Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3893.

Our country is facing a painful energy crisis under the policies of this Administration and Congressional leadership. Just last week, I received a letter from a constituent of mine, Paul Perry of Dunn, North Carolina, a small businessman struggling to make ends meet. He wrote: ``We just broke ground on a new brick plant and should be in operation by August of 2006. I just hope gas prices don't break us before we get the new plant in production.'' The American people desperately need effective new energy policies, but H.R. 3893 is simply more of the same failed giveaways to Big Oil.

The bill on the floor today is nothing more than a giveaway to big oil companies; and on top of this, it contains environmental rollbacks that the Administration has been unsuccessfully pursuing for years for gas and coal fired power plants. These provisions would relax existing pollution controls on thousands of industrial facilities across the country in what one energy industry official even called the most blatant attack on state and local environmental authority that he's ever seen.

This legislation would throw out provisions my state of North Carolina implemented when we passed our own clean smokestacks legislation. This legislation would cap penalties levied against big oil companies and refineries caught price gouging to meager amounts at a time when they are recording record profits. Finally, this bill would give tax breaks to those same oil companies at a time of record budget deficits.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and to support the substitute that provides real provisions to crack down on price gouging. The substitute bill provides real help to the American people. It punishes price gougers, not just the gas stations but the refineries, the wholesalers, and any of the big oil companies if they are caught taking advantage of the American people.

The substitute also creates a strategic refining capacity for the country in times of a national emergency, without jeopardizing the environmental safeguards put in place by the Congress to protect our air, water, land, and public health.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3439, legislation to name the main post office in Smithfield, North Carolina, in honor of Ava Gardner.

I am proud to be sponsor of this legislation not only because Ava Gardner is a native of our great State, but because growing up in Johnston County I was always aware of her accomplishments and of the lives she touched around the world.

Ava Gardner lived the American Dream but never forgot her humble beginnings in Johnston County, her high school days at Rock Ridge or her days at Atlantic Christian College. Ava Gardner's career spanned five decades, and she was America's sweetheart during Hollywood's Golden Age.

This small town girl was a big time celebrity. In fact, she was the first woman from North Carolina to grace the cover of Time Magazine. She was also a patriot who performed for our servicemen and a tireless leader in the fight against cancer.

Ava represents the can-do attitude and patriotism embodied by the people of Smithfield and Johnston County. At the request of the Mayor and Town Council of Smithfield, I was pleased to introduce this legislation in July and work for its passage.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3439 and honor a famous North Carolinian.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on the fiscal year 2006 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. I supported this bill when it passed the House in May, and I will vote in favor of the conference report, but I want to state for the record the serious deficiencies in this legislation.

My home State of North Carolina has been the victim of a number of devastating natural disasters including Hurricanes Floyd and Fran, as well as floods, tornadoes and ice storms. In many cases these natural disasters overwhelmed local and state resources, and the Governor asked for help from the Federal Government which, in most cases, responded appropriately.

The U.S. Congress established the Department of Homeland Security to address all hazards faced by our Nation--both natural and man-made. However, since the creation of the Department, we have seen the focus and funds shift from preparing for and responding to all hazards to a narrow, short-sighted focus on terrorism.

Again and again the administration and Republican leadership have pushed through cuts in pre-disaster mitigation efforts, emergency management performance grants, and even annual funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Unfortunately, Hurricane Katrina exposed the erosion of our Nation's response capabilities and its horrendous results.

And now, Congress has the responsibility and opportunity to address some of these weaknesses through the appropriations process, but the Republican leadership has produced a piece of legislation that is almost in complete disregard of the Department's weaknesses.

This bill cuts pre-disaster mitigation funds by 67 percent; it cuts state and local domestic preparedness funds by more than a half billion dollars, and it cuts disaster relief funding by $370 million.

Furthermore, this legislation strips the preparedness function from FEMA, further weakening this beleaguered agency. Experienced emergency managers on every level will tell you, as they have told the members of the Homeland Security Committee, that their duties include prevention, protection, response and recovery. You cannot take away one of these four roles and expect the agency to function. Preparation, whether it be to prepare updated flood maps or train personnel to respond to a dirty bomb attack, are all vital to the creation of an effective, sustainable, and practical approach to domestic security.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill with great reluctance and strong reservations, but it is my fervent hope that my colleagues in the U.S. House will join me in restoring FEMA to its former effectiveness and preparing our nation for all eventualities.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments about H.R. 438.

In the House we routinely name Federal post offices after notable Americans. In fact, last year I responded to a request from numerous constituents to name the post office in Dunn, NC after the late General William C. Lee.

The bill on the floor today, H.R. 438, would rename the post office at 2000 Allston Way in Berkeley, California after Ms. Maudelle Shirek. I am concerned about the lack of committee review over this bill, as H.R. 438 was not heard or marked up by the Government Reform Committee. It is the responsibility of the committee of jurisdiction to review the qualifications of the individual being honored and to determine if he or she should be a candidate for Federal recognition.

Despite my reservations about the review process for H.R. 438, I will vote for this legislation as a matter of routine congressional courtesy and respect for the bill's sponsor Congresswoman Barbara Lee and her constituents.

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 thirty 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 farmers 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 thirty 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 three decades.

I have grave concerns about provisions in the bill that give political appointees the power to remove species from the endangered list based on political decisions rather than on sound science. 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 needs 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.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering S. 1752, Senate-passed legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Grain Standards Act.

The Grain Standards Act helps farmers maintain a high standard of quality in crop production through a national system for inspecting, weighing and grading grain, both for domestic and foreign shipments.

S. 1752 reauthorizes the U.S. Grain Standards Act for 10 years. This bill will reauthorize the Secretary's authority to charge and collect fees to cover costs of inspection and weighing services and to receive appropriated dollars for standardization and compliance activities.

I support reauthorization of these important components of the Grains Standards Act in order to ensure the United States remains a large producer of quality agricultural products.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 1752 so we can send it to the President for signature.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Dan Cunningham and Ms. Jennifer Eberhardt both formerly members of my staff, now married and living in Wisconsin, on the birth of their first child, Master Chase William Cunningham. Chase was born on Thursday, September 15, 2005, and weighed 6 pounds and 11 ounces. My wife, Faye, joins me in wishing Dan and Jennifer great happiness during this very special time in their lives.

As a father and now as a grandfather, I know the joy, pride, and excitement that parents experience upon the entrance of their child into the world. Representing hope, goodness, and innocence, a newborn allows those around him to see the world through his eyes . . . as a new, fresh place with unending possibilities for the future. Through a child, one is able to recognize and appreciate the full potential of the human race. I know that Dan and Jennifer look forward to the changes and challenges that their new son will bring to their lives while taking pleasure in the many rewards they are sure to receive as they watch him grow.

I welcome young Chase into the world and wish Dan and Jennifer all the best as they raise him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the creation of an independent commission to investigate the preparedness and response to the overwhelming devastation and loss of life from Hurricane Katrina and in opposition to the creation of a partisan select committee.

I cosponsored Congressman Hastings (R-WA) bill to create an independent commission because it is the right thing to do. The 9/11 Commission proved successful in investigating all branches and levels of government and offered concrete suggestions to Congress to correct breaches in our national security. The Hastings bill follows that model and presents the best option for a thorough, impartial investigation into the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

An independent commission is the best approach to this task, as it would allow a higher degree of impartiality and independence than a partisan select committee. I expect the Commission to conduct a through investigation of all the people and agencies involved by questioning everyone directly involved in the decision-making process, including the White House Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former FEMA director Michael Brown. In addition to investigating the federal government's response to this horrendous natural disaster, the Commission should also determine if our country is adequately prepared to respond to another disaster of this magnitude, as well as serve the needs of all communities potentially affected. This Commission should also provide recommendations regarding improvements to the Executive and Legislative branches that would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of disaster response.

Congress also has a constitutional duty to use its full oversight authority through the committee hearing process to assess the federal government's responsibilities and response to this disaster. We, in North Carolina, have plenty of experience with hurricanes and natural disasters, and we know that we must first rely on our state and local authorities to plan and prepare, but we make these plans with the knowledge that the federal government will back us up when we are overwhelmed.

Congress must make sure that the federal response agencies appreciate and understand their responsibilities to the states in the event of a disaster. Congress must hold the Administration to the highest standards of professionalism and vigorously conduct our constitutional obligation for oversight of these agencies. We must restore the professional integrity of FEMA to protect the American people from natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks.

Mr. Speaker, our country has worked to increase its preparedness for four years since that tragic day in September 2001, and it appears our efforts have failed. We must work swiftly to correct past mistakes so that we can ensure the safety of all Americans during a time of crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to assist college students who have been victimized by widespread devastation visited on the Gulf Coast by Hurricane Katrina last week. We, in North Carolina, know well the destruction hurricanes can cause as our State has been hit by at least five major hurricanes over the past decade. The Federal Government has a solemn responsibility to help those in need, and H.R. 3169 is one very small step in that effort.

Specifically, H.R. 3169 will relieve some burden for displaced college students who otherwise would be required to pay back their Pell grants. This bill would allow the U.S. Education Department to waive the repayment requirement for Pell grant recipients whose school attendance is interrupted because of the impact of a disaster, provided that the students were living, working or attending school in an area designated by the President to warrant major disaster assistance.

Congress must also pass legislation introduced by Congressman George Miller and Congressman Dale Kildee to provide more comprehensive relief for student victims of the storm. Nearly 100,000 college students have been displaced, while some 30 colleges in the Gulf Coast region have been severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Many students and families no longer have the necessary resources to pay for college--even after their current Federal student aid is taken into account. We need to ensure that we help all college students and student borrowers who have been adversely impacted by this disaster.

Congress has much, much more work to do to assist in the relief, recovery and reconstruction in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. H.R. 3129 is a minimal early step in that effort, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3673, the second emergency supplemental bill for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. We, in North Carolina, are very familiar with the destructive power of hurricanes, and Congress has a solemn responsibility to assist the efforts for relief, recovery and reconstruction.

Congress also has a serious responsibility to assure accountability in the use of taxpayer money, and the legislative branch must not fail in its constitutional duty to oversee the operations of the executive branch. There can be no doubt that the Federal agencies charged with responding to this disaster were too slow, too confused and too ineffectual in discharging their duties in the critical early hours and days of Hurricane Katrina. Congress must take effective action to ensure that the funds appropriated today will assist those who have suffered so egregiously through no fault of their own.

This tragedy has raised urgent questions about the performance of disaster preparedness and emergency response agencies. Congress must work in bipartisan cooperation to correct these deficiencies. As the U.S. Department of Homeland Security continues to work to protect our country during the war against terrorism and in the midst of a very active hurricane season, America cannot afford a failure

by Congress to fix the problems Hurricane Katrina has exposed.

Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina has caused unprecedented destruction to our neighbors to the south. We in North Carolina understand the destructive power of hurricanes and floods, and our thoughts and prayers are with all the victims who suffered through the storm and suffer in its aftermath.

I am pleased that Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called for Congress to reconvene early in order to provide the needed personnel, equipment and resources for this disaster.

We must immediately devote the personnel, resources and funding necessary to help these people get the food, health care and safe shelter they need before rebuilding can begin, and this $10.5 billion is a good start.

The recovery from the Hurricane Katrina disaster will be long and difficult. I commend all the brave first responders, FEMA employees and volunteers with the Red Cross and other charitable agencies as they work to provide relief to the hurricane victims. People's lives have been changed forever, and the American people have responded with their money, time and prayers to help our neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. While this bill still contains provisions that I oppose, it is a far better bill than the one's that I have voted against in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that this bill contains a provision that will allow the Interior Department to conduct an inventory of oil and natural gas resources off the east coast of the United States, including my State of North Carolina, and other areas currently under a drilling moratorium. I do not think that this is a wise use of taxpayer dollars, considering the Administration's continued promise that these areas will never be drilled for oil. Let me state clearly that I continue my strong opposition to any effort to drill for oil off of the North Carolina coast.

This bill also repeals the 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act, which was passed in the wake of the Depression to ensure that the public would not be taken advantage of by utility companies. We know this is still being done, we have heard with the stories such as Enron. This law has protected the rural rate payers in States like North Carolina, and I oppose its repeal.

Even in light of the negative aspects of this bill, I am voting for it because of the positive changes that have been included that will help put our country back on to the right track. This bill doubles the requirement for renewable fuels, and extends the tax credit for biodiesel. This will help our farmers and help us reduce our dependency on foreign oil. This bill also remove any legal waivers for companies that have poisoned our waters with MTBEs, and excludes the provision to allow drilling and development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), to preserve this national treasure for future generations. I would also add that I am pleased about the increases in tax incentives for renewable energy such as wind and solar power.

Mr. Speaker while this is not a perfect bill, it is a step in the right direction. And it deserves our support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the Republican medical malpractice bill, and the process by which it is being debated in this House.

Today, the House will vote on H.R. 5, a bill to impose caps on damages that may be awarded for medical malpractice, defective products, and other health related wrongdoings. Like many Members of this House, I am concerned about the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance and its impact on physicians and their patients, but H.R 5 is the wrong medicine for this national problem.

I oppose H.R. 5 because it will not reduce medical malpractice premiums. What's more, it protects manufacturers of faulty pharmaceutical devices and medical equipment from product liability actions, and overturns North Carolina State law. H.R. 5 also limits the ability of injured persons to bring suits against pharmaceutical companies, HMOs, and nursing homes, thus setting a dangerous precedent allowing these entities to escape the law in even the most severe cases of neglect and abuse. Finally, H.R. 5 undermines North Carolina's patient protection statutes, which are some of the strongest in the Nation.

My colleagues, Mr. Dingell and Mr. Conyers, have drafted an alternative amendment to H.R 5. This alternative will help courts weed out frivolous lawsuits without restricting the rights of legitimate claims, repeal the Federal anti-trust exemption for medical malpractice insurance companies, thereby increasing competition and lowering premiums, and provide targeted assistance directly to physicians, hospitals, and communities in medical malpractice crisis areas. Finally, the alternative establishes an independent advisory commission to examine and recommend long-term solutions to this important issue. Unfortunately the Republican Leadership has denied Representatives Dingell and Conyers the opportunity to offer this alternative.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of medical malpractice insurance is an important one. H.R. 5 will without a doubt harm America's patients. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 5 and to support the motion to recommit the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this conference report.

I am very reluctant to support this bill because it contains provisions I strongly oppose. Specifically, this bill contains harmful cuts to important interior and environmental priorities. It cuts $800 million from last year's funding level for natural resources and the Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental and management and science and technology accounts are severely cut in this bill. The bill cuts $107 million for water and sewer construction STAG grants, cuts $200 million from SRF clean water funds, and cuts $30 million from stateside grants to states for conservation and recreation.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a solemn obligation to protect our Nation's water, air and land resources for public health and safety. We must practice responsible stewardship of our natural resources and pass on to future generations a physical environment as bountiful as the one we have enjoyed. This bill fails this test miserably.

I will vote for this bill because it contains desperately needed funding for veterans health care. Specifically, the conference report on H.R. 2631 contains $1.5 billion in veterans

health care funds to make up for the Administration's bogus budget proposals. Democrats in this House have been arguing for months that the Administration is shortchanging VA health care, and we should restore that funding in the proper legislation under regular order. A nation at war must take care of its veterans, and I will vote for this bill to provide this critical funding for veterans health care.

Mr. Speaker, I have supported trade agreements that have come through this body since I have been here, but this one falls short. I stand in opposition to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the implementation legislation for the Free Trade Agreement with the Dominican Republic and Central America, known as DR-CAFTA.

Throughout my service in the U.S. House, I have supported policies that encourage export promotion because exports can play an important role in strengthening our economy. But our economic policies must work to build the American middle class by investing in education, training and health care for working families as well as expanding access to new markets for our products. Our trade policies must lift living standards in other countries whose workers will compete for American jobs. If American workers are forced to compete with workers from countries without a growing standard of living, the race to the bottom will lower the economic opportunities and quality of life for everyone. I firmly believe that America must exert our global economic leadership to promote democracy and economic growth, but that engagement must be matched with a commitment to empower middle class Americans to compete and win in the global economy. We can do better than this DR-CAFTA, and we must.

First, as a member of the House New Democrats Coalition, I have worked with administrations of both political parties, including the Bush administration, to promote policy for sound economic growth and a growing middle class. I have met with business leaders and officials from each of the DR-CAFTA countries, and I recently traveled to visit Honduras

and El Salvador to see for myself the conditions of these trading partners. Although I want to help the peoples of the DR-CAFTA countries to secure their democracies and build economic opportunities, this free trade agreement fails to erect the conditions necessary for those goals. For example, in Honduras, I saw oxen pulling carts as a primary means of industrial production and impoverished workers struggling to eke out a meager living. Without strict, enforceable labor standards, these workers will suffer exploitation of market forces without enjoying any upward mobility. I also want to see our trading partners make the kind of commitment to education and infrastructure that we have in the U.S. that has provided us the foundation for our economic growth and rising living standards for our people.

Unfortunately, this DR-CAFTA represents a step backwards in strengthening labor standards, and thereby standards of living, abroad. Specifically, DR-CAFTA is a step back from the progress made in the Jordan Free Trade Agreement and even the rules under the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, and the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI. America must maintain our global economic leadership and be a force for rising living standards with all of our trading partners so that broad- based economic growth creates sustainable markets for American goods and services. The countries of the DR-CAFTA accord possess some of the world's worst records for workers' rights, and this DR-CAFTA not only fails to correct this glaring problem but reverses progress made in previous trade agreements to raise labor standards abroad.

It is also important to note DR-CAFTA's weak environmental enforcement provisions. Although the agreement contains important protections for intellectual property that are subject to dispute resolution, it fails to include adequate enforcement of environmental protection, which will put American companies at a competitive disadvantage with companies in the DR-CAFTA countries. In fact, what language DR-CAFTA does contain on environmental protection and improvement of standards is explicitly excluded from dispute settlement under the agreement, rendering it meaningless. Previous trade pacts, such as the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, contain strong labor and environment provisions, and DR-CAFTA should as well.

Finally, the vote on DR-CAFTA comes at a time when the Bush administration economic program has reversed years of progress in building a thriving middle class. Instead of making critical investments in education, training and health care so working families can compete and prosper in the global economy, the administration is cutting these vital initiatives. Specifically, this administration and Congress have shortchanged our schools $39 billion they were promised in order to comply with the No Child Left Behind education reform law. And last month, the House passed an appropriations bill with devastating cuts in needed efforts for education, Trade Adjustment Assistance and other job training, and rural health care. In the global economy of the 21st century, working Americans can compete and win only if they are equipped with the tools to make the most of their God-given abilities. We need an economic policy that helps middle class families, those striving to get into the middle class and those struggling to stay in the middle class.

In conclusion, I will vote against DR-CAFTA because it is a missed opportunity to help our neighbors in the Dominican Republic and Central America and put America back on the path to a growing middle class.