Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Capps amendment. And it really is a mystery to me why we are even where we are right now. I think that, collectively, the House of Representatives should remember that this very provision took down the entire energy bill in the last Congress. That is how important this provision is.

Now we have this debate about whether polluters should pay. I do not care what district anyone represents in this country. No constituent is going to stand up and say, Put the tax burden on us and allow the industry to get away with it.

That is what this amendment is about. That is why we should all vote for the Capps amendment.

The base bill contains a provision that creates a safe harbor. What does that mean? It lets the industry off the hook. It relieves the industry of any obligation to pay even a portion of the estimated $29 billion of cost of cleaning up drinking water that has been contaminated by this product.

We know the product has contaminated groundwater. Now we are sending the bill to local governments.

The National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, attorneys general from across the United States have weighed in. This is not just simply a matter of who pays. It is also a matter of public health.

I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass). Of course it is a matter of public health. Why do we need a task force to try and figure this out? Let us make the bill right. Let us not stand on the wrong leg and try and defend something that is indefensible. This is an unfunded mandate. The CBO has weighed in and said that. The Congress has responded to unfunded mandates by having rule XVIII in the House rules.

So I ask my colleagues on a bipartisan basis, let us do the right thing. Let us pass the Capps amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the base bill contains a provision that creates a ``safe harbor'' preventing defective product claims against the producers of gasoline that contains MTBE.

What this ``safe harbor'' does is relieve industry of any obligation to pay even a portion of the estimated $29 billion cost of cleaning up drinking water that's been contaminated by its product.

Instead, the burden of MTBE clean up will fall entirely on States and localities.

It's an unfunded mandate and a tax on the American people.

In California, successful lawsuits have led to substantial settlements with oil companies, and these settlements have enabled some communities to begin cleaning up their drinking water supplies.

Now, because communities are winning these suits, industry wants Congress to let it off the hook.

But this isn't simply a matter of who pays; it's also a matter of public health.

MTBE is a potential carcinogen. It's been detected in groundwater in all 50 States.

When MTBE is in drinking water, we need to clean it up.

In response to the public health threat, 42 States have established action levels, cleanup levels, or drinking water standards for MTBE; 19 States have imposed full or partial bans on MTBE in gasoline.

In justifying the ``safe harbor,'' some will claim that Congress established a mandate to use MTBE when it passed the Clean Air Act's 2 percent oxygenate requirement in the early 1990s. That's not true.

First, the industry didn't have to use MTBE to meet the oxygenate requirement; it had alternatives such as ethanol and other petroleum- based products.

Second, the industry lobbied Congress to ensure that MTBE could be used to meet the oxygenate requirement.

Third, at the time Congress was debating the oxygenate requirement, some producers already knew MTBE was likely to seep into groundwater at faster rates and persist at greater levels than other gasoline components. In fact, in the South Lake Tahoe lawsuit, ARCO admitted that it withheld information about groundwater contamination from Congress.

Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about clean hands here. There's a reason the refiners and the MTBE producers are losing in court; there's a reason they're settling claims. They're responsible for the mess.

Why are we creating a safe harbor for them?

Nobody outside of the industry thinks this provision is a good idea.

In 2003, 14 attorneys general, including the attorneys general of California, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin wrote in opposition to providing a safe harbor for MTBE.

In April of this year, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the Association of California Water Agencies and other sent letters voicing their opposition.

This is a bad provision and we should strip it from the bill.

Vote for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this rule. The State of California sends $50 billion more to the Federal Government while getting nothing in return for that $50 billion.

With this bill, Californians are being asked to sacrifice even more while getting nothing in return. Here are some examples: according to the Department of Energy, the bill will raise gasoline prices by 8 cents a gallon. I think that that is an outrage.

The bill's MTBE liability waiver will let refiners off the hook for cleaning up drinking water that has been contaminated by their product. Local governments are going to have to pay the entire cost. And the CBO has said this is an unfunded mandate.

The bill will undermine the ability of States to ensure that liquefied natural gas terminals are sited and operate safely. The bill will undermine States' appeals rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

The bill paves the way for building energy facilities on the outer continental shelf, including areas subject to gas and oil drilling.

In listening to State leaders about this bill, I could not find anyone, from the Governor on down, who has said that this is a wonderful bill and it should be supported and passed. Instead, I have heard many concerns, from the Lieutenant Governor, from members of the Governor's cabinet, the attorney general, the coastal commission, the Public Utilities Commission, local governments, and water utilities.

Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record a packet of letters from the coastal commission, the California PUC, the lieutenant governor, and the California Ocean Protection Council.

Under this rule, I do not think we even have the opportunity to debate and vote on the most important amendments dealing with them.

I ask my colleagues, particularly my California colleagues, to join me in voting against the rule and the underlying bill.

The letters previously referred to are as follows:

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, April 19, 2005.

Re House Consideration of Comprehensive Energy Legislation.

Hon. Arnold Schwarzenegger,

Governor, State Capitol Building,

Sacramento, California.

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger, On April 13th, our committees

(the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House

Committee on Resources) completed work on elements of a

comprehensive energy bill that will come before the full

House of Representatives as soon as April 20th.

After participating in the debate and reviewing the

products that emerged from our respective committees, we

foresee serious dangers for the State of California if this

legislation is enacted.

While the delegation has received your letter supporting

the removal of the participant funding section from the

electricity title of the bill, we have not heard from you

about other provisions that will more directly and

immediately affect California. As we and other members of the

delegation determine how to best represent the interests of

our State, we believe it's important to understand your views

on some of the key provisions before us as well as your

overall position on the legislation.

Most of the elements of the legislation are not new. They

were part of the conference report on H.R. 6, which was

considered by the House and Senate in 2003. Among the few new

provisions are those that would further disadvantage our

State. We've described below some of the provisions that we

consider most troubling for California.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facility Siting (new provisions)

The bill will hand over exclusive jurisdiction for the

siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities to the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), preventing the

states from having a role in approving the location of LNG

terminals and the conditions under which these terminals must

operate. In addition, states will have to seek FERC

permission before conducting safety inspections, and they

will be barred from taking any independent enforcement action

against LNG terminal operators for safety violations.

Finally, for the next six years, LNG terminal operators

will be allowed to withhold underutilized capacity from

other LNG suppliers. In other words, LNG terminal

operators can legally exercise market power to drive up

the cost of natural gas. When the El Paso Corporation and

its independent affiliates allegedly conspired to withhold

natural gas pipeline capacity in order to inflate the

costs of natural gas and electricity in California in 2000

and 2001, the State sought relief from FERC and the

courts. E1 Paso eventually agreed to a $1.5 billion

settlement to partially compensate California consumers

for its anticompetitive actions. Under this bill, it would

become legal for an LNG terminal operator to engage in

similar anticompetitive behavior.

For these reasons, the provision is unanimously opposed by

the California Public Utilities Commission, which, as you

know, is fighting FERC in the courts for jurisdiction over an

LNG terminal in the heart of the Port of Long Beach. This

provision is also opposed by the California Ocean Protection

Council, which includes two members of your cabinet, and the

California Coastal Commission.

Erosion of States' Rights Under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

(provisions from H.R. 6)

The bill weakens California's rights under the Coastal Zone

Management Act to object to a FERC-approved coastal pipeline

or energy facility project when the project is inconsistent

with the State's federally-approved coastal management

program. Currently when there is a disagreement about a

project, the Secretary of Commerce, through an administrative

appeals process, determines whether and under what conditions

the project can go forward. States can present new evidence

supporting their arguments to the Secretary. Under this bill,

states will not be allowed to present new evidence to the

Secretary, and the Secretary will not be allowed to seek out

evidence on his or her own. The Secretary will only be

allowed to rely on the record compiled by FERC. Furthermore,

the bill imposes an expedited timeline for appeals, which may

not allow a full review of the facts. The California Coastal

Commission and the California Ocean Protection Council oppose

this provision.

Energy Related Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

(provisions from H.R. 6)

The bill will give the Department of Interior permitting

authority for ``alternative'' energy projects, such as wind

projects, situated on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). It

also grants the Department of Interior authority to permit

other types of energy facilities, including facilities to

``support the exploration, development, production,

transportation, or storage of oil, natural gas, or other

minerals.'' These facilities could be permitted within

coastal areas currently subject to congressional moratoria on

oil and gas leasing. (Again, both the California Coastal

Commission and the California Ocean Protection Council have

indicated that they oppose this provision.)

Ethanol Mandate (provision from H.R. 6)

The Clean Air Act's two percent oxygenate requirement

forces refiners selling gasoline in California to blend more

ethanol into their fuel than is needed for air quality

purposes. Instead of improving air quality, the unnecessary

use of ethanol is increasing pollution in parts of the State,

according to a preliminary report from the California Air

Resources Board. The oxygenate requirement is also adding to

the cost of fuel. Last year, you asked the U.S. EPA to waive

the oxygenate requirement, and last week, 50 members of the

California congressional delegation reiterated support for

your request in a letter to Acting EPA Administrator Stephen

L. Johnson.

Under the energy bill coming before the House, however,

California refiners will have to blend even more ethanol into

their gasoline or pay (in the form of credit purchases) not

to use it. Two years ago, a Department of Energy analysis of

this provision indicated that it could add more than 8 cents

to

the cost of a gallon of gasoline. In a time of skyrocketing

gas prices, this new mandate amounts to hidden tax on

California motorists, which will subsidize a single industry

located largely in the Midwest.

While some have argued that the ethanol mandate will be a

boon to California agriculture, we see no evidence to support

this argument. According to the U.S. Energy Information

Administration (EIA), the ethanol mandate will greatly expand

production of corn-based ethanol, but only 0.2% of the

nation's corn is produced in California. More important, EIA

projects that the ethanol mandate will result in no increase

in the production of cellulosic ethanol (ethanol made from

agricultural and forestry residues and other resources),

which is the primary type of ethanol that can be produced in

California.

MTBE Liability Waiver and Transition Fund (provisions from H.R. 6)

The bill provides liability protection for the producers of

the gasoline additive MTBE, hampering the efforts of local

governments, water utilities, and others to hold producers

and oil companies responsible for the costs of cleaning

drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE.

In California, South Lake Tahoe and Santa Monica have been

able to reach settlements with the industry for the cleanup

of their drinking water after successfully arguing that the

industry sold a defective product. If the liability

protection in the bill is enacted, then MTBE will be deemed a

safe product and the industry will be relieved from virtually

any obligation to pay cleanup costs. In June 2003, fourteen

state attorneys general wrote in opposition to this

provision, and the provision has been opposed by the U.S.

Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the

National Association of Counties, the National Association of

Towns and Townships, and the Association of California Water

Agencies, among others.

Refinery Revitalization (new provisions)

This bill includes language which will require the

Secretary of Energy to designate ``refinery revitalization

zones'' in areas that have experienced mass layoffs or

contain an idle refinery and have an unemployment rate that

exceeds the national average by 10 percent. In areas that

meet these criteria, the Secretary of Energy is given

authority to site a new refinery within six months of

receiving a petition for approval. The criteria outlined in

the language would result in much of California being

designated a ``refinery revitalization zone,'' from Imperial

to East Los Angeles and north of San Jose. In fact, more than

half of California's 53 congressional districts would be

subject to these provisions.

This language erodes the state, air board and communities

permitting and enforcement authority for these refineries by

granting sweeping new authority to the Department of Energy.

The Department is empowered to coordinate and set binding

deadlines for all federal authorizations and environmental

reviews, including those currently conducted by air quality

management districts. The Department of Energy, however, is

not trained and experienced in issuing air permits and is not

familiar with the various rules implemented by local agencies

as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) required by

the Clean Air Act. For these reasons, the South Coast Air

Quality Management District has expressed serious

reservations about this provision.

Preempting California Appliance Efficiency Standards (new provision)

An amendment added to the bill in the Energy and Commerce

Committee will preempt California's new efficiency standards

for ceiling fans, pending the implementation of a federal

standard. The U.S. Department of Energy has been notoriously

slow in propounding efficiency standards, falling years

behind statutory deadlines for setting or updating efficiency

standards for other appliances, such as air conditioners.

Preempting California and forcing it to wait indefinitely for

a federal standard runs completely against the State's effort

to reduce electricity demand. Indeed, the ceiling fan

standard is part of a California Energy Commission demand

reduction package that will reduce peak power demand by 1,000

megawatts within 10 years, saving consumers $75 a year in

energy costs and conserving as much power as can be generated

by three large power plants.

Hydroelectric Dam Relicensing (provisions from H.R. 6)

The bill restructures the hydroelectric relicensing process

to give special preference to dam operators. Other parties

with legitimate interests in relicensing, including states,

tribes, conservationists, farmers, and fishermen, would not

be afforded the same opportunities.

Under current law, federal resource agencies can impose

conditions on a hydroelectric license for the protection of

natural resources and wildlife. Under the bill a dam

operator, and only a dam operator, will be entitled to a

trial-type hearing before a resource agency to dispute the

evidence that the agency uses to justify placing conditions

on a license. The bill also requires resource agencies to

accept alternative license conditions proposed by a dam

operator. Otherwise, the agencies must meet nearly impossible

standards to justify a decision to deny the alternative.

River resources belong to more than dam operators. With

licenses that last for up to 50 years, relicensing is one of

the few chances to make sure that resources are adequately

protected for all stakeholders. In California, there are more

than 300 federally-regulated hydroelectric dams; over 200

will undergo relicensing in the next 10 to 15 years. Denying

all stakeholders equal footing in the process is

fundamentally unfair and is a recipe for protracted

litigation.

Conclusion

We believe there are many other aspects of the legislation

which will have a negative impact on our State, but these

provisions clearly run contrary to the interests of

California, and we believe they will undermine the policies

and positions the State is pursuing under your

Administration. Before the delegation votes on this

legislation, Members should have the benefit of your views on

these provisions and the bill as a whole. This legislation is

too important a matter for the nation's largest state to be

silent on.

Although time is short, the issues we've outlined have been

in the public domain for the past several months, going back

to November 2003 in most cases. Therefore, we ask for your

input before the House votes on this legislation this week.

Thank you for timely consideration of this important request.

Sincerely,

Anna G. Eshoo,

Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Henry A. Waxman,

Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Lois Capps,

Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Grace F. Napolitano,

Committee on Resources.

George Miller,

Committee on Resources.

Hilda L. Solis,

Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Chairman, I want to speak to one aspect of this very important consumer protection amendment, and that is what the amendment is: it protects consumers. The issue I want to talk about is refund authority.

Can there be any doubt today that Western consumers were gouged as a result of energy market manipulation in 2000 and 2001? Can there be any doubt that refunds are owed? So when a Member rises on the floor and talks about retroactive and it is not fair to have something retroactive, we have to have the arm of the law reach back so

consumers are refunded the dollars that they were ripped off.

Madam Chairman, 5 years after the crisis in California, no refunds have been ordered because for 5 years the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has insisted it does not have the authority to order the retroactive refunds that will fully compensate consumers. FERC knows the evidence, and here it is: one, Enron memos reveal that the energy trading company implemented elaborate market manipulation strategies to drive up prices. The Enron memos gave these ploys names like Fat Boy, Death Star, and Get Shorty.

Number two, audio tapes of Enron energy traders surfaced that confirmed the existence of secret deals with power producers that deliberately drove up prices by ordering power plants shut down.

Number three, transcripts of Reliant Energy traders from 2000 revealed that Reliant power plant operators deliberately kept power offline in order to increase energy prices at the height of the crisis.

Four, on March 3, 2003, a coalition of California governmental entities and public utilities presented the FERC with more than 1,000 pages of evidence documenting a ``pervasive pattern of market manipulation that resulted in disastrous effects on prices and reliability.'' And in March 2003, the FERC confirmed that significant power manipulation had taken place in the West.

This amendment gives the FERC broad authority to order retroactive refunds for market-based rates that are not just and reasonable. For California, billions are at stake. I urge a vote for this amendment. Last fall Governor Schwarzenegger said, ``Californians deserve refunds to fairly compensate them for the excessively high prices they paid during the energy crisis.''

Mr. Chairman, in a cautionary letter to the President last month, a group of defense experts including conservatives Robert McFarlane, Frank Gaffney, and Boyden Gray said the following: ``With only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves but 25 percent of current world consumption, the United States cannot eliminate its need for imports through increased domestic production alone.''

Our dependence on foreign oil is putting our country in a perilous situation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it will move us away from that perilous addiction to foreign oil and increase efficiency where we use the most oil, and that is the automobile industry.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 787 and to say a few words for our late colleague, the Honorable Robert T. Matsui. When Bob passed away on January 1, 2005, we lost a friend, his constituents lost their most ardent supporter and America, as a whole, lost a dedicated statesman.

Bob was well respected on both sides of the aisle. A brilliant man and an honest and fair politician, his leadership on the House Ways and Means Committee and his expertise and knowledge of Social Security will be sorely missed in the House for many years to come.

Naming the federal courthouse in Sacramento is a fitting tribute for a man who did so much for that city. A member of the Sacramento City Council, Vice-Mayor and eventual Representative of the city in Congress, Bob served the city of Sacramento in every capacity he could. In Congress, Bob's efforts in securing funding for Sacramento were crucial in the revitalization of that city. Among the projects he was responsible for were the expansion of the city's light rail public transit system, and the courthouse that will soon bear his name. Both projects were crucial in creating new jobs and opportunities for the people of Sacramento.

His passing is a great loss for all of us and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work in getting this legislation before the House so quickly, so that we can honor a man we all loved and respected. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to join my colleague Representative Deborah Pryce in introducing the Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act (SELHA). This legislation establishes a grant program that would be administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for services related to housing for people who have experienced chronic homelessness and who also have disabling health conditions such as mental illness.

The Department of Health and Human Services currently operates grant programs for homeless individuals but none of them are specifically focused on services such as mental health services, substance abuse treatment, health education, money management, parental skills training, and general health care, coordinated with permanent supportive housing.

Chronically homeless individuals need more than housing. In order to truly help, the federal government needs to provide grants that will enable communities to coordinate and deliver health care-related services to these individuals. Without these services, it will continue to be very hard to end the root causes of chronic homelessness.

SELHA specifically: Establishes a grant program for services in supportive housing within the Department of Health and Human Services (RRS) and administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA);

Defines ``chronically homeless'' as an individual or family who is currently homeless, has been homeless continuously for at least one year or has been homeless on at least four separate occasions in the last three years, and has a head of household with a disabling condition.

Make states, cities, public, or nonprofit entities eligible to apply for the grants.

Gives priority to applicants that target funds to individuals or families that are homeless for longer than one year, frequently use the ER, or interact regularly with law enforcement.

Funds services including mental health services, substance abuse treatment, referrals for primary health care and dental services, health education, money management, and parental skills training.

Requires initial grant awardees to provide $1 for every $3 of federal money.

Requires renewal grant awardees to provide $1 for every $1 of federal money.

Permits 20 percent of the grant awardees' matching funds to come from other federal grants such as the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant. This provision will encourage collaboration with existing programs and access for homeless people to existing mainstream health and human services systems, while assisting the grant awardees in achieving their match.

Establishes initial grant terms of 3-5 years and renewal grant terms of up to 5 years. (To encourage long-term program success and stability for permanent supportive housing projects and formerly homeless tenants, renewal grant awardees only compete against each other and have priority status for additional funding.)

Chronic homelessness is a dreadful but solvable problem. In my District, the most recent one-day survey (February 27, 2004) in Santa Clara County identified over 7,000 homeless individuals, with over 1,000 defined as chronic. In San Mateo County, over 1,730 individuals are homeless, with approximately 650 defined as chronic.

Chronic homelessness is very costly to emergency rooms, psychiatric hospitals, VA hospitals and the criminal justice system. This legislation will provide more resources to reduce these costly expenditures, while simultaneously permitting individuals with complex health needs to be housed and begin their journey to a productive life.

I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a distinguished American, Dr. June Ritchie Chambers, who died on January 24, 2005, at the age of eighty.

June Ritchie was born in Parkersburg, West Virginia, and graduated from West Virginia University. She attended its School of Medicine before transferring to the Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio. She completed residencies in Internal Medicine and Psychiatry at Charleston Area Medical Center Memorial Hospital, practicing Psychiatry at Shawnee Hills and working as an Internal Medicine specialist as well.

June Ritchie Chambers was married to her husband John T. ``Jack'' Chambers, also a Charleston physician, for 57 years. In 2002, together with their son and wife, John and Elaine Chambers, my constituents, they donated $1.5 million to their alma mater, West Virginia University, establishing a program to train students in electronic business techniques.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deep sympathy to the family of June Ritchie Chambers and to honor her lifetime of remarkable accomplishments and service to her community and her country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Temple Beth Jacob as it celebrates the 75th anniversary of its founding. As the oldest congregation on the San Francisco Peninsula, Temple Beth Jacob stands as a testament to the long tradition of involvement of the Jewish community in the religious and public life in the Bay Area.

Founded in 1930, Temple Beth Jacob was the first Jewish religious institution created between the cities of San Francisco and San Jose. Its membership today is burgeoning with a vibrant congregation of more than 450 families from throughout the Peninsula to worship, to learn, and to strengthen both the Jewish community and the Bay Area community as a whole.

The congregation is led by Rabbi Nathaniel Ezray, who is now in his tenth year as the head of this congregation. Over the years, he's demonstrated a sincere commitment to translating the lessons of faith into actions that will benefit the community. In a 1995 interview, he said, ``What's compelling for me is the social justice of Judaism. I want our congregation to respond together to domestic violence, AIDS, black-Jewish relations. My passion is teaching, but the pulpit allows me the opportunity to teach in many different ways and to create meaning and relevance.'' He lives with his wife, Mimi, and their daughter, Emily, and son, Ethan, in Redwood City.

In the decades before Rabbi Ezray began at the synagogue, Rabbi H. David Teitelbaum led the congregation at Temple Beth Jacob for 38 years. Under his leadership, the congregation grew from only 100 active families to its present size of nearly four times that number. A longtime advocate for civil rights, Rabbi Teitelbaum traveled to Selma, Alabama in the 1960's to march with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., believing that the history of persecution of the Jewish people creates in them a special obligation to protect the human rights of all. He continues to serve as a beacon for the community and his former congregation in his current role as Executive Director of the Board of Rabbis of Northern California.

Temple Beth Jacob has a long tradition of coordinating with other religious institutions in the Bay Area to provide vital services to the community at large. In addition to providing a school and a pre-school to the community, Temple Beth Jacob's efforts have helped to house the homeless through the Interfaith Homeless Network and feed the hungry through the Urban Ministry's ``Breaking Bread'' program. They are annual cosponsors of the Martin Luther King observance in Redwood City, and have hosted the event over the years. All told, Temple Beth Jacob is a model of dedicated community action.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to honor Temple Beth Jacob as it celebrates its 75th anniversary. After three quarters of a century, Temple Beth Jacob remains a source of pride for the Peninsula, and promises to be a center of our community for decades to come.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed reductions in Medicaid under this Budget Resolution plan are unacceptable. For 40 years Medicaid has always been a crucial support system for low-income individuals. Medicaid has made health care available to millions of Americans who have no other access to health care.

The Budget Resolution will require $14-$20 billion in cuts from the program over the next five years and it will almost certainly lead to changes to state funding rules, administrative payment cuts, and prescription drug payment changes. This comes at a time when poverty is up, wages are down, and the number of uninsured Americans is at a record in our nation's history.

The Medicaid program serves nearly 50 million Americans. As people lost jobs and income during the recent economic downturn, Medicaid enrollment increased by nearly one-third. The decreasing number of those who receive health care benefits through employment adds additional burdens to the Medicaid system. States and local governments rely on federal assistance to help provide a safety-net to these individuals. Any cuts to the Medicaid program will shift the burden entirely onto state and local governments that are already straining to meet increasing demands on the program and severe budget pressures of their own. In many states, Medicaid costs exceed education costs.

In California, our Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, matches every dollar of federal funding with a dollar in state funding. This shared commitment is critical since the state receives $20 billion in federal funding. Reducing federal Medicaid funding to states at a time of rising health care costs, increased numbers of uninsured, and states' increasing difficulties in paying their share of Medicaid costs, is bound to force states to reduce coverage and increase the numbers of uninsured. Uninsured patients without access to care will instead seek treatment in emergency rooms, further burdening an already overtaxed system.

The Medicaid program is not only critical for low-income individuals, but it's also fundamental to the operation of California's safety-net hospitals. The President's budget calls for eliminating the use of intergovernmental transfers for hospital funding. This means there will be at least $11.9 billion in direct cuts to safety-net providers nationwide. Many states rely on IGTs to fund their Medicaid budgets. The low-income and uninsured rely on these hospitals to receive access to needed health care services. Without the continuation of federal Medicaid funds targeted to safety net hospitals, millions of Californians will not have access to necessary health care services. This budget resolution advances this march to folly for so many Americans and that's why 242 national groups and 785 state groups, including the National Governors Association and the National Association of Counties oppose changes in Medicaid.

We have an obligation to care for the less fortunate, and the Congress should not be cutting critical health care and other services from those in need. Rather, we should maintain our partnership with the states to ensure that Medicaid benefits remain available for the most vulnerable in our society.

I urge all my colleagues in the House to oppose the Budget Resolution.

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to honor a distinguished American and community leader, Mary Lou Zoglin who passed away last week.

Mary Lou Zoglin was committed to serving her community whether it was with non-profits or through community service. She was the executive director of Healthy Ventures, a consortium of schools and other agencies dedicated to the well-being of children. She later served on the California Community Colleges Board of Governors and the Foothill- De Anza Community College Board. In the early 1990s, Mary Lou turned her public service to the City of Mountain View where she joined the city's Planning Commission. In 1996, she was elected to the Mountain View city Council where she served for 8 years, and one term as Mayor.

During her tenure with the City Council, Mary Lou Zoglin focused her public service on ensuring that the community has a continuum of human services from the time children are in preschool to high school and then into adulthood. She worked tirelessly to see that all members of the community are served by the city, not just those who are the most vocal or economically advantaged. She was instrumental in the construction of San Antonio Place, an affordable housing project in Mountain View which broke ground last year. She also fought for the creation of child-care centers, for improvements to city parks and for resources for youth, including after school programs.

Beyond her dedication to public service, Mrs. Zoglin was committed to her family and an avid student of foreign languages and cultures. She earned her college degree from Radcliffe College where she studied Romance languages and later won a Fulbright scholarship to study in Brussels, Belgium. Upon her return, she met her husband in the early 1950s while they were both in New York. They moved to Los Altos in 1956 where they began their family. Her children, John, Katie and Bill, were raised in this close-knit community and she recently became a proud grandmother of twin grandchildren.

Despite her 5-year battle with cancer and her small frame, Mary Lou Zoglin was frequently described as a ``powerhouse'' and a ``dynamo.'' She found true joy in working with people in the community and making their dreams a reality.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this good and great woman for her lifetime of remarkable achievements and in extending to her family our deepest sympathy. Our community and our country have lost a true friend and an extraordinary leader.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to join Representatives Biggert, Slaughter and Ney in introducing the Genetic Information Non- Discrimination Act of 2005. This bill will prevent abuses of genetic information for workforce and insurance decisions. Advances in genetic science are already saving lives and will save many more in the years ahead, but these advances should not be the basis for denying Americans their jobs or their health insurance.

One of the most significant scientific accomplishments in history has been sequencing the human genetic code. As a result of this achievement, scientists have identified genetic markers for a variety of chronic health conditions, increasing the potential for early treatment and prevention.

Unfortunately, the ability to predict disease through genetic testing and family history opens the door for discrimination, particularly the employment and the health insurance industry. Such a threat has deterred the public and scientists from taking full advantage of the important opportunities that genetic information provides. Without appropriate protections to encourage providers, the health care community and the public to embrace genetic testing, the health care arena will be incapable of taking full advantage of the important opportunities resulting from the advancement of genetic information and technology.

The Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2005 prohibits health insurers in both group and individual markets from: using genetic information to impose enrollment restrictions or to adjust premium or contribution amounts; requesting genetic testing or results except as necessary for treatment, payment, or health care operations; and requesting or requiring the use of genetic information for the purposes of underwriting.

With regards to employment, the Genetic Information Non- Discrimination Act of 2005 grants enforcement powers to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and: makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or training program to discriminate against an individual or deprive an individual of employment opportunities because of genetic information; prohibits the collection of genetic information except where necessary to monitor the effects of toxic substances in the workplace, when authorized by the employee, or as required by law; safeguards the confidentiality of genetic information in the employment setting.

The Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2005 brings public policy up-to-date

with science and ensures that every American can benefit from our scientific progress without the worry of genetic discrimination.

I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 1134, a bill to exempt FEMA's mitigation grants from federal income taxes, as was Congress's original intent. I commend my colleagues for their swift, bipartisan action in addressing this issue.

These mitigation grants were created to give citizens a proactive way to prepare for future disasters, thereby minimizing the damage they cause. These grants have proved to be extremely successful, saving millions of dollars in post-disaster funding as well as lives lost to natural disasters. Despite this success, the IRS ruled in June of 2004, that these grants

should be included in grant recipients' gross income and be subject to federal income taxes. Taxing this assistance effectively removes the incentive for citizens to participate.

Not only was this decision contrary to the intent of these grant programs, but the delay in notifying affected taxpayers has caused considerable alarm. I met personally with IRS Commissioner Everson to urge him to provide temporary relief while Congress worked toward a legislative solution, but without a reversal of the IRS ruling, it is essential that the House pass this bill today.

In Felton Grove, one of the affected areas of my Congressional District, there are 30 families, many of them low-income, who are facing an enormous and unexpected tax burden this year. Many of these constituents earn between $30,000 and $40,000 a year. With grant averages from $40,000 to $160,000, if this determination is allowed to stand, some of my constituents' annual gross incomes will grow from $40,000 to $200,000. For these unfortunate constituents, nearly all of their annual income will have to be paid to the IRS, and many will face financial ruin.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents who are living in fear of the upcoming April 15th tax filing deadline, I urge my colleagues in the House to vote for this legislation so that it can become law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to place into the Record a tribute to honor former Representative Tillie Kidd Fowler, who passed away unexpectedly on March 2, 2005.

Tillie was not only an extraordinary leader and a dedicated public servant, she was also a dear and loyal friend.

Tillie and I came to the Congress together in 1993, and worked together on many issues during the eight years she served her constituents in the communities of Jacksonville, Florida. Tillie was kind, intelligent and thoughtful. She put aside partisanship and politics for the good of the American people. Too few today speak with courtesy and respect when in disagreement with a colleague on important issues, but Tillie always did. These attributes earned her enormous respect among Republicans and Democrats alike, and undoubtedly played a role in her rise to Chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, placing her fifth in the Republican leadership hierarchy.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, Tillie was a champion of a strong national defense and worked tirelessly to improve military culture in the U.S. and abroad. She continued this good work after her retirement from Congress in 2001, serving on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee where she aided the Secretary of Defense on strategy and policy matters. She also served on several panels to investigate allegations of discrimination and sexual misconduct at the U.S. Air Force Academy, as well as prisoner abuse in Iraq. Her work to improve our nation's military is second to none and she will be remembered for her role in eliminating intimidation, discrimination, harassment and assault from the culture of our military.

The State of Florida, our nation and those of us who are Members of Congress have lost a true friend and wonderful leader.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the extraordinary life of Tillie Fowler and in extending our deepest sympathies to her beloved husband Buck, their daughters Tillie and Elizabeth, and their entire family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished American, Walter H. Shorenstein, who will celebrate his 90th birthday on Friday, March 4, 2005.

Walter H. Shorenstein served our nation as a Major in the United States Air Force. He is an extraordinary American who has made enormous contributions to our communities and our country. He began his career in real estate in 1946 and has built the Shorenstein Company into one of the largest and most highly respected real estate firms in the nation.

Walter Shorenstein has been a valued advisor to Presidents, a generous philanthropist, a noted lecturer and an ardent supporter of education. His numerous sponsorships, board memberships and honors reflect his dedication to art, culture, education, government and philanthropy.

Walter Shorenstein's life has been enriched by his family. His daughter Carole is a producer of Broadway shows, his son, Douglas is President of the Shorenstein Company, and his grandchildren Walter, Gracie, Brandon Jona, Sandra Joan and Daniella are great blessings to him. His lifelong partner in life, Phyllis, died in 1994, and their beloved and brilliant daughter Joan died in 1985.

It is a special privilege for me to honor Walter Shorenstein and to call him my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this good and great American, this outstanding citizen and national treasure. As Mr. Shorenstein celebrates this important milestone, the gratitude and respect of the entire House of Representatives are extended to him.

Mr. Speaker, due to reasons beyond my control, I was unable to vote February 14 through February 18 of this year. I would like the Record to reflect how I would have voted on the following votes.

On rollcall vote No. 32 I would have voted ``yea,'' on rollcall vote No. 33 I would have voted ``yea'', on rollcall vote No. 34 I would have voted ``no,'' on rollcall vote No. 35 I would have voted ``yea'', on rollcall vote No. 36 I would have voted ``yea,'' on rollcall vote No. 37 I would have voted ``yea,'' on rollcall vote No. 38 I would have voted ``no,'' on rollcall vote No. 39 I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to be the lead Democratic sponsor of the Calling for 211 Act of 2005, and I look forward to working with my congressional partner Rep. Bilirakis to move this proposal forward.

Every hour of every day, someone in the United States needs essential services for themselves or someone close to them. These services can range from finding an after-school program for a child, to securing care for an aging parent, to finding drug or alcohol counseling. Faced with a myriad of agencies and help lines, many people end up going without services that they need just because they don't know where to start.

When someone calls 2-1-1, an information and referral specialist assesses the caller's needs and determines which service provider is best equipped to handle their problems or crises. These specialists are also trained to determine whether a caller may be eligible for other programs. 2-1-1 service providers maintain comprehensive databases of resources, including federal, state and local government agencies, community-based organizations and private non-profits.

In 2000, the FCC designated 2-1-1 for community information and referral purposes. Today, 2-1-1 reaches 107 million Americans--about 37 percent of the U.S. population--with call centers operational in 31 states and the District of Columbia. The goal of the Calling for 211 Act of 2005 is to ensure that all Americans have access to quality community information and referral services through 2-1-1.

The largest barriers for communities seeking to implement 2-1-1 are funding and awareness. In many states, limited resources have slowed the process of connecting communities with this vital service. Current funding where 2-1-1 is operational comes from diverse sources including non-profits, state governments, foundations, and businesses.

The Calling for 211 Act is strongly supported by the United Way and builds on the ongoing efforts to make it easier to connect people with important community services and volunteer opportunities through the nationwide implementation of 2-1-1. The legislation provides federal matching grants to enable some dramatic and much needed changes to the way people connect to their communities, including: Providing the infrastructure to connect individuals with precise information and social services that address their needs; Empowering the nation to better respond to large-scale emergencies and homeland security needs by relieving pressure on overwhelmed 911 call centers; Providing aggregated data from 2-1-1 systems nationwide to better assess the needs of our communities.

I believe the 2-1-1 system has great potential; this legislation will establish a federal partnership with states and local communities to give more Americans access to 2-1-1 services. By augmenting existing funding from state and local governments, nonprofits, and the business community, we can ensure that 2-1-1 can finally be a truly national system. A small investment at the national level would pay immediate dividends in terms of faster, more efficient responses to non-emergency but still critical situations.

In a crisis no one has time to flip through their phonebook. When an urgent medical or safety issue arises, we dial 911 knowing we can get help anywhere and at anytime. We should expect the same when it comes to tracking down important social services as well.

I urge my Colleagues to support this legislation and help to implement this critical safety net for all Americans.