Sen. Enzi is ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

I am strongly opposed to the Democrat proposal that the Senate is now debating on the floor to impose unionization on state and local first responders. This bill would jeopardize national security, impose an enormous unfunded mandate on states and towns, and trample the rights of first responders in the workplace.

Make no mistake: the only direct beneficiaries of this legislation are labor unions. The bill does not contain a dime of money or a single provision that would increase the pay or benefits of any firefighter, police officer or first responder. There is nothing in this bill that would enhance their working conditions, make their jobs safer, or their retirement more secure. It only imposes totally unfunded costs on states, cities and towns that will make those exact results less, not more, likely.

H.R. 980, the so-called Public Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, would jeopardize national security by eliminating the right of states to take certain items off the bargaining table, like manning and staffing levels, training and job requirements, deadly force rules, drug-testing, merit pay and promotion. Read the rest of this entry »

With Congress and President Bush entering negotiations over the next tranche of war funding, via an emergency supplemental appropriations bill, now is a good time for a little emergency check.

As the lead editorial in today’s Washington Post, Not an Emergency, points out, “[f]ive years into paying for two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s outrageous that so much of the financing continues to be approved outside the normal budget process, through ‘emergency’ spending bills that must be passed, must be passed in a hurry…”

So, five years to the month after “mission accomplished,” after half a trillion dollars in war spending through supplementals, maybe it’s time to focus attention on a budget reform proposal that has been circulating in Washington for, well, at least five years. It seeks to end a practice, which, as we have said “obscures or distorts important aspects of the fiscal impact of federal spending and, therefore, undermines the general fiscal responsibility of the federal government.” Read the rest of this entry »

In his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson said, “The minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” This statement was ironically included in Speaker Pelosi’s document “A New Direction for America.”

Speaker Pelosi also said in “A New Direction for America:”

• “Every person in America has a right to have his or her voice heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor…guaranteeing that the voices of all the people are heard.”

• “Regular meetings between Chairs and Ranking Members of committees and staff should be held.

• “Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.”

Well, the most recent supplemental appropriation bill is proving that these statements are raging falsities. Read the rest of this entry »

Nelson Mandela is one of the world’s strongest voices for human dignity and courage in the face of oppression. The idea that he’d be on our government’s terror watch list is deplorable. No bureaucratic snafu can excuse this international embarrassment, and we need to fix this policy now.

The Bush Administration’s embrace of torture and secret detentions has led our country down a dark hallway.  Never again should the practices of our government turn so far away from the values of our people.  I hope these measures will help put right what has gone so badly wrong, and restore the stature and goodwill this nation had earned around the world before this Administration took office.

On the fifth anniversary of ‘Mission Accomplished’ in Iraq, Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) talks about Iraq needing to take control of its own finances, governance and security.

Five years ago today, President Bush addressed our nation and the world from the USS Abraham Lincoln, only forty-two days after he ordered the invasion of Iraq. He declared “Mission Accomplished.” 1,827 days later, the U.S. occupation of Iraq continues, and our “mission” remains undefined and open-ended.

President Bush went to war on a flawed rational without a well-defined strategy or clear-cut and achievable goals. I was skeptical about giving the President authorization to go to war in 2003, but I gave this President the benefit of the doubt. That decision was a mistake.

In Vietnam, we never had a strategy to win. In Iraq, we have never had a strategy.

What this Administration does not understand is that there is a limitation to military power. We learned throughout the last century that political, economic and diplomatic challenges are equally, if not more, important to achieving stability on the ground. And as we’ve learned over the past five years, we must ultimately win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

We must begin a redeployment from Iraq, and we must refocus our attention to the threats down the road. The longer our military remains in Iraq, policing their streets, providing weapons, training and funds to whoever our alliances are for the moment, the longer and bloodier their war will be. If security and stability is our new “mission accomplished,” then it will never happen under a continued U.S. occupation or the continued propping up of a paralyzed Iraqi government.

Tuesday night, I held a Telephone Town Hall, and my constituents expressed indignation about the current status of the GI Bill. It is almost unthinkable that we don’t give the same benefits to our fighting men and women returning from war that we did after World War II – more than 60 years ago. And yesterday, we saw more than 100 veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan marching outside the Capitol in support of a new GI Bill which would restore educational benefits to their proper levels. The American people are making it clear that they want Congress to take action on this issue. Not only is it popular among nearly all spectra of the public, but it is the moral thing to do.

This is why I have been vocal in my support for and cosponsored H.R. 5740, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008: truly, a GI Bill for the 21st Century. This bipartisan legislation would offer the 1.7 million men and women who have served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan educational benefits on par with those provided to veterans of the World War II era. This bill would honor the service of our brave fighting men and women by restoring the promise of the original GI Bill to pay for a full, four-year college education.

Passing H.R. 5740 will not only strengthen our military by expanding our recruitment pool, it will also make the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan part of a new American economic recovery – just like after World War II. Restoring the benefits of the GI Bill to the level that World War II vets enjoyed is a win-win because we’ll produce a better educated work force and we’ll honor our obligation to our brave service men and women. We’ve asked our soldiers to give 100% and we should do the same

Del. Bordallo is chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.

The Federal Government has a fundamental responsibility to secure our nation’s borders; however, the methods by which our borders are secured, and the manner by which the Federal Government implements this strategy, are also fundamental to the public’s acceptance, and the government’s success, in meeting this responsibility.

Our free and open system of representative government is built on public participation, discussion, transparency, and public accountability in decision-making. While this can mean delays, extra costs and, at times, legal challenges, I believe that the only way our government can succeed and endure is if the people themselves feel vested in the important decisions that most affect their daily lives.

We need to understand the practical implications of what it will mean to our communities and our environment to live on a daily basis with a border wall, and this is what I hope the hearing held in Brownsville will help accomplish.

Securing our nation’s borders is one of Congress’ main priorities. We need to address illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and the violence that happens on our communities—both on the border and everywhere else in America.

These problems, however, will be not be solved by constructing a wall that tears through our public and historical lands, forces our citizens to surrender their property, and reverses all the work and investment the Congress and local community have done to protect the natural environment.

Take for instance the Historic Fort Brown. It served as an integral battleground of the Mexican-American war and troops stationed there fought in the last Civil War battle.

The proposed border wall will put Fort Brown on the Mexican side.

Would we put up a wall to divide the battlefield at Gettysburg? Read the rest of this entry »