Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my views on H.R. 4437 and this important issue. As a member of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, I have worked actively with both Republicans and Democrats to strengthen our Nation's laws to protect the American people. Many of the provisions of this bill are under the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security committee, although this version differs substantially from the Committee's product.

The debate on immigration reform is an important matter for this country. Last year, I voted to pass the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act, which authorized an additional 10,000 Border Patrol agents and 4,000 additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's budget funds only 210 additional border agents and 80 ICE officers in fiscal year 2006.

I support several amendments to this bill because they take concrete steps to correct real problems with the immigration status quo. For example, I support the Myrick amendment that provides for the removal of an illegal alien who is convicted of driving drunk. I also support the Shadegg amendment to increase penalties for document fraud and crimes of violence and drug trafficking offenses committed by illegal aliens. In addition, I support the Velazquez amendment to reduce the immigration application processing backlog that has choked the system to a virtual standstill. Unfortunately, these reasonable steps cannot overcome the fundamental flaws of H.R. 4437, which takes an unrealistic approach that will exacerbate the problems of the current system by driving the undocumented further underground, deeper into the black market and further estranged from the laws of our country.

We need to reform the broken immigration system in America, but this bill is harsh, punitive and anti-family and does not fix the many problems with the current system. Rather than pass new laws that make innocent children Federal criminals, we should vigorously enforce the laws against illegal immigration that are already on the books, hire the thousands of additional security personnel that have already been authorized to guard our borders and work for a fair, balanced immigration plan that encourages lawfulness, rewards hard work and safeguards families.

I hope my colleagues will join me in rejection of this legislation, so Congress and the President can start over on a more productive approach to fix the broken immigration system. Vote against H.R. 4437.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3010, the Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations Act for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. H.R. 3010 severely cuts education, health care, and human services that are crucial to North Carolina and to the country. This conference report is only marginally better than one that failed last month.

As the only former state schools chief serving in Congress, I know firsthand the devastating effects that these education cuts will have. At a time when we are asking our schools to do more than ever, H.R. 3010 cuts No Child Left Behind Funding by $779 million below last year's level and makes it impossible for our schools to meet high standards of accountability. These cuts will destroy the morale of our teachers, parents and students.

America's working families are struggling to pay record costs for college tuition and expenses. Last November, President Bush made a campaign promise to increase funding for Pell Grants and invest in higher education. Even though the cost of a four year college education has increased thirty-four percent since 2001, the maximum Pell Grant is frozen at $4,050 for the fourth straight year in a row. America needs a highly trained and educated workforce to compete in the global marketplace of the 21st Century, but H.R. 3010 slashes funding for education at all levels and strains school budgets.

The failure of H.R. 3010 to represent the values of the American people extends beyond the walls of the classroom. H.R. 3010 slashes funding for community health centers that assist the almost 46 million uninsured Americans, and under funds the Centers for Disease Control as we face the possibility of a flu pandemic. And as winter officially begins next week with expected record prices to heat their homes, H.R. 3010 fails to increase funding for LIHEAP home heating assistance, which helps keep the heat on for low-income seniors and children.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3010 fails to represent the priorities of the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bad bill and restore funding for essential services for our families.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

This has been a long day coming, but today, this body will vote, and I trust pass, H.R. 4473, a bill that will reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. I want to applaud the chairman for his hard work, our ranking member of the full committee, as well as my colleague Mr. Moran for his hard work, who is chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the CFTC for their hard work in making this possible.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the members of our staff who worked hard to help get all the details done.

I also want to add my appreciation to Mr. Barrow, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Graves for their efforts to bring attention to rising natural gas prices. The provisions in this bill will go a long way to bringing greater transparency to this important market as a result of their actions.

Some people believe that H.R. 4473 does too much. They would have preferred a simple two-line bill that reauthorized the CFTC for 5 years and nothing more. However, it is important that we use the CFTC reauthorization to review the Commodity Exchange Act and the reform enacted in 2000 through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

That is because the futures industry impacts our lives every single day. Derivatives trading provides customers with forums for price discovery and price hedging for a wide variety of commodities and financial instruments.

We are talking about a trillion-dollar-plus industry that impacts the price of corn, wheat and soybeans that goes into our food products, the price of meat at the grocery store, the price of gas at the pump, the price of energy to heat our homes, the interest rates we pay on our credit cards, the interest we pay on our mortgages, the price of metals that make up the products that we buy, and many other things that we use every single day.

The issues affecting futures trading are often complex and esoteric. However, it is important that we work through these tough issues if we want to maintain a healthy and vibrant derivatives industry.

I am one of those who believes we should have done more with this bill. I am concerned what we left undone today could come back to haunt us tomorrow, and you have heard talk of the Zelener decision, so I will not go into that. I hope years from now we are not hearing stories of fraud being perpetuated upon the American people through contracts for oil, natural gas, gold, or platinum that act like futures, but remain outside the CFTC's jurisdiction, because we chose to limit this bill's reach to foreign exchange products as recommended by the working group.

I hope we are not seeing an industry still waiting for risk-based margining on security futures or a broad-based security index definition that allows them to compete with foreign exchanges offering similar products.

However, we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. This bill remains a good piece of legislation. I intend to support this plan because I believe it is time to move forward. We do not need this legislation unresolved any longer. It is time to pass it and send it to the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4473.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this latest wasteful Republican tax bill and in strong support of the Rangel substitute. The Rangel bill is a responsible effort to extend needed tax relief and protect middle class Americans from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), but the underlying legislation is the latest installment of the failed Republican budget policies that have devastated this country's finances and much of our economy.

I strongly believe that Congress must return to the values of balanced budgets to restore growth and opportunity to our Nation's economy. I am tremendously proud that in my first term in the U.S. House, Congress and the White House worked together in a bipartisan manner to balance the budget for the first time in a generation. That responsible budget helped usher in a period of robust, broad-based economic growth and produced record budget surpluses.

Unfortunately, the current White House and Republican Leaders in Congress replaced that budget discipline with record deficits, exploding national debt and unbalanced budgets in perpetuity. This bill represents more of the same. The current Republican tax cuts will cost our budget $81 billion over ten years, while at the same time, Republican Leaders have proposed devastating cuts to the Farm Bill, food stamps, child support enforcement and Medicaid. Furthermore, H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation Bill, raises the taxes of nearly 17 million middle class families in America, by leaving out a provision to extend the higher AMT exemptions that expire in a few weeks.

In contrast, the Rangel substitute would exempt from AMT increases every family with taxable income under $200,000 per year. It includes $42 billion in tax cuts over five years targeted to spur economic growth through the Research and Development tax credit, small business expensing and other initiatives. The Rangel bill maintains budget discipline by paring back the President's tax cuts for those with annual taxable income above $1 Million. Finally, the Rangel bill keeps our word to the families of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan by maintaining their eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit.

I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel substitute and vote against H.R. 4297.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution and in the strongest possible opposition to the Republican smear campaign against my friend and colleague, Congressman Jack Murtha.

Jack Murtha is a patriot. He has served this country in wartime and peacetime and has earned an unparalleled record as a champion for our troops and their families.

Jack Murtha is a retired Marine Colonel with more than thirty years of distinguished military service. He earned two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for action under enemy fire in Vietnam. He served as a USMC drill instructor at Parris Island, South Carolina boot camp. And as a foremost Congressional expert on defense matters, he has spent more than three decades helping to build a military force that is second to none in the entire world. I have been proud to serve in Congress with Jack Murtha for nearly ten years, and I had the honor of hosting him in my Congressional District and of joining him in visiting wounded veterans of the Iraq war at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital.

Yet despite his standing and stature, Congressman Murtha has been viciously attacked by the Republican partisans for having the temerity to raise important questions about this Administration's policies regarding Iraq. Yesterday, the Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert, who never served in the military, called Jack Murtha a coward. Other Republicans in Congress and the White House have called Jack Murtha a traitor and accused him of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican attack machine has gone too far. Regardless of one's view of the Administration's Iraq policies, Members of this Congress deserve to offer their viewpoints without having their patriotism questioned. Indeed, the American people deserve the benefit of vigorous debate about a war that has cost us more than 2,000 soldiers killed, thousands more maimed and several hundred billion dollars of public treasure expended.

The Hunter Resolution is a cheap political trick. It is not a serious attempt at crafting public policy since Mr. Hunter has said he intends to vote against his own resolution. Rather than engage in this petty and deceitful charade, the American people deserve a Congress that conducts the people's business in a professional manner to address the challenges facing our country here at home and around the world.

I will vote against the Hunter Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3010, the Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations Act for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. H.R. 3010 severely cuts education, health care, and human services that are crucial to North Carolina and to the country.

As the only former state schools chief serving in Congress, I know firsthand the devastating effects that these education cuts will have. At a time when we are asking our schools to do more than ever, H.R. 3010 cuts No Child Left Behind funding by $784 million below last year's level and makes it impossible for our schools to meet high standards of accountability. These cuts will destroy the morale of our teachers, parents and students.

America's working families are struggling to pay record costs for college costs for college tuition and expenses. Last November, President Bush made a campaign promise to increase funding for Pell Grants and invest in higher education. Unfortunately, this bill freezes Pell Grants and other student financial aid programs for the fourth year in a row, even though college costs have increased by 34 percent since 2001. America needs a highly trained and educated workforce to compete in the global marketplace of the 21st Century, but H.R. 3010 slashes funding for education at all levels and strains school budgets.

The failure of H.R. 3010 to represent the values of the American people extends beyond the walls of the classroom. H.R. 3010 slashes funding for community health centers that assist the almost 46 million uninsured Americans, and underfunds the Centers for Disease Control as we face the possibility of a flu pandemic. And as winter approaches with expected record prices to heat their homes, H.R. 3010 fails to increase funding for LIHEAP home heating assistance, which helps keep the heat on for low-income seniors and children.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3010 fails to represent the priorities of the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bad bill and restore funding for essential services for our families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Republican Budget cut package.

First, let me state that I strongly support balancing the federal budget and paying off the national debt. I am tremendously proud that during my first term in the U.S. House, Congress and the White House worked together in a bipartisan manner to balance the federal budget for the first time in a generation and produced record budget surpluses.

Unfortunately, the current Republican Congressional Leadership has produced a budget plan with harmful cuts to essential services that does nothing to reduce the budget deficits or offset the costs of recovery from Hurricane Katrina or the ongoing war in Iraq. At a time when American families are getting squeezed, the budget reconciliation package cuts funding for priorities including Medicaid, student loans, child support and food stamps that assist the working poor and the middle class.

Specifically, this legislation will cut Medicaid by $11.4 million, student loans by $14.3 billion, food stamps by $796 million and child support by $24.1 billion. The bill also breaks the promise of the Farm Bill by cutting $1 billion from agriculture support and $760 million from conservation. Although I am pleased this version of the bill abandons earlier attempts to open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and coastal areas like the Outer Banks to oil and gas drilling and a few other modest improvements, these changes in no way compensate for the bill's fundamental flaws.

Congress should reject this legislation and go back to the drawing board to produce a responsible federal budget for the American people. I support pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules to enact budget discipline and restore fairness and equity to the budget process. I want Congress and the President to work together across the partisan divide to balance the budget once again, pay down the national debt and invest in our people and our country's economic competitiveness in the 21st century global marketplace.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against these senseless budget cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations act because it includes several meritorious provisions, including a directive to the Federal Trade Commission to investigate price gouging by oil companies as well as continued funding for Economic Development Assistance grants.

Unfortunately, once again the House Republican leadership has slashed State and local law enforcement assistance grants despite the growing responsibilities of our First Responders in the ongoing efforts on homeland security.

I am also concerned that this bill cuts the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program. Small businesses are the backbone of our nation's economy, and now, when they are struggling with a weak economy and the high cost of fuel and transportation, is not the time to reduce our support.

And finally, I am sorely disappointed that the Republican leadership has stripped out the Freedom to Read provision that passed this House with strong bipartisan support on June 15th of this year, as it has in previous years. Despite the support of an overwhelming majority of Members, the Administration threatens to veto the bill because it protects people's right to privacy. This is the wrong message to be sending to the citizens of the United States.

Despite the bill's serious shortcomings, it contains important investments in federal research and development as well as law enforcement and crime prevention initiatives. On balance, this bill merits passage, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting Yes.

Mr. Speaker, this week this House will consider a budget bill that contains changes in the farm bill that will adversely affect and impact the environment, the poor and the hungry, and the pocketbooks of farm families. While farmers are struggling with high prices for gas, propane, natural gas and fertilizer, the Republican budget breaks the promise of the farm bill.

While working families are confronting higher fuel prices, the Republican bill severely cuts food stamps, forcing families to choose between food and heat for their homes. I strongly support tough budget discipline to rein in the budget deficit, but this bill does the very opposite.

Regardless of whether they cut $39 billion or $50 billion, it is not enough to offset the $70 billion in lost revenue from their tax bill. At the end of the day, the Republican reconciliation bill will only worsen the deficit and leave our children with a higher debt. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Morgan Jackson and his wife Shawn on the birth of their first child, Emsley Taylor Jackson. Emsley was born on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 and weighed 10 pounds. Faye joins me in wishing Morgan and Shawn great happiness during this very special time in their lives.

As a father of three, I know the immeasurable pride and rewarding challenges that children bring into your life. Their innocence keeps you young-at-heart. Through their inquiring minds and wide-eyed wonder, they will teach you just as you teach them, and show you the world in a fresh, new way. A little miracle, a new baby holds all the potential of what human beings can achieve.

I welcome young Emsley into the world and wish Morgan and Shawn all the best as they begin guiding her through life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a joyful heart to announce the birth of my second grandchild and very first granddaughter. On November 2, my wife Faye and

I welcomed into this world Virginia Parker Etheridge, the new daughter of our son Brian Etheridge and his wife Meredith. Virginia arrived at 8:40 p.m. in Raleigh, NC. She weighed 6 pounds and 15 ounces and measured 20 inches.

Faye and I are truly blessed today by the arrival of Virginia Parker Etheridge. The birth of a new child is a joyous occasion that reminds us of the promise of a new life. I hope that Virginia will live in a world that is even better than the one we live in today. I hope that she will have access to the best education and technology in the world, that she will breathe fresh air and drink clean water, that her streets will be safe, and that her generation will not be burdened by the debt of the previous generation.

A new child in the family is a gift from God. The Etheridge family and I look forward to spending time with our new bundle of joy and introducing her to all of our friends and neighbors in North Carolina's Second Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain my absence during yesterday's recorded votes. As a proud grandfather, it is with exceeding pride that I announce the birth yesterday of my first granddaughter to my son Brian and my daughter-in-law Meredith. My wife, Faye, and I joyfully welcome this new baby girl who joins her cousin William Otto, who was born to our daughter Catherine and our son-in-law Tim Otto in January. This is a special time for the Etheridge family, and we are truly blessed.

Had I been present in the Chamber yesterday, I would have voted ``No'' on rollcall 559 and ``Yes'' on rollcalls 560 and 561. Rollcall 560 was passage of H.R. 4061, Department of Veterans Affairs Information Technology Improvement Act, a bipartisan and noncontroversial measure. Likewise, rollcall 561 was passage of H.R. 1691, the John H. Bradley Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic Designation Act, a routine matter.

However, rollcall 559 was passage of H.R. 1606, the so-called Online Freedom of Speech Act. This substantive legislation would undo Federal regulation of soft money for political communication on the Internet. Consideration of such substantive legislation on the Suspension Calendar, which affords no opportunity for amendment and severely restricts debate, is an improper and ill-advised method to craft sound public policy. I would have voted ``No'' on rollcall 559 in favor of its consideration under regular order.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. After careful consideration off the bill and its impact on the citizens of North Carolina and the United States, I determined that it would unacceptably infringe on their constitutional right to legal redress in our Nation's courts, as well as subvert North Carolina law, which already prohibits frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry.

Although I voted in favor of similar legislation in the 108th Congress, S. 397 is a much different bill. This bill extends unprecedented immunity to many groups beyond federally licensed firearms dealers and manufacturers, and it sets the bar of proof so high as to prohibit meritorious suits against unscrupulous dealers and manufacturers. This bill allows the firearms industry to put profits ahead of safety; under this bill manufacturers do not have to ensure that the dealers and wholesalers to whom they sell weapons are acting in good faith and within the parameters of the law. Law-abiding gun owners do not want more gun control laws. What we need is more vigorous enforcement of the gun laws that are already on the books.

As a lifelong gun owner, I take seriously my commitment to upholding the Constitution and our Second Amendment right to bear arms. I am also committed to the right of individuals to freedom and safety, as well as their day in court, and this bill would subvert those rights.

Madam Speaker, I think what the gentleman has pointed out, if our colleague were taking in context of where we were on 9/11 when New York was hit, we had a surplus, and when that hit we had the resources of this government, as bad as it was, to help put this thing back together.

We had some resilience. We had balance. We did not have to say we are going to look for offsets to help the people of New York get back on their feet. They are still recovering, but we did the right thing.

I was down in Louisiana last weekend with members of the Committee on Agriculture. That is what makes this such an important night in what we are doing.

We went to the food bank, the food bank in New Orleans, and really for Louisiana and the larger area the food they handed out last month was half what they had given out in one month the whole year last year. And we are looking at folks who have lost their jobs, who have lost their homes, who have lost everything they have, and we are saying that in this budget that we are going to offset against those folks?

The gentleman has pointed out so many times we in this country help one another. It is not about taking from one group to fix another group. And as we look at these numbers, we literally are taking from our children and our grandchildren so folks today can live the high life. That is wrong.

In the budget cuts we are going to be seeing coming down the road, the result of some of the policies that have been put in place over the last several years, we are going to see children denied an opportunity for education, a higher education. We are going to see heating bills for folks going up this year because of energy prices going through the roof, and they will not have money to pay those bills because we will not have the resources to help. These are the consequences of bad policy decisions that have been made in this body.

Absolutely. The gentleman is right on target.

I saw that this weekend firsthand and I am sure others have as they have been there. This is important that we share this with our colleagues and folks tonight so they will understand that budgets are things that you do not pay much attention to sometimes until, as we say back on the farm, the chickens come home to roost, and they are not coming home to roost.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to H.R 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act. Under the constitution, we are charged with securing this country's blessings not only for ourselves, but for our posterity. This bill turns its back on our posterity.

The Endangered Species Act has been a model for the protection and preservation of endangered species since 1973. When this legislation was first passed, many species in this country were on the brink of extinction, and many more were in severe decline. ESA is essential to safeguard our natural resources and ensure the biodiversity that is critical to a healthy environment for all species, including human beings. ESA is a great American success story that should only be altered with the greatest of care.

In the 30 years since the passage of the Endangered Species Act, we have seen an amazing turnaround in both the population numbers of species that were in decline, as well as in the significant environmental improvements that have fostered their recovery.

I acknowledge the concerns of landowners and fanners about the current law, and I agree that the current law needs to be reformed. This is why I support the Miller-Boehlert substitute bill. The substitute helps small landowners by dedicating funding for technical assistance for private property owners, and it provides conservation grants for landowners who help conserve endangered species on their property. Finally, it provides assurances that private citizens will get timely answers from the Fish & Wildlife Service regarding the status of endangered species requirements on their land. The Miller- Boehlert Substitute provides positive changes to the current ESA without reversing the progress that has been made over the past 30 years. The bipartisan substitute is not perfect legislation, but it is far superior to H.R. 3824.

H.R. 3824 was introduced just last week and was marked up without any public hearings, yet this legislation would most certainly rank as the most sweeping and significant change of environmental law in the past 3 decades.

I have grave concerns about provisions in the bill that would give political appointees the power to remove species from the endangered list, and other drastic changes such as those which would take away critical habitat areas that have been set aside for endangered species. Habitat degradation is the leading cause of species decline, and this bill proposes to eliminate critical habitat designations. I do not understand how eliminating protected areas can result in greater protection of endangered species.

The Endangered Species Act may need an update, but we must not reverse course on significant progress and results for endangered species. We have a solemn obligation to maintain responsible stewardship of America's bounty, and this legislation would abandon that responsibility. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3824, and to vote in favor of the balanced, bipartisan substitute legislation for ESA reform.