act, that the world came to love and appreciate Tommy as we do. Shortly after he arrived, a U.S. Marine fighter plane flying off course struck a cable car wire and killed 20 Italian skiers. There was great grief and outrage over this tragic event. The next day Tommy visited the site, knelt in the cold snow, and said a quiet heartfelt prayer for those who had lost their lives. That photograph of his prayer appeared in newspapers around the world presenting a human face of compassion for the United States. His act helped to difuse the public anger over the deaths and to convey the sincere apology of our country. Tommy did that spontaneously because he was a man of faith. We expected no less of our Tommy. Quite simply, he was a good man we all loved to be around. Tom Foglietta began his political career as a city councilman as a Republican, as I mentioned. He later ran for Congress and won as an Independent and then became a Democrat and remained so for the rest of his life. But Tommy remained close to the people from all across the political spectrum, a testament to his appealing personality, his open mind, and his respect to each and every person in this body. Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for many here when I extend the condolences to Tommy's family and to the Pennsylvania delegation for this loss.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 110, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge during World War II. I thank Speaker Hastert for scheduling this bill and giving us this opportunity to pay tribute to the brave Americans who fought and died in that crucial battle. I know that this is personal to the Speaker. His mentor, the former Republican Leader from Illinois, Bob Michel, received the Purple Heart and other citations for his bravery in that battle. I share the Speaker's respect for Leader Michel. Further, the Speaker's family hails from Luxembourg, and the special ties between our countries that resulted from the Battle of the Bulge have great meaning to him. This is personal to me as well. My uncle, Johnny D'Alesandro, was one of the heroes who gave their lives for their country in the Battle of the Bulge. Like so many other families, his sacrifice was for us a source of both sorrow and pride--deep sadness over the loss of a wonderful man; tremendous pride that one of our own helped to preserve the freedom and values that we cherish as a nation. But beyond the personal significance that the battle holds for us is the towering importance it holds for human history. The Allied victory in World War II literally saved the world, and that victory became inevitable when the Allied forces successfully repelled the surprise German attack in what we call the Battle of the Bulge. With bitter cold and blinding snow, it was the bloodiest single battle ever fought by American soldiers. There were 81,000 American casualties, including 19,000 killed in action. The heroes of that battle rightfully take their place among the bravest and most noble in American history. We dedicated the World War II Memorial on the Mall this year to pay tribute to all of the veterans of that war, and we will honor the heroes of the Battle of the Bulge with ceremonies by citizens of the United States, Belgium, Luxembourg, and many other nations in the coming months. But we can never truly repay the debt we owe them. We can offer only our words of heartfelt gratitude and our promise to never forget the sacrifice they made for our country. May God bless the heroes of the Battle of the Bulge. May God bless all of the men and women serving in uniform today. And may God bless America.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, having just returned from the opening ceremony in Little Rock, Arkansas today, I rise to congratulate President Bill Clinton on the opening of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center. The library, an architectural triumph that evokes President Clinton's ``Bridge to the 21st Century,'' is a superb accomplishment worthy of the outstanding presidency it documents. Containing 80 million pages of records, nearly 2 million photographs, nearly 80,000 artifacts and 21 million emails, it is the largest presidential library ever. It covers every aspect of his eight years in office, including domestic and international issues, legislative achievements, and personal triumphs and challenges. The thoroughness of the library, however, is no surprise. President Clinton has always been known for his love of learning. The construction of this library and the opportunity to make resources available to scholars and the public is a personal joy to him. In the library, visitors will learn the story of a great presidency that lifted the lives of so many Americans. During President Clinton's two terms in office, he created 22 million new jobs, and median household income was the highest in history. With an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and an increase in the minimum wage, America had the lowest poverty rate in 20 years. At the same time, President Clinton's responsible economic policies eliminated the deficit, and we had three years in a row of budget surpluses. More Americans were able to access health care and to own their own homes. We modernized our defenses, while strengthening our role in the world. Bill Clinton's presidency is a powerful example of what we can accomplish when we ``put people first.'' Future Presidents and leaders should study his example. Also characteristic of President Clinton, the library exists not for its own sake but as part of a larger effort to continue the good work of his presidency. Through the library and the Clinton Foundation, he is continuing to fight against HIV/AIDS, to promote racial and religious reconciliation, to encourage economic empowerment, and to support citizen service and leadership development. The library itself has helped revitalize Little Rock and has spurred more than $1 billion in economic development. Bill Clinton's love of learning is infectious. He reminds us all of what a dedicated individual with drive and conviction can accomplish. I am confident that the Clinton Presidential Center library will be a valuable asset to scholars for generations to come and a destination for his many admirers from around the world.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me this time, and I commend him for his very excellent work on fiscal soundness for our country and in this Congress. He has so eloquently driven the message home that no country has ever been strong, prosperous, and bankrupt. I thank him for his eloquence and his leadership. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, has been a champion for middle-income families in America and understands the importance of the fiscal soundness they have in their homes in paying their mortgages, their credit cards, their car payments, and the impact of a huge budget deficit, a huge national debt has on the lives of working families in America, and I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) as well. I want to reserve my highest praise for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). This Congress has been blessed for many years by his distinguished service in the House of Representatives. He has been a champion for the American people, for the American farmer, and a leader for fiscal soundness in our country. He is about accountability, accountability in our service here. No one has been a stronger or more eloquent voice for that message and what it means. He has been a teacher to the Congress. He has changed the thinking of a political party by making Democrats the party of fiscal responsibility for having a pay-as-you-go policy where we say no more budget deficit, no more deficit spending. It has too high a cost in the personal lives of the American people. It has too high a cost to fiscal soundness of our country, and as others have indicated, there are countries that own our debt that we are at the mercy of should they decide not to play in those markets at any given time. So this place will simply not be the same without the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), but I hope that as a source of comfort, if that is the word, to him as he goes on to other great things, and I know he will, that he has made a tremendous difference for our country. He has made tremendous progress for our country. I know I speak for every person here when I say it has been an honor to call him colleague. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). Mr. Speaker, many of us just came back from the dedication of the Clinton Library, where obviously we were drenched in the rain for several hours. But it was well worth it because we could pay tribute to a President who too was committed to fiscal soundness. Under the economic policy and the plan that was passed in this body by only Democratic votes, our country went on a path of fiscal soundness that had zero deficit in 1999. Zero deficit. Think of it. Compared to this year when the deficit is over $425 billion just for this year. And President Clinton, when he left office, he put us on a path of fiscal soundness and surplus of $5.6 trillion, $5.6 trillion in surplus. And now we are going on a path of over $3 trillion in deficit, a huge swing approaching $10 trillion. It is historic, the swing that has taken place. So no wonder we would endure the driving rain and all that it did to us there to thank President Clinton. And I might say that in attendance were also present Jimmy Carter, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President George W. Bush. And both Presidents Bush spoke with great eloquence. They spoke with great unity for our country. It was an honor for all of us to hear their words and to be there with them at the dedication of the Clinton Library. So it was a very wonderful occasion. And I, as Democratic leader, want to thank President George W. Bush for giving us the planes to enable us to go there and to thank our distinguished Speaker for rolling the votes so that the Democrats and I think some of the Republicans could go there. Senator Frist was there, but some from the House were there as well. But just to get back to our subject here, here we come back. Is it not ironic that the Republicans in the campaign went out there and talked about their economic policy and the first order of legislative business when we get back here is to increase the debt ceiling? In the course of the President's administration now, this 4 years, it will have been raised $2 trillion. This is absolutely astounding in terms of these figures. Whatever happened to the deficit hawks? I know they are over there. We heard from them in earlier manifestations of their legislative lives that they really were concerned about the fiscal soundness of our country. Have the deficit hawks become an endangered species? Be true to yourselves. Face the facts. We have to have pay-as-you-go again. Pay-as-you-go is what brought us into surplus. Pay-as-you-go is the way we have to go now. And we will have that opportunity to do that later. I am going to submit my fuller statement for the Record because the hour is late and because my colleagues have spoken so eloquently to this point. But I just want to close with a point about accountability. This budget that we have is supposed to be a statement of our national values. We have talked about that over and over again. And a value that we have to have is accountability, how we answer to the next generation for the debt that we are piling on them. We want to give our children opportunity. Instead, we are giving them obligations. It is simply not right. So I urge all of my colleagues to support our motion to commit which will accommodate, will give the government a chance to go forward, but also to put a limit on this profligate increase in the debt. I hope at the end of the evening, though, that everyone who stands up for fiscal soundness will vote against this irresponsible lifting of the debt ceiling unless there is a responsible discipline thrust upon it of pay- as-you-go or a plan from the President to say how he intends to reduce the deficit. With that, once again, I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their exceptional leadership on this subject, which is a very, very important one to our children, that we are accountable to them, that what we hand to them is our responsibility and that we will never forget that. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal soundness, vote for pay-as-you-go, vote for a plan to reduce the deficit, vote for a limitation on the time that the Republicans can continue to pile on and pile on the debt. At the same time, President Clinton's responsible economic policies eliminated the deficit, and we had three years in a row of budget surpluses. How ironic--and how sad--that our first item of legislative business upon returning to Washington after election is to raise the debt ceiling to make room for the enormous piles of debt that President Bush, and this Republican Congress have run up. When President Bush took office, we were on a path to a $5.6 trillion surplus. We are now facing a $3 trillion deficit--a fiscal collapse of nearly $9 trillion. Record surpluses have become record deficits. The deficit for this year alone is $413 billion. Now, Republicans want to raise the debt limit for the third time in three years. Including this year's increase, Republicans will have raised the debt limit by more than $2.2 trillion since President Bush took office. What happened to the Republican deficit hawks? They have become an endangered species in Washington. The truth is that there really is no limit to the amount of debt Republicans are willing to run up. Republicans will tell you that these deficits are not their fault; that they were caused by circumstances beyond their control. But it's just not true. These deficits are the direct result of irresponsible Republican choices--tax cuts for the wealthy and reckless corporate handouts including tax breaks that encourage shipping jobs overseas. The Republican policy of borrow-and-spend must end. We are running up a bill and handing it to our children. We should be giving our children opportunity, not obligations, but America's growing debt will ensure that our children and our grandchildren are paying for Republican irresponsibility for the rest of their lives. Their taxes will pay for the interest on our debt instead of keeping our military the strongest in the world, strengthening Social Security, or improving education. Higher deficits also have real consequences for American families today. The federal government is by far the largest player in the credit markets, and when federal borrowing increases there is less credit available to everyone else, causing interest rates to rise. Higher interest rates mean consumers must spend more on their mortgage, credit cards, and student loan payments. And when it becomes more expensive to borrow money, businesses are less likely to make the investments that generate jobs and opportunities. Democrats have a better way. We believe in accountability in government. Accountability was one of the six core values in our New Partnership for America's Future. Democrats believe we must return to accountability by restoring fiscal discipline and eliminating deficit spending with pay-as-you-go budget rules in which both tax cuts and spending increases must be paid for. These rules created the surpluses under President Clinton, and can work again. Democrats tried earlier today to restore the successful pay-as-you-go rules, but Republicans wrongly rejected that effort. Now, because this issue is so critical, we offer the Republicans yet another chance to work together in good faith to reduce the deficit. Charlie Stenholm has long been one of the most passionate and eloquent advocates for fiscal responsibility in this Congress. And tonight he is giving us another opportunity to meet our moral responsibility to the next generation. By supporting his motion to instruct, we will agree to increase the debt ceiling until April 15 next year, at which point the President must present a balanced budget. This would keep the government running and give the President and Congress time to put forward the balanced budget the American people need and deserve. Thank you, Charlie, for all of your leadership, and for this motion. I urge my colleagues to support the Stenholm motion to instruct.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to salute Jennie Chin Hansen for her vision, leadership, and extraordinary service to San Francisco's seniors as she prepares to step down as Executive Director of On Lok Senior Health Services. She has had a magnificent career and will continue to make invaluable contributions to our City and our nation. Jennie joined On Lok Senior Health Services as a research assistant in 1980. At that time, On Lok was a modest initiative in San Francisco's Chinatown that offered a day health program to 100 homebound seniors. Under her leadership, On Lok was transformed into a national model for an alternative to nursing homes for the growing population of frail and elderly Americans. On Lok has demonstrated how vital it is for the elderly to continue living independently in their homes, near their friends and families, and in their communities for as long as possible. Jennie transformed On Lok into a non-profit family of organizations. On Lok now provides a spectrum of services including comprehensive medical care, prescription drug assistance, bilingual case management, home-cooked meals, and opportunities to socialize. On Lok provides transportation to seven neighborhood centers in San Francisco. In its 25 years, 20,000 seniors have benefited from their programs. Three million meals have been prepared and served. A quarter million classes on subjects including aerobics, dance, painting, and citizenship as well as group outings have met the physical and social needs of the elderly. Jennie Chin Hansen led the effort to develop a national initiative called PACE, Program for All-inclusive Care for the Elderly, for which On Lok served as the prototype. In 1997, President Bill Clinton signed legislation making Medicare and Medicaid money available for PACE Programs. They are now operating in 30 states nationwide. A visionary and a fierce advocate, Jennie has greatly influenced how our nation has come to regard care for the elderly. She has shown us the richness of caring for our seniors. We wish her well as she continues her work educating nurses at San Francisco State University, Canada College, and the UCSF Center for the Health Professions. The nursing field with its acute shortages is blessed to now have her focus, her talent, and her wisdom. Her magic will accompany her wherever she goes.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, with great respect, admiration, and affection, I am honored to salute John Burton for 40 years of fighting for human rights and social justice for the American people. John has been my mentor, my ally, and my dear friend for many years and throughout my time in Congress. Although term limits have now led John to continue his fight in new arenas, his leadership as President pro tempore of the California State Senate will long be recognized as a powerful force in the fight against poverty and in the fight for fairness for all. The Burton name has occupied a revered place in California politics for decades, and John has served with great integrity in the Congress and in the California State Legislature. The vast landscape of John Burton's leadership includes legislative successes to protect our workers, to provide health care to all, to ensure equal rights for minorities, to preserve our environment, and to improve education. That landscape has been shaped by his intellect, his conviction, his humor, his sensitivity, and his ability to capture hearts, even those of his opponents. One of John's first acts upon returning to the state legislature was to introduce a bill outlawing poverty. This was typical Burton style-- deep caring mixed with a brash reminder of our Nation's core value to care for those in greatest need. John displayed this fundamental commitment to justice recently when he spoke at a Building and Construction Trades Convention and stated, ``It is up to you and me and others like us to make sure that when people are asking for a job, that job has decent wages, decent working conditions, and decent benefits and that workers get their fair share of the wealth of this Nation. It's the just thing to do, it's due you, and we're going to help you fight to get what is your due.'' Sadly, John's political career has been marked by tragedy--the loss of his brother, Congressman Philip Burton, at the early age of 56 and the assassination of one of his dearest friends, San Francisco Mayor George Moscone at age 49. On the murder of Mayor Moscone, John wrote: ``Those senseless events brought me face to face with grief, making me realize that friends are precious and life is all too short. We should remember to take time from our own activities to spend more time with those we care about, rather than so totally immerse ourselves in our jobs and businesses that we are always too busy to relate to people.'' John's life has also been marked by great fulfillment--not only in his illustrious political career, but also in his family life. John's daughter, Kimiko Burton Cruz, is the light of his life. They have traveled a wonderful journey together, and John is now the proud grandfather of Juanito and Mikala. Kimi, her husband Emilio, and their children are guiding forces for John, and will be a major part of John's future. When you meet John Burton, you know you have met one of a kind. When you know John Burton, you have a friend. And, when you have John Burton as a friend, you know you have one of life's great treasures in hand. John may have left the State Senate, but he will continue to be a fierce leader in our State, and in our Nation, on behalf of those who need him most. Thank you, John, for your tireless efforts on behalf of so many in our country. May the wind be always at your back.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, environmental contaminants have been linked to birth defects, developmental delays, and many chronic diseases including asthma, various forms of cancer, and neurological disorders like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and Multiple Sclerosis. Research shows that women and children are at especially high risk for health problems related to environmental factors. Each year, 4 percent of all births--more than 150,000 babies--are born with significant birth defects. The number of children with asthma has doubled in the past 15 years to about 5 million. And more than 8,000 children are diagnosed with cancer every year. We do not understand the long-term health effects of the vast majority of the approximately 80,000 chemicals have been released into the environment over the past 50 years and the more than 7 billion pounds of chemicals that are released each year by industrial facilities in the United States. While many chemicals do not cause damage, we need to know which ones do. In my hometown of San Francisco, breast cancer rates are more than 12 percent higher than they were 15 years ago. These rates are significantly higher than the rest of the nation, and public health officials are searching for answers. We must understand what could be causing such a dramatic rise, especially when three out of four women who are diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history of cancer or other known risk factors. For these women, environmental factors may be the link to their cancer. Improved infrastructure that enables local, state, and Federal public health agencies to monitor disease rates and environmental hazards is needed. However, there is no system in place that explores the relationship between disease and potentially associated environmental factors. Today, I am joined by Representatives Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Louise Slaughter, and Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, Harry Reid, and Lincoln Chafee, in introducing the Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act to respond to this urgent need by creating the infrastructure necessary to collect, analyze, and report data on the rate of disease and the presence of relevant environmental factors and exposures. The Network would also coordinate national, state, and local efforts to bolster our public health system's capacity to investigate and respond aggressively to environmental exposures that threaten health. In addition, the Coordinated Environmental Health Network will alert health officials when there is a sudden increase in any disease or condition, including those associated with a biological or chemical attack. Over the past 3 years, my colleagues and I have worked to secure more than $73 million for pilot programs to begin developing the capacity for a Coordinated Environmental Health Network, with an additional $28 million pending in the Fiscal Year 2005 Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill. These pilot projects are giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency the information they need to put in place a comprehensive, coordinated network. Once fully operational, the network will coordinate national, state, and local efforts to inform communities, public health officials, researchers, and policymakers of potential environmental health risks, and to integrate this information with other parts of the public health system. This is really an issue of environmental justice. Minority and low- income communities are particularly vulnerable to environmental health hazards. The factories and dumping sites that emit pollutants are often located near communities with little political and economic power, and therefore less ability to protest. The result is an elevated risk of exposure to harmful substances. Numerous public health and environmental organizations understand the need for an improved response to these threats, and the Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act is supported by the Trust for America's Health, American Public Health Association, Citizens for a Cleaner Environment, March of Dimes, American Lung Association, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, The Breast Cancer Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and many others. We must respond to these health threats in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. To take action to prevent disease we must understand its cause. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this vital legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, It is with great personal sadness and San Francisco's deep sorrow, that I rise to pay tribute to Vernon Alley, the most distinguished and beloved jazz musician in San Francisco's history, who passed away on October 3rd. Vernon honored his beloved City by choosing to pass up playing in the big jazz cities of New York and Chicago to devote his life to enchanting and inspiring generations of San Franciscans. He elevated our City with his music and his dedication to racial justice. A lifelong San Franciscan, Vernon went to high school with Joe DiMaggio, where he became an all-star fullback. His interest in jazz began as a boy when his parents took him to see jazz pioneer Jelly Roll Morton. He started his own group in the 30's in the Fillmore. In 1940 he went to New York and joined the Lionel Hampton Band. Two years later, he became a member of the Count Basie Orchestra. Vernon Alley knew and played with the greatest jazz musicians and performers of his generation--Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Erroll Garner, Nat King Cole, Charles Mingus, Ella Fitzgerald, and Billie Holiday. He returned to his beloved San Francisco in 1942. The music scene exploded in the 40's when African Americans moved to San Francisco's Bayview District to work in the shipyards. Vernon fostered jazz in the Bay Area during the heyday of the Fillmore District and North Beach jazz scenes of the 1940's and 50's. Vernon was as dedicated to fighting racism as he was to his music. He singlehandedly integrated the San Francisco Musicians Union. As chairman of the board of the black musicians local, he fought for integration of the City's jazz clubs, luring most of the white musicians into his local, because they wanted to play jazz in the swing clubs. As an accompanist for Ella Fitzgerald, he fought the segregationist policies of the casinos of Las Vegas. A close friend of many San Francisco mayors, he served for years on the San Francisco Arts Commission and the Human Rights Commission. He was active in the City's arts community and hosted two popular radio programs and a television show. His good friend, columnist Herb Caen, whom he first showed around town when Caen was a young newspaperman, often mentioned Vernon as a man ``whose smile lights up the town, even on foggy days.'' Vernon was inducted into the San Francisco State University Alumni Hall of Fame in 1997. In 2001, when his health was declining, the San Francisco Jazz Festival put together a 3\1/2\ hour tribute called ``The Legacy of Vernon Alley'' that drew more than a thousand musicians and friends. Later that year, an alley in a redevelopment project was named ``Vernon Alley.'' We will never forget our most beloved jazzman. With a twinkle in his eyes, an infectious smile, a booming laugh, and his bass ``Baby'' in hand, he captivated us all. I hope it is a comfort to his brother, Eddie, his longtime companion, Loma Ruyter, and his nieces and nephews that so many friends and fans share their grief and are praying for them at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon we will be voting on the Defense authorization bill, which I strongly support, and I commend the committee for bringing it to the floor. I want to especially acknowledge the great work of our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his leadership on the legislation. I want to particularly acknowledge two things. One is, under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), we had the phased-in elimination of the 2-tier survivor benefit over a period of 3\1/2\ years. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) took the lead on that initiative with the Edwards discharge petition. They made it possible for the survivors. I want to acknowledge the work of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), working with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to eliminate the 10-year phase-in of the disabled veterans tax for those with 100 percent VA disability ratings. However, one area where I was very disappointed, and I condemn the action of the conference committee, for the second time in 4 years, the Republican leadership has unconscionably ignored the will of the House and the Senate and stripped the hate crimes prevention provisions from the bill. The needs of law enforcement, which has repeatedly requested Federal assistance in solving and preventing a wide range of violent hate crimes, have been ignored. The measure enjoyed strong bipartisan support, was endorsed by over 175 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations, including the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and many others. That list would have added sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the Federal hate crimes laws, allowing the Federal Government the ability to provide critical assistance to the States. It is very, very unfortunate that it has happened. I want the Record to show that this is the second time that this has happened. Four years ago, there was strong bipartisan support in both Houses supporting adding this to the Defense authorization bill. It was rejected 4 years ago. Once again, the Republican leadership of the House has decided that we will continue to discriminate against those on the basis of their sexual orientation. Having said that, I plan to support the Defense authorization and, once again, commend our colleagues for bringing it to the floor.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 845) for a special counsel to investigate the actions of the Republican majority leader and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his great leadership on issues of importance to middle income Americans. The gentleman tried very hard to correct this problem in a way that would not decrease the deficit and would increase jobs in America but, unfortunately, that approach was rejected. I wish that we had a chance to vote on it today. Mr. Speaker, in commending the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his excellent work on so many issues emerging from this committee, I deeply regret that we would not have the opportunity to take the approach he took, which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) shared with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for a long time. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the committee, gave the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) a dubious distinction by saying he did yeoman duties in bringing this bill to the floor, but this is a terrible bill for working families in America. Please do not paint him with that brush. He really did try; but, unfortunately, he succumbed to the bad bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this deeply flawed bill, and I thank the ranking member again for his steadfast leadership on behalf of our manufacturing sector. This conference report is yet another example of the stark differences between Republican and Democratic priorities. We are faced with a simple problem caused by your trade sanctions, but Republicans are using a $4 billion trade issue to pry open the door wide for special interests. This is a blatant example of corporate welfare, full of pork for the special interest. This is not, just as the expression goes, this little piggie goes to market. This is the whole hog lot goes to the public trough. The oinking is so loud the Republicans cannot even think straight. If you listen closely you can hear those hogs oinking. Can you hear them? That may be why at every step of this process Republicans have consistently made decisions that are against the interests of middle- income Americans. The difference between the parties is clear. In our New Partnership for America's Future, Democrats pledge to create new jobs here in America. But Republicans under this bill are exporting jobs overseas. For more on the subject, I will follow the lead of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and say please visit HouseDemocrats.gov for more on the New Partnership for America's Future. Can you believe this? In the past 3 years nearly half a million jobs have been shipped overseas. But instead of working to stop this hemorrhaging, this Republican bill tonight has in it tax incentives to export American jobs. Think about it. You are a U.S. taxpayer in a job. They are using your tax dollars to export your job overseas. In fact, as businesses around the country are hit with 12 percent tariffs on more than 1,600 products, Republicans have been holding this bill hostage so they could include 24 extraneous provisions that will create jobs overseas rather than here at home. No, Mr. Speaker, our distinguished whip and I in criticizing this bill are not saying that the problem should not be corrected. We said it should be done right, not at the expense of middle-income Americans, not at the expense of increasing our deficit. This bill includes a whopping $42 billion in tax cuts for the foreign operations of U.S. multinationals. We all recognize the importance of multinationals to our economy, but we must face the facts. Many of those very same corporations pay no income tax whatsoever. Many of the multinational corporations getting tax breaks in this bill, pay no income tax whatsoever. And from 2001 to 2003, Federal corporate tax collections fell to their lowest sustained level in 6 decades, in 6 decades. Democrats led by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) pursued a bipartisan bill that was tailored to create good-paying jobs in the U.S. without sacrificing our long-term fiscal health. The difference is clear. In our Partnership for America's Future, Democrats have made a commitment to fiscal responsibility and the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) pay-as-you-go. Republicans chose in this bill to spend as they please and then hide the true costs of their bill with expensive gimmicks. A convoluted combination of phase-in, sunset dates, changes in scoring rules mask the true cost of the bill and how it will constrict our choices in the future. This conference report is being touted as revenue neutral. But, in fact, it will cost nearly $80 billion over the next decade. The difference is clear. In our New Partnership for America's Future, Democrats put forth an agenda to support manufacturers and small businesses. In this bill, Republicans choose to give handouts to special interests. Please again visit us on HouseDemocrats.gov. Our manufacturing sector is struggling to stay competitive in global markets. The erosion of our manufacturing base is cause for serious concern in our country, but not in the Republican Party. Under the Bush administration, we have lost nearly 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. Despite this depressing fact, this conference report stripped language that would have given bigger tax cuts to companies that manufacture more of their goods in the U.S. That was one of the gentleman from California's (Mr. Rangel) provisions. They stripped from the bill a provision that would have given tax incentives to companies that manufacture more of their goods in the United States. The conference report also has broadly expanded the definition of manufacturing to include activities wholly unrelated to the manufacturing of goods and products. Now, listen to this: the bill is riddled with special interest giveaways including suspension of customs duties on ceiling fans and steam generators, tax deductions on bows and arrows, fishing tackle boxes and sonar devices, as well as tax incentives for other specialized industries. Even the Bush administration's Treasury Secretary has criticized the Republican FSC/ETI bill as including a myriad of special interest tax provisions that benefit few taxpayers and increase the complexity of the Tax Code. How is that for an indictment? The choices that Republicans are making are clear, and it is clear that they are the wrong choices. The same Republicans who today will find enough money for their special interest giveaways have not found the funding to secure loose nuclear materials to protect the American people. They have shortchanged veterans health care by $1.3 billion. They have underfunded No Child Left Behind by about $9 billion every year, 9.4 billion this year; and they have broken their promises on Pell grants. They have defeated a $1,500 bonus for our brave men and women in uniform returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, 213 to 213. Every Republican who voted against that bonus is responsible for its defeat because it failed by one vote. I urge my colleagues to make the right choice and defeat this job- exporting, budget-busting, special interest handout.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time, and for his extraordinary leadership in bringing this substitute to the floor. Mr. Chairman, the credentials of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are unsurpassed in this body. In the previous Congress, following the 9/11 attack, and even before that, he served as the Chair of the Homeland Security Task Force for the House Democrats. He serves on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and he serves on the Committee on International Relations, in senior positions on both committees. So when we speak about protecting our homeland, our waterways, our ports, our rivers, our whatever, he knows of what he speaks. And when he talks about taking the fight against terrorism into Afghanistan and other diplomatic initiatives, sitting on the Committee on International Relations, he knows of what he speaks. But perhaps the saddest, let us say the saddest learning experience he has had in this regard was the loss of over 100 of his constituents on September 11, 2001. So it is with great pride, I say to the gentleman, that I rise to support the gentleman's substitute. It is an informed substitute, it is based on bipartisanship, the bipartisanship of the Commission and the bipartisanship of the Senate, as it is a reflection of two of the bills that were put together in the Senate. Following 9/11, Mr. Chairman, the Congress called for a joint inquiry of what happened then. As a ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, at the time I served as a co-chair of that, and before we started our proceedings, our inquiry, which was conducted in a bipartisan manner, for most of the time, but before we began, we said that we must have a moment of silence before we began. It was both a deeply felt approach to it because we all wanted to pray for the families who had been harmed, who had lost their loved ones in 9/11; but also it represented the inadequacy of any words that we could ever have to express sympathy or condolence to those families. No words could possibly be adequate. We resolved as we proceeded that we were on hallowed grounds. Anything to do with 9/11 was hallowed grounds. There was no place there for partisan politics. There was only room there for the U.S. to honor the memory of those who lost their lives; to pledge to the families that we would find the terrorists and bring them to justice who were responsible for this heinous crime; to make sure that we protected the American people so that acts of terrorism would not occur in this country; and to give comfort to those families that we were doing everything possible to achieve those goals. The work that we did on that committee was largely ignored, and many of us thought that there should be an independent commission to bring fresh eyes to the challenges that we faced with a broader mandate; hence, the 9/11 commission was born. And the members of that commission understood that there was no place for partisanship on that hallowed ground that they now occupied, and they knew the responsibility that they undertook. The commission was reviewing the failures associated with 9/11 and suggesting ways to correct them. Under the leadership of Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton, the commission acted in a very bipartisan and thoughtful way to accomplish its assignment. By persistence, dedication, and an unshakable belief in the importance of its task, the commission overcame every obstacle, and on July 22 provided us with a unanimous bipartisan blue print for action. Our entire Nation is in their debt. The 9/11 families and the commission then looked to Congress to enact their recommendations into law. The 9/11 families had reason to be proud that their advocacy was effective, when last night the Senate adopted by 96 to 2 a bipartisan bill that meets the challenge for reform laid down by the commission and needed by our country. We have an opportunity to do the same thing by adopting the substitute advanced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) whose district like so many others across our country bore such pain and sorrow on September 11. The Menendez substitute is a merger of the legislation introduced on September 7 by Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman and the bill authored by Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman that was reported by the Senate Government Affairs Committee. These bills were endorsed by the 9/11 Commission and by the 9/11 families groups as being faithful to the commission's recommendation, and they were bipartisan from day one. The Republican leadership bill, H.R. 10, on the other hand, implements fully only 25 percent of the commission's recommendations as opposed to the Menendez bill which is a reflection of the commission's recommendations. Having waited for more than 3 years to take action, why would the House want to adopt a bill which falls so short of the reforms identified as urgently necessary and adopted unanimously by the bipartisan commission and by the Senate? Our country has tremendous unmet needs in the area of homeland security. Securing nuclear materials overseas before they fall into the hands of the terrorists and could do us harm; improving security on our airports, our ports, and our rail lines; ensuring that our first responders can communicate effectively in real time; and protecting our critical infrastructure have not been given the priorities they deserve in H.R. 10. We are not as safe as we could be. Our first responsibility as elected officials is to protect the American people. Making the right choices on legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations is one of the ways that we can meet that responsibility. The right choice today is the Menendez substitute that will bring us closest to the bill adopted 96 to 2 in the Senate, facilitate a rapid conference, and enable legislation to be signed by the President quickly. Mr. Chairman, on September 11, 2001, the United States was the victim, as we all know, of some of the most horrific attacks in our history. Today is 1,121 days later. This House is finally being given the opportunity to consider a comprehensive legislative response to those attacks. It took over 3 years. When the 9/11 Commission issued its report on July 22, it did so with a sense of urgency. Having delayed so long in taking action, it is critical that we get it right and that we get it right now. A vote for the Menendez substitute will honor the work of the commission, will respect the wishes of the families, and will make the American people safer. I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez substitute.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, tonight in my district, community leaders will gather to pay tribute to the work of Pat Christen, Executive Director of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation for the past 15 years. I want to join in expressing my admiration and gratitude for Pat's outstanding leadership in the fight against HIV/AIDS in San Francisco, across America, and around the world. Pat has effectively and enthusiastically led the San Francisco AIDS Foundation through some of the most difficult times of the epidemic. She is the longest serving Executive Director of an AIDS service organization in the nation and has established a remarkable legacy. In 1988, after returning from Africa as a Peace Corps volunteer and volunteering with the Foundation's hotline, Pat was named the Foundation's first director of public policy. Within a year, she gathered colleagues from across the nation to address the growing crisis of caring for the thousands of people with AIDS who were critically ill and had no means of support. Those initial discussions laid the foundation for the Ryan White CARE Act. I was an original co-sponsor of that legislation, and joined Congressman Henry Waxman, Senator Edward Kennedy and many of our colleagues who worked with Pat and community leaders from across the country to ensure swift passage. The CARE Act has proven to be one of the most significant public health achievements of the Congress in the past 15 years. Declines in AIDS deaths are a direct result of the therapies and services that have been made more widely available through the CARE Act to large numbers of uninsured and under-insured people with HIV and AIDS. Pat's courage and competence later drew San Francisco to the forefront of the fight for effective needle exchange programs. When most leaders were intimidated by this innovative and controversial approach, Pat led the charge to city hall and Sacramento to put needle exchange in our HIV prevention strategy. Pat and others in San Francisco were also early to see that mobilization against this pandemic had to be international. She founded Pangaea, the global affiliate of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, to apply San Francisco's experience as a leader in the domestic fight against HIV/ AIDS to the global crisis. Through Pat's vision and leadership, Pangaea has brought hope and care to thousands of Africans facing HIV/ADS. I have been proud to work with Pat and the San Francisco ADS Foundation over the years to ensure that HIV/ADS care, treatment, prevention, and research initiatives, domestically and internationally receive the funding they need, and to improve and strengthen those programs as the epidemic evolves. Pat Christen's leadership at the Foundation may be coming to an end, but her legacy will live on as the fight to end AIDS continues. Her success reminds us what community leadership can do. It inspires us to not only work effectively at the local level, but also to take responsibility to make change at the national and global level. I know I join many in saying that the world is a better place because Pat Christen graced it with her leadership, vision, and integrity.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time, our distinguished ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary. I thank him for his leadership in promoting freedom in our country and protecting our civil liberties. Mr. Speaker, I have been married for over 41 years. I want to hear some applause for that. I am glad to see my Republican colleagues appreciate that wonderful accomplishment. I certainly respect the institution of marriage. As the mother of five and the grandmother of five, I appreciate the value of family. My husband and I value family in our community as a source of strength to our country and a source of comfort to the people. What constitutes that family is an individual and personal decision. But it is for all a place where people find love and support. As for me, I agree with Vice President Cheney when he said, ``With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.'' That would be Vice President Dick Cheney, August 24, 2004. Mr. Speaker, in the closing days of this Congress, we should be addressing the urgent needs of the American people, to be secure against the clear and present danger of terrorism, to protect our men and women in uniform whose lives are in the battle in Iraq, and to bring economic prosperity and health care to the American people. Instead, we are meeting here today about tarnishing our cherished Constitution with an amendment that purports to protect marriage but is one that benefits no one and actually limits the rights of millions of Americans. Our Constitution, to which we all take an oath of office, is an enduring and living document that throughout our history expanded rights, not diminished them, to live up to the ideals of our Founding Fathers, that all are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As that great defender of the Constitution, the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan whose legacy graces this House, noted, ``We promised liberty, freedom and equality to everyone. No one was to be excluded from the blessings of liberty.'' As a result, this Nation abolished slavery, established equal protection under the law, extended the right to vote to women and ended the poll tax. Today, we consider an amendment that runs counter to that inclusiveness that underlies our history: one Nation under God, indivisible; and e pluribus unum, from many, one; and in the words of the Constitution, to form a more perfect Union. This amendment has been brought with the full knowledge that it failed in the other body with no prospects of success, either now or in the foreseeable future, in this body. This is a partisan exercise to distract the American people from the Republicans' record of failure. And it is unworthy of a party that claims to be associated with President Lincoln, one of the greatest Presidents of the United States. The consideration of this amendment does not call upon the better angels of our nature that President Lincoln spoke of in his first inaugural address. It calls upon the worst impulses of politics by attempting to enshrine discrimination into the Constitution and to single out a group of American citizens. And it is unworthy of a party that claims to be associated with President Lincoln once again who said in his second inaugural address, which I consider to be Lincoln's greatest speech, ``With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in, to bind up the Nation's wounds.'' This amendment is malicious and is not charitable toward anyone. It is motivated by animus towards lesbians and gays. It is a sad moment that those clinging to power want to use to divide the American people for what they perceive to be an electoral advantage. I will vote against this amendment because it is counter to the noble ideals of our Nation. On substance, the amendment is far reaching to deny all matters of rights, even beyond marriage. The proponents have disingenuously claimed that this amendment would not preclude civil unions or domestic partnerships. At the same time, organizations supporting this amendment are now using similarly worded State laws to challenge recognition of domestic partnerships in several States. And we know these organizations, which the Republican leadership is beholden to, will not stop there. Because this amendment is not limited to governmental action and would apply to all private contracts, existing rights enjoyed by same-sex couples, such as hospital visitation, inheritance rights and health care benefits would be at risk if this amendment were to pass. This amendment is dangerous, and it does not belong in our Constitution. Throughout our careers, many of us in Congress on both sides of the aisle have fought against discrimination in every form and sought to bring people together. I will vote again against this amendment because again it is counter to the noble ideals of our Nation and of the principle of ending discrimination and unifying our country. Whatever one's view of same-sex marriage, and I know that that is a difficult issue for some, I understand that, amending the Constitution is not the place to address this issue. Let us not defile our Constitution with an amendment designed to demean a group of American citizens. Let us not use our Constitution as a political tool to divide us. We are a better country than that and that is why this amendment will fail today. The American people will see through the motivations behind this amendment. It is to distract the American people from the record of failure of this Republican Congress, a record that has been, according to editorials today, marked by ``shambling to the end of one of the lightest workloads in decades without a hint of embarrassment'' and ``failing at the most demanding obligations of government.'' Mr. Speaker, let us strive to unite people, to seek the best in ourselves, and to attend to the grave and great issues now before us. Let us honor our Constitution, let us honor our children, let us honor all God's children. Let us follow our better angels and reject this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer a motion to instruct conferees to the defense authorization bill to agree to the hate crimes prevention provisions contained in the Senate bill. I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services, for his commitment to including hate crimes prevention provisions in this bill. Before I speak to the motion, I want to speak to the excellent credentials of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). Every man and woman in uniform in our country, whether regular service or Reserves or National Guard, owes a deep debt of gratitude, as does our entire country, for his commitment to the national security of our country and to his commitment for the well-being of our troops in the United States and certainly in harm's way. I have seen firsthand the respect that they have for him, both at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, in his own district, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we have seen them in the theater of war. I say to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), thank you for your magnificent leadership and service to our country. Madam Speaker, hate crimes have no place in America. I think we can all agree to that. All Americans have a right to feel safe in their communities. Yet FBI statistics continue to demonstrate a high level of hate crimes in our country. Federal hate crimes prevention legislation is the right thing to do, and it is long overdue. Some opponents argue that there is no need for Federal hate crimes prevention legislation because assault and murder are already crimes. However, when individuals are targeted for violence because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, gender or disability, the assailant intends to send a message to all members of that community. The message is, you are not welcome. When violence is visited upon people because of who they are, the color of their skin, how they worship and who they love, we all suffer. When this happens to one of us, it happens to all of us. We all will remember very sadly the brutal murders of James Byrd in Texas, Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, Waqar Hasan in Texas, and Gwen Araujo in my own State of California. Current law limits Federal jurisdictions to ``federally protected'' activities such as voting and does not permit Federal jurisdiction over violent crimes motivated by bias against the victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our distinguished ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary and a great leader in civil liberties and protecting the American people and public safety, has introduced H.R. 4204, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act, to expand Federal jurisdiction to include hate crimes. Along with 175 of my colleagues, I am proud to cosponsor his bill; and I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his untiring leadership and commitment to this and so many other issues. Thank you for your leadership. When State and local law enforcement do not have the capacity to prosecute hate crimes, this bill would permit Federal prosecution regardless of whether a federally protected activity is involved. This legislation would increase the ability of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies to solve and prevent a wide range of violent hate crimes. Numerous law enforcement organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, support the need for Federal hate crimes legislation. Four years ago, both Houses of Congress supported the hate crimes prevention provisions on a bipartisan basis as part of the defense authorization bill, only to see those provisions stripped by the conference committee. We cannot let that happen again. This June the Senate, the other body, adopted an amendment to include language identical to H.R. 4204 in its version of the defense authorization bill on a strong bipartisan vote. Today we have the opportunity to put the House on record in favor of Federal hate crimes prevention provisions. We must not allow the provisions to be stripped in conference again. We must continue to fight for justice, hope, and freedom by ensuring that hate crimes prevention provisions are enacted into law. That would be a true and fitting memorial to James Byrd, Matthew Shepard, Waqar Hasan, Gwen Araujo and so many others who have died because of ignorance and intolerance. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and ask unanimous consent that he control said time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman was referencing activities as far as the other body is concerned, naming a Senator by name. Is that not out of order by this body?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, with our troops in harm's way and a deteriorating situation in Iraq and with our country facing the clear and present danger of terrorism, there are grave and great issues that Congress must address. But what are we doing here today? Are we debating the 9/11 Commission recommendations to secure our Nation? Are we providing health insurance to millions of Americans who have lost their insurance under this President, providing jobs to the millions of unemployed Americans and fully funding our schools? No, Mr. Chairman. Instead, we are gathering here to once again debate undermining the Constitution of the United States and dishonoring the oath of office that we take to protect and defend the Constitution. The bill before us claims to protect the Pledge of Allegiance. But protect the Pledge from what? Our Supreme Court has not undermined the constitutionality of the Pledge. With the reversal of the Newdow case, there is only one major appeals court decision that has addressed the constitutionality of the Pledge; and that court, the seventh circuit, has upheld the Pledge. This is a piece of legislation in search of a solution for a problem that does not exist. Millions of Americans daily and proudly pledge ``one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' Let me be clear. I defer to no one in my defense of the voluntary recitation of the Pledge. I strongly believe that the phrase ``under God'' and the Pledge itself is an uplifting expression of support for the United States. I love the Pledge. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary referenced the Civil War in response to a statement made by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and said it was not the Supreme Court that increased freedom in our country for all Americans; it was the Civil War and the amendments that followed it. That certainly was an important part of it. But absent the Brown v. The Board of Education decision, we would not be enjoying the freedoms we have for all Americans today. But since the gentleman referenced the Civil War, I want to call to our colleagues' attention a quote that is familiar to all of them. It is from Lincoln's second inaugural address: ``With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in, to bind up our Nation's wounds.'' President Lincoln called upon God. Another of my favorite inaugural addresses is that of President Kennedy and his inaugural address. He said: ``With good conscience our only reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help and knowing that here on Earth God's work must truly be our own.'' So evoking God's will and calling upon Him to guide us in our work is something that is very important to all Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I resent the comments made by some that there is anything less than that commitment on both sides of the aisle. This bill not only does not protect the Pledge; it violates the spirit of the Pledge by professing a lack of faith in the constitutional framework. It has been a settled principle since Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison that ``it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'' The Federalist Papers, subsequent decisions of the Court, and the judicial branch's role as a co-equal branch all strongly suggest that Congress cannot prohibit courts from determining constitutional questions. There is no question that this bill does not pass constitutional muster. But that does not deter the bill's proponents. The gentleman from Indiana, the author of the last court-stripping bill and a key advocate for this bill, has even outdone his statement 2 months ago that 200 years of precedent in Marbury v. Madison establishing judicial review was ``wrongly decided.'' The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) amazingly asserted in the markup of the bill last week that ``the notion of an independent judiciary is a flawed notion . . . the notion of an independent judiciary does not bear out actually in the Constitution.'' The notion of an independent judiciary is not contained in our Constitution? This is a principle that we as a power of example of our country try to convey to emerging democracies that central to democracy is an independent judiciary. And advocates for this legislation say that that is not contained in our Constitution. Is this what the leadership of this House and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary really believe? I suggest that they read James Madison and Alexander Hamilton's writings in the Federalist Papers. This radical concept is completely counter to our history and our values. Two months ago, some assured us that the court-stripping efforts would stop once they got their wanted Defense of Marriage Act. But as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), distinguished dean of the House, so eloquently warned us in July, ``We should expect to see this dangerous approach repeated on a wide range of other legislation.'' Today his prediction has come true, and there is no pretense that this will end. What is next? Voting rights? Laws that prohibit racial discrimination? Civil liberties? Our rights to privacy? As we consider this bill, we must remember our history and protect our Constitution to ensure our liberty. We must protect the ability of the Federal judiciary to safeguard our freedoms and ensure access to the courts by all. This bill is an assault on our cherished Constitution and the independent judiciary for its part for partisan purposes, and it is an attempt to distract the American people from the Republicans' record of failure. Mr. Chairman, let us honor the pledge by keeping faith with its spirit. Let us pledge to be one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This bill has been brought to the floor to embarrass some Members, so I respect whatever decisions they have to make in light of the motivation behind it. I just want the record to show why I so strongly oppose this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Betty Ong, a native daughter of San Francisco's Chinatown and a hero for our Nation on September 11, 2001. On that tragic day, Betty Ong was a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston bound for Los Angeles. Flight 11 left Boston's Logan Airport at 7:59 a.m. with Mohammed Atta and four other terrorists on board. From the time the terrorists took over the plane until she lost contact, Betty remained calm and professional. For 23 minutes, she relayed vital information to her colleagues on the ground. The information Betty provided in that horrifying situation later allowed the FBI to discern the identity of the terrorists onboard Flight 11. In January of this year, the 9/11 Commission heard a tape of Betty's urgent message. In its report, the Commission confirmed that Betty was indeed the first person to report the hijacking. 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean declared, ``Betty Ong is a true American hero.'' On September 21, 2001, a memorial service for Betty was held in San Francisco's Chinatown where Betty was born and maintained strong family and community ties. At that time Mayor Willie Brown proclaimed September 21 to be ``Betty Ong Day.'' This year, the Chinatown Community Development Center is again honoring her. It is with pride and sadness that I join in paying tribute to Betty's courage and her heroism. I hope it is a comfort to her family that so many people remember and honor her heroic acts.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Virginia Summers Lynch, known to her family and friends as ``Pat,'' who passed away on August 1, 2004. Involved in politics and in her community, Pat's boundless energy and enthusiasm were an inspiration to all who knew her. She epitomized the best of San Francisco. Pat was a fifth-generation Californian and a descendent of Spanish colonists who settled in the Monterey area in the 18th century. She spent her childhood in the San Simeon area and then attended UC Berkeley where she met her future husband, a law student from San Francisco named Thomas Lynch. They settled in San Francisco and remained happily married until his death in 1986. Together, they had two wonderful sons whom she loved dearly. Pat was actively involved in San Francisco's civic life. She was a founding member of JACKIE, a foster childcare organization, and she served as President of the Democratic Women of the San Francisco Bay Area. Pat was on the boards of directors for many organizations, including the Humane Society of San Francisco and the Humane Society of United States. Pat played an integral part in her husband's demanding legal career. Thomas Lynch served as San Francisco's District Attorney and was later appointed by Governor Pat Brown to be California's Attorney General. Pat's support was crucial to her husband's success. Loved and admired by her friends, one of Pat's most celebrated friendships was with the San Francisco Chronicle's famed columnist Herb Caen. Pat was the source of many of his items and was frequently mentioned in his column. We thank her sons, Kevin and Michael, for sharing their magnificent mother with us. I hope it is a comfort to them that so many people share their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to first of all express concern and sympathy for the people of the southeastern United States for all the suffering that they have endured because of the hurricanes over the past few weeks and what may come yet, our hearts, more than that, though, our intention to help in any way possible. I know that this Congress will do that. At a time like this the American people look to the Federal Government. They believe we have a compact with them to come to their assistance at this time of need, at a time of natural disaster. I know this as a San Franciscan being subjected in California to earthquakes as we are, there is never a time when the public needs us more in terms of their personal well-being than when they are driven out of their homes, probably never to return to a situation similar to what they had before. It is very difficult to be made whole. So I want to extend on behalf of my constituents and my colleagues in the Congress an expression of concern and interest in supporting anything that needs to be done to try to make them as whole as possible. I extend that to our colleagues who so ably represent their constituents in the southeastern United States. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today gravely concerned about the situation in Iraq. As one who served on the Intelligence Committee for 10 years and now ex-officio in my role as leader and as briefed on a regular basis, as is Speaker Hastert, I have grave concerns not only about what is happening in Iraq but the denial that the administration has about what is happening there. The President took us into this war in Iraq on the basis of unproven assertions and without evidence; he embraced a radical doctrine of preemptive war unprecedented in our history; and he failed to build a true international coalition. Therefore, American taxpayers are paying most all the cost, over $200 billion by now. More importantly, our national treasure, our men and women in uniform, are paying the biggest price of all. Over 1,000 now, 1,027 dead, this being a very bloody month, and it is not over yet. The cost in lives, and may I also add over 7,000 injured. Many of those who were injured have injuries for life. These are not patch-them-up injuries. Injuries for life. One thousand twenty-seven dead, over 7,000 injuries. The cost in lives and limb is huge. The cost to the taxpayers is huge, again, approaching a quarter of a trillion dollars, and the cost of our reputation throughout the world is immeasurable. I say right up front that as a 10-year veteran of the Intelligence Committee, I said at the time of the vote that the intelligence did not support the threat that the administration was claiming existed in Iraq. It simply did not. I on the basis of that did not support the war. It is interesting to see today yet another confirmation of that. The Iraq study finds a desire for arms on the part of Saddam Hussein but not the capacity. He wanted to start a program when the U.N. restrictions were lifted, but that is a far cry from an imminent threat to the American people. We went in under false pretenses. We misled the American people as to the caliber of the threat and to the association with 9/11. But let us say that was then and this is now. What is so sad about it all, as with a preemptive strike, when you choose the timing and the nature of the war you are going to engage in, you have an additional responsibility as a country and as a President to be prepared. We sent our troops into harm's way without the proper equipment, without the proper intelligence to know the nature of the enemy, and without the proper training to deal with the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. Do not take it from me. The Department of Defense report has said that 25 percent of those who lost their lives or who were injured would have been saved if they had the Kevlar lining in their vests, if they had the armor on their cars and if they had other equipment that could have protected them. When we asked the administration about this, they said, ``Well, we just have that for people who are on the front line.'' The front line in a guerilla war, when mortar shells are coming into the barracks causing some of these fatalities and casualties, that was a disservice to those troops. We should never ever have allowed that to happen. I want to just quote General Zinni on that point. General Zinni was the former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command, the area that contains Iraq. He said that in the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, he saw, at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility. That is at a minimum. At worst, he saw lying, incompetence and corruption; that is, in the lead-up to the war. It did not have to be that way. In fact, regardless of how you voted on the war or what you thought about the threat, the State Department very clearly put out an eerily prescient report, Iraq project report, on what to expect after the fall of Baghdad. The administration chose to ignore that and did not prepare for what would happen after the fall of Baghdad. They told us that our troops would be met by rose petals. Instead, they are being met by rocket-propelled grenades. They told us, and I have the dates and the names of those who made these statements, that this is a country that could well finance its own reconstruction, and soon. And soon. And we here have given a price tag to the American taxpayers of over a quarter of a trillion dollars and growing. They could readily fund their own reconstruction, and soon. Not only can they not fund it, the security situation in Iraq is so desperate that they cannot even begin construction. The $18 billion that Congress appropriated for reconstruction in Iraq as the initial stage of it, they have only been able to spend just under $1 billion because the security situation is so bleak. And why is it so bleak? Because they ignored the advice of those who knew better. When General Shinseki said that several hundred thousand troops would be required for the occupation, Secretary Wolfowitz said, ``Wildly off the mark.'' And what General McCaffrey has said, ``I think we got in there with a grossly anemic military force. We never defeated the elite elements of the Saddam regime. They walked away with their guns, their money and their leadership intact.'' This is such a tragedy, because there was a representation made to the American people that was not true about the imminence of the threat and about its association to 9/11. Then we send our troops in without the proper preparation and risk and have all of these deaths and casualties. General Zinni further said, ``Where are we, the American people, . . . if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning'' that is necessary? How can we ask our young men and women who are so brave? The fact that the administration is in denial about the cause, the reason to go to war, that they are in denial about what is happening in Iraq does not for one minute diminish the valor of our men and women in uniform who are in Iraq and Afghanistan, but focusing on Iraq now. We all agree that we should have gone into Afghanistan. The tragedy of that is that if our country had stayed focused on the clear and present danger of terrorism and kept its focus on Afghanistan, here we would be 3 years later. Perhaps we would have caught Osama bin Laden. Whether we catch him tomorrow or the next day, it is still 3 years too late that this menace to the world roams, spreading his poison, continuing his threat to the world. So if we had stayed focused, instead of overthrowing Saddam Hussein, we could have rooted out the Taliban; and instead of shooing away some of the al Qaeda and the rest, they ran for the hills. We could have been in pursuit. Instead, we turned our attention to Iraq. So let us go back to Iraq. Now we have a national intelligence estimate that was given to the President months ago, and it spells out what the possibilities are in Iraq, and there are no good scenarios. It is very hard to find any good options on how to proceed in Iraq because there are no good options. We have a worst-case scenario that they could end up in civil war by 2005. Everything from there on down is very bleak for the Iraqi people and very sad as far as our country is concerned and the sacrifices that our young men and women are going to have to make there. So I call on the President of the United States to hold someone accountable for this policy. Harry Truman said, ``The buck stops here,'' but I do not see the President taking any responsibility. In fact, he thinks that the bleak report that the national intelligence estimate presented was progress, was progress. Let us just say that we have to have the ground truth about Iraq. What is happening there is not what the administration is telling us. Almost 1\1/2\ years ago, the President said that the mission was accomplished, that the end of major combat had come. What was he talking about? Is this the same judgment that got us into war on unproven assertions? Is this the same judgment that sent our troops into war without the proper equipment, training, or intelligence to know who the enemy was? The Department of Defense has commissioned a report that says who is the adversary? Who is the adversary? The American people have to call a halt to this going along with the rosy scenario because that is a more pleasant message for them to receive. The President has to speak truth to the American people as to what is happening in Iraq and what the risks are to our men and women in uniform whom we respect for their valor, their sacrifice, and the sacrifices of their families. This national intelligence estimate has been in the media. That is the report that I am referring to, the national intelligence estimate that was in the media yesterday. And what is interesting about it is that the President had this estimate for months and continued to misrepresent to the American people, continued to misrepresent to the American people, what the situation was in Iraq and what we are facing there. The Bush administration failed to plan for the war and its aftermath. It failed to send an adequate number of troops to get the job done. The administration did not properly, adequately protect and train our troops. The Department of Defense commission report said: ``A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur . . . perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them,'' the DOD study suggests. In relationship to that, another quote about it from the Army Times, from the Army Times, which stated: ``This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential, even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.'' It was interesting to hear Vice President Cheney's comments last night. As he was speaking, I was thinking of his statement in March of 2003 when he said, ``We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators . . . I think it will go relatively quickly. . . . weeks rather than months.'' Weeks rather than months? We are into years, and all the projections are that we will be there for many more years. And Secretary Wolfowitz said, ``We had a plan that anticipated, I think, that we could proceed with an occupation regime for much longer than it turned out the Iraqis would have patience for. We had a plan that assumed we'd have basically more stable security conditions than we've encountered.'' Another example of their poor judgment. Again, Mr. Wolfowitz, and I will repeat this again because I think the American people should know, said on March 27, 2003, ``There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' How do they face the American people after their misjudgments over and over and over again? So I have mentioned that the Pentagon completed March 26 an intelligence report that was commissioned to answer a simple and provocative question in Iraq: Who is the adversary? This was in April of 2004, reporting on a March 2004 report a year after we went in. Who is the adversary? So how did this happen? Some people think, and as has been reported in the paper, that ``no Iraqi leader has had more to do with U.S. intervention in Iraq than Chalabi, from charming Congress into authorizing almost $100 billion to back his fledgling Iraqi National Congress in the late 1990s and convincing Washington about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in 2002 to pressing for war last year,'' has said both his supporters and critics. That was in May of 2004. At that same time, his office was being raided. At that same time, he was being charged with spying for the Iranians, giving information to the Iranians. Whom do we trust? Where, again, is the judgment? ``U.S. Intelligence agencies,'' and I will submit all this for the Record, ``believe that Chalabi, the former Iraqi exile once strongly backed by some Bush administration officials, may have passed classified information on the American occupation of Iraq to the government of Iran, officials said.'' How many more people have to die for us to subject the judgment that put them in the situation they are in in harm's way? Who is accountable for this policy? We have a situation where, again, the American people heard representations that were not accurate about the nature of the threat. Of course the American people want to support the President of the United States if they think that our country is in danger. Make no mistake. If there is a threat to the United States that we can anticipate, we will make sure that the American people will be protected. President Kennedy said it best in his speech, We pay any price, bear any burden, fight any foe. That is our first responsibility as elected officials, to protect the American people. So it is not about not wanting to use force. The military prepares for war as a last resort. The President chose to go to war as a first choice, a preemptive strike that was not prepared for. If we are going to preempt, we have the higher responsibility to be prepared; and this administration was not. So it is with great sadness and great concern that I come to the floor today to express these concerns and to say it would be political to withhold criticism of the administration for what it is doing for fear that the American people might think that that is not patriotic. That is not patriotic? Senator Taft, who would be the majority leader of the Senate, the Republican majority leader, said that disagreement in time of war is essential to a governing democracy. So now we have to see where we go from here. Well, General Hoar, and let me get this straight and, again, I will submit this for the Record, General Joseph Hoar too was a former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 20, 2004, said, ``I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into an abyss.'' General Zinni said we are heading over Niagara Falls. The President says stay the course. Stay the course into an abyss, into Niagara Falls? Mr. President, face the facts. The Bush administration must stop being in denial about what they got us into. They did not know what they were getting us into, even though their own State Department had given them the report on what to expect, even though their own generals told them the level of military capacity that we would need to go there, even though the intelligence did not support the threat that they were claiming. So now those who criticize or throw a spotlight on the facts are considered unpatriotic. No, very patriotic and in support of those troops. On a regular basis I tried to visit them. I visited with them in Iraq and in Germany and just earlier this week met with some of the Marines who had come from Fallujah and other places in Iraq. One of the young men was blind. Others had amputations. Others had serious injuries, and hopefully some of them had not so serious injuries. It remains to be seen. And every time I see them, I am in awe of the tremendous patriotism and sacrifice and valor that they have. God has blessed America with our young people who will go into battle to protect our country. And as I said, none of the poor judgment and mistakes, grotesque mistakes, of the administration can diminish the valor and the debt that we owe these young men and women. I will not even go into the whole subject of what we are doing to veterans when these folks come back because I want my focus to be on the war today, but we will be talking about that. So as we look at them, we think their lives are changed. And these are the lucky ones who have survived. But these injuries, as I said, are for life. We owe them more than the President has given them. Some of the troops still do not have the equipment that would adequately protect them. They still do not 1\1/2\ years into this war. I just want to make one more point. And that is the administration is going around saying, and we heard it at the convention, we succeeded too soon; so we were not ready for the aftermath of the war, assuming, as the President declared the war over May 1, 2003, and that they have had a ``catastrophic success.'' That is the oxymoron of the century, and it is not even true. They had a catastrophic failure. A catastrophic failure. They succeeded too soon? They thought, and they told us, that they were going to take out Saddam Hussein that first night. They thought they had him holed up someplace in Iraq, and that is why they had to go in that night to decapitate Iraq, to cut off its head. That is when they thought they were going to win. So they actually did not succeed sooner than they thought. In fact, they have not succeeded at all. So let us, at least from this day forward, speak truth to the American people. When people say, how would so and so do differently, how would John Kerry do differently, one thing we have to do is stipulate to a set of facts and not have the misrepresentations that are coming forth from this administration about what the ground truth is in Iraq. Let us come together, in as bipartisan, nonpartisan of a way as we possibly can to say we are in a mess. We are in a mess. I do not know who the President takes his advice from, or gets his advice from, or if these are his personal decisions, but somebody has got to go. For the American people to accept this course of action that is a catastrophic failure, that is costing us the lives of our young people and their health and well-being and the well-being of their families, that is costing us a quarter of a trillion dollars, think of what we could do with that in America to make us stronger, and it is costing us enormously in our reputation around the world. When I was a student, I heard John Kennedy give his inaugural address here in the freezing cold on the steps of the Capitol, and everybody knows when he talked about ``ask not what your country can do,'' but the very next line in that speech was to the citizens of the world, ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do, working together, for the freedom of mankind. There has to be a change in attitude toward the rest of the world, not the condescension, go it alone, our way or the highway kind of approach, but an attitude of respect and collaboration and cooperation among countries for the freedom of mankind. Stay the course? I do not think so. But we, each of us, have a responsibility to protect and defend the American people, to protect and defend our Constitution. That is the oath we take, and to provide for the common defense is the first responsibility. We take that very seriously, every single one of us does. Providing for the common defense means that we use war as a last resort, as the military prepares for it that we respect what they say about the capacity that is needed to succeed, that we respect our State Department when they tell us what to expect on the ground after the hostilities cease; of course they have not, but if they had paid attention to the State Department, they might have by now. Klausewitz said, do not take the first step into war unless you are prepared to take the last step, and it is clear that this administration did not know what it was getting into, or else they grossly misrepresented the facts to the American people. In either case, staying the course is not an option. We will not leave Iraq until there is stability, until there is security there. But under the present plan, there is no end in sight to the chaos, to the quagmire, to the tragedy that this administration has taken us into. So again, just today the announcements of more deaths in Iraq, that it is with great sadness and sympathy for the families of those affected, just another long list of young people. The other day when I was there, I was asking them how old they were: 19, 19, 20, 23, the national treasury of our country, our young people, squandered because of the poor judgment of this Bush administration. The Bush Administration's Iraq Policy Poor Judgment, Poor Preparation Bush Administration: Failed to Plan for the War and Aftermath ``In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption.''--Marine General (Retired) Anthony Zinni, former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command; in the book about his career, ``Battle Ready,'' published May 2004. ``I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss.''--General Joseph Hoar, a former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command; testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, May 20, 2004. Bush Administration: Sent Inadequate Numbers of Troops ``Wildly off the mark''--Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz responding to the estimate by the Army's chief of staff, General Eric Shinski, that the occupation could require ``several hundred thousand troops; testimony to the House Budget Committee, February 27, 2003 ``I think we got in there with a grossly anemic military force. We never defeated the elite elements of the Saddam regime. They walked away with their guns, their money, their leadership intact.''--Retired General Barry McCaffrey; NPR ``Morning Edition,'' April 15, 2004 Bush Administration: Did Not Adequately Protect or Train our Troops ``A breakdown of the casualty figures suggest that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur . . . perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested,''--Newsweek on a Department of Defense commissioned report; May 3, 2004 ``Where are we, the American people, . . . if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning?''-- Marine General (Retired) Anthony Zinni, former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, September 4, 2003 ``This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential--even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.''--Army Times, May 10, 2004 Bush Administration: Severely Misjudged How a U.S. Occupation Would be Received `'We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly . . . (in) weeks rather than months.''--Vice President Dick Cheney; Meet the Press, March 16, 2003 ``We had a plan that anticipated, I think, that we could proceed with an occupation regime for much longer than it turned out the Iraqis would have patience for. We had a plan that assumed we'd have basically more stable security conditions than we've encountered.''--Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; Testimony at Senate Foreign Relations Committee, May 18, 2004 Bush Administration: Severely Misjudged the Cost ``There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon''--Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Atlantic Monthly, March 27, 2003 Bush Administration: Doesn't Know Who the Enemy Is, Misjudged its ``Friends'' ``The [Pentagon intelligence] report, completed March 26, was commissioned to answer a simple but provocative question: in Iraq, who is the adversary?''--New York Times, April 29, 2004 ``No Iraqi leader has had more to do with the U.S. intervention in Iraq than Chalabi, from charming Congress into authorizing almost $100 million to back his fledgling Iraqi National Congress in the late 1990s and convincing Washington about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in 2002 to pressing for war last year, say both his supporters and critics.''--Washington Post, May 21, 2004 ``U.S. intelligence agencies believe Ahmad Chalabi, the former Iraqi exile once strongly backed by some Bush administration officials, may have passed classified information on the American occupation of Iraq to the government of Iran, officials said.''--Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2004

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to pay tribute to a distinguished labor leader, a great San Franciscan, and a dear friend, Walter Johnson, upon his retirement. I join with my constituents to express our appreciation to Walter Johnson for 50 years of extraordinary service to the labor community and to the people of San Francisco. We are all fortunate that Walter chose to live in San Francisco and bestow upon us his immeasurable talents and contributions. He has devoted his life to fighting for equal rights in the workplace and social justice for all San Franciscans. He believes deeply in the dignity of all people and the freedoms of our democracy. Born on April 22, 1924, in Amenia, North Dakota, Walter arrived in San Francisco following three years of service in the United States Army during World War 11. He joined the Department Store Employees Union Local 1100, was elected President in 1958, and in 1964 was elected to his local's top position of Executive Officer. Under Walter's leadership, the rights of women, people of color, and lesbians and gays working in retail were protected and preserved. His expert guidance resulted in his subsequent reelection over the next eleven years. Walter was elected Secretary-Treasurer of the San Francisco Labor Council in 1985, and since that time has fought to secure and protect individual workers' rights. As a frontline leader, Walter Johnson has led the fight for workers' benefits, healthcare reform, workplace equality, and union rights. Walter educated, enlightened and mobilized union members to correct the unjust and unfair practices that existed in the workplace. Walter developed and maintained strong personal ties with his numerous co-workers and union members, and has remained their loyal friend. Walter's friendships extend far beyond the labor community to the homeless man on the street, the man in the corner store, and innumerable others throughout the Bay Area and beyond. His friends have been blessed with his generous nature, his wry sense of humor, and his penchant for story telling. He is rarely without a personal anecdote or a footnote from history, which he often recalls in perfect iambic pentameter and rhyme. His boundless energy and enthusiasm is contagious. Walter has given so much of himself to the labor movement and to the people of San Francisco, that we must thank his wife Jane and his children Eric, Lawrence and Mary, for sharing him with us. We honor him today for his courage, his leadership, and his wonderful friendship.