Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day in the history of Congress. Today one industry has hijacked a political party and that party has bulldozed a poor energy policy through this body.

The U.S. Congress is often held up and revered as the model of Democracy. Yet this bill has been bad news for Americans--and our form of government--from the start. First, the Administration, led by Vice President Cheney, held secret meetings with energy industry insiders to determine what they wanted from an energy policy--what the energy industry wants should not be confused with what the nation needed from an energy policy. Next, after a heavy-handed process, a bill, H.R. 6, was passed in this body. The bill then moved into conference, at which point, the two Republican co-chairs decided that they would write the nation's energy policy by themselves with no input from Democrats, but with plenty of input from lobbyists looking out for their oil, gas and other energy industry clients. The energy bill went from bad to worse as, at the last minute, many sweetheart deals were added that had never been passed by either body. Never before has the energy industry had such a friend in the White House and such great friends in the Congress--we know now that GOP does indeed mean ``Gas, Oil, and Petroleum''.

Thus far, I have only addressed the problems with the process surrounding this bill. The problems with the policy are too numerous to name here, but I want to highlight some of the more outrageous:

It does not improve our energy security and does nothing to promote renewable energy sources. This bill funnels billions of dollars into the oil and gas industries, making us more dependent than ever on foreign sources for these resources. In fact, only \1/3\ of the subsidies in this bill go toward promoting clean, renewable energy that we can find right here in the U.S.A. The policy before us today is stuck in the 20th century and does not take advantage of the advances in technology in the clean and renewable energy arena, and prefers to favor older, dirtier methods to generate our energy supply.

It does not protect our water from contaminants that can cause serious health problems. This bill actually protects MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) producers from product liability suits. MTBE has been proven to be harmful to our health, yet this bill leaves the taxpayers to clean up the mess and lets the producers off scot-free. California, more than any other state has been affected by MTBE. In some cities, many of the drinking water wells are now unusable because of MTBE contamination.

It exempts the oil and gas construction activities from Clean Water Act controls on stormwater runoff. I introduced a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 6 that would have struck language that gave oil and gas construction activities a free pass from controlling their stormwater runoff. This exemption makes them the only construction activity that does not have to take measures to ensure that runoff from their construction sites does not pollute our lakes, streams and rivers. Unfortunately, my motion did not pass and this harmful handout to the oil and gas industry remains.

It does not address the problems that caused the California Energy Crisis of 2000-2001. This bill does nothing to prevent the kind of market manipulation that caused energy prices to skyrocket in California. Even the most conservative estimates indicate that California lost over $9 billion to this manipulation by energy companies. This bill leaves California--and the rest of the Nation-- without any protections against market manipulation.

It is for these reasons and many more that I cannot and will not support this awful bill. This bill has been bought and paid for by the energy industry--mostly the oil and gas industries. Unfortunately, all Americans will pay the price for this bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2004 energy and water appropriations conference report, which funds several projects of great interest to my constituents in Southern California.

The New River has been described as the ``world's most polluted river.'' The river flows from Mexico, north across the U.S. border, and through my district in Imperial County, California. Due to grossly inadequate sewage treatment and solid waste facilities in Mexico, raw sewage, industrial waste, and garbage are constantly released into the New River.

The New River is extremely polluted, foamy, and foul-smelling. The river significantly violates water quality standards, and plants and animals cannot survive in much of it. The New River continues to threaten the health of residents of my district and of undocumented immigrants who use the waterway to cross the international border.

A coalition of citizen groups and government agencies in my district, including the Calexico New River Committee, has developed a feasible plan that will significantly improve the quality of water flowing through the community. The project involves building wastewater infrastructure to improve water quality in the vicinity of the city of Calexico on the southern portion of the New River in Imperial County by installing project headworks and encasing the New River, and constructing a disinfecting facility and wastewater polishing system as the river emerges from its encasement.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, which provides funding for the Nation's energy and water-related projects, would continue environmental restoration efforts on the New River. This is an extremely important first step in the process of enhancing the water quality of the southern portion of the New River, enriching life in the community, and making a healthier home for fish and wildlife.

Better quality water flowing along the New River would also mean improved water quality in the Salton Sea. The Salton Sea is the largest inland water body in California, and one of the largest salt lakes in the world. The Salton Sea is an important habitat for Federal and State listed endangered species, as well as other migrating and resident bird species, a reservoir for agricultural drainage, a center for recreation, and a wetland ecosystem.

But it is quickly becoming too saline to continue supporting wildlife, and a recent rural-to-urban water transfer may shrink the shoreline. This bill would provide funding for the Salton Sea Research project for efforts to continue study of the alternatives for restoration of the Sea.

Water that eventually drains into the Salton Sea comes from the Colorado River, and is delivered to farmers and residents in my community by the All American Canal. This bill provides funding to construct small regulating reservoirs on the canal, which will vastly improve operating efficiencies. The reservoirs would provide storage for water that is unavoidably delivered from the lower Colorado River in excess of what is immediately needed by users, thereby improving water conservation efforts.

Finally, water in the Colorado River is threatened by a uranium mine tailings pile sitting only 700 feet from the River near Moab, Utah. The tailings, which sit in an unlined pond and seep into the ground water, are radioactive and contain high concentrations of toxic metals left by the leaching process used to separate uranium from ore. The tailings are leaking radioactive material into the Colorado River at levels 1,300 times above the allowed limit. This bill provides funding to accelerate remediation of this site, and would ensure that residents of my community, other Colorado River water users, and the environment receive the long-term protection so desperately needed.

For the sake of my constituents at the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as residents of the West, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today in opposition to the very limited provision to address the unfair disabled veterans tax in the Defense Authorization Act.

Currently, veterans who retire with 20 years of honorable service and who also have a

service-connected disability are not permitted to collect both military retired pay and VA disability compensation. In essence, they are paying for their own retirement. We must stop penalizing our disabled veterans in this cold and unfeeling manner.

Our nation's veterans and many, many Members of this House have been fighting for so long for the elimination of this tax for all retirees. We are now so close to victory. We cannot settle for the partial concurrent receipt measure that is included in this bill.

This proposal is simply unacceptable. It gives less than half a loaf and spreads it over ten years. It is naive at best and callous at worst.

The proposal leaves approximately 400,000 military retirees without relief. In my state of California, fully 38,000 are left out of this Republican proposal.

Many of the deserving veterans will die before the ten years are up and before they receive their full concurrent receipt.

This bill will set up yet another complicated administrative system for our veterans to wade through.

And worst of all, this bill as presented today unfairly pits veterans against other veterans.

We must restore earned and deserved benefits to all eligible military retirees. If this Defense Authorization Conference Report continues to leave out two-third of deserving veterans, I cannot vote for its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to speak on this motion to instruct the conferees on the energy bill.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the Republican Party is called the GOP. Well, I often wondered what that meant. It is clear from this energy bill that it means gas, oil and petroleum. And my motion would instruct the conferees to strike a section of H.R. 6 which represents a shameless payback to the oil and gas companies of this Nation.

This section, if my colleagues can believe it, Mr. Speaker, grants oil and gas companies a free pass from complying with the Clean Water Act, a free pass from complying with one of the major environmental laws that was passed in the 1970s. Under this section, oil and gas development and production sites, oil and gas development and production sites and construction sites do not have to worry about what their activities are doing to our water supply. No other industry in America gets this exemption; only the oil and gas development and production industry. And, they are under no obligation to control storm water runoff that would sully our beautiful lakes, rivers, and streams, and they suffer no consequences.

It must be nice for the oil and gas companies to have friends like that in Congress and in the White House, especially when these friends are members of the majority party, the GOP, gas, oil and petroleum, who, rather than dealing with the messy process we so often revere here and hold up as a model of democracy in the world, simply block out all those who would disagree with them. Heaven forbid anybody would bring up objections about the health of our water, not to mention the health of our people. The majority party, gas, oil and petroleum, has blocked out any dissenters right from the beginning on this bill.

One of my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), tried to introduce an amendment to strike this section, but he was ruled out of order and, get this, because the Committee on Energy and Commerce said it was not under their jurisdiction, but it was under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but that Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure never considered the bill. Talk about a Catch-22. And attempts to remove it on the floor of this House were thwarted by the Committee on Rules.

It is widely acknowledged that the majority did not allow the minority to participate, even in the conference committee, where the Senate and House meet to deal with their differences. So there was never a chance for honest debate of this section. This is what we call as a model for the world, a democracy.

So what do we have now, Mr. Speaker? A situation where oil and gas companies will be able to pollute our waters so that our children and grandchildren will not be able to use them. Our waters will be spoiled, our health will be threatened, but that is okay. We do not need clean water anyway, as long as we have our oil. And any suggestions that we invest more in renewable energies or in cleaner energies all were thrown out, and the handouts to the oil companies just keep getting bigger and bigger.

Right now, I encourage my colleagues to stop this insult to the environment and to the democratic process. We ought to vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct and not to let the oil and gas companies pollute our waterways, and we should let the Nation know that we care about clean water.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself 2 minutes to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) who continues to throw dirt into this discussion.

It is true that the section of the Clean Water Act that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) referred to provides that permits are not required where stormwater runoff is diverted around mining operations or oil and gas operations and does not come into contact with overburdened raw material product or processed wastes. This was in recognition of the fact that there are several situations in mining and oil and gas industries where stormwater is already channeled around plants and operations in a series of ditches in order to prevent such pollution of the stormwater. But this section does not include any stormwater runoff that has been contaminated by contact with overburdened raw material where ends meet products, et cetera. The soils that are disturbed in drilling wells are both overburdened and waste products.

There is no evidence anywhere, even in the industry comments, that suggest that stormwater is routed around these drilling and construction sites as it is in the operation sites. In fact, what I wanted to bring in the argument is there is no evidence, even from the oil and gas industries, even from the GOP, that the stormwater flowing through the construction sites are free of sediments or other pollutants. That is what makes them contaminated.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) continued to muddy the waters not only of this debate but of this Nation.

Let me quote from EPA's most recent national water quality inventory 2000 report which says siltation, siltation is one of the leading pollution problems in the Nation's rivers and streams. Siltation alters aquatic habitat, suffocates fish eggs and bottom dwelling organisms, and can interfere with drinking water treatment processes and recreational use of a river. Dirt, dirt, dirt. We are talking about pollution of our Nation's streams.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

(Mr. GRIJALVA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing the gentleman from Texas saying that we should not disturb the development of oil and gas, and surely we must find sources of energy in this Nation.

What about alternative sources? And why does everyone other industry in America have to comply with this section of the Clean Water Act and not gas and oil if this motion does not pass.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would tell the Rhodes scholar from Oklahoma that he needs some additional training in research. Staff that was here when the bill was written know the intent of Congress, and it is not as the gentleman described.

Let me respond to several of the arguments from the other side. If the provisions stays in the energy bill, it is a rollback of existing requirements for construction over five acres. That is what exists now, and this rolls it back, no matter what they say that this intended 10 years ago or whatever.

Our original intent in 1987 was to exempt storm water that was totally unpolluted. Storm water that was totally unpolluted was exempted. Storm water from construction is polluted, as we have heard from the gentleman from Oregon, and the gentleman from Texas knows that when there is no possibility of runoff into the waters of the United States one does not need a permit. Where all the storm water is kept on site, go do it; they do not need the permit.

So we are I think hearing justifications. We are hearing rationalizations of the destruction of our environment.

Mr. Speaker, other industries do not have this exemption from the Clean Water Act. In fact, many other companies, including mom and pop businesses with far fewer resources than the oil and gas industry that the Republican party tries to protect, every one of those businesses must take steps to reduce polluted storm water runoff from their construction activities. So why not oil and gas companies? Could it be because they spend every election cycle millions of dollars on campaign contributions?

These companies I think are getting a payback here in the form of special interest loopholes in the Clean Water Act that was stuck into the energy bill. In the last few years, they have given over $64 million to Federal candidates and their parties. It is a great payback that we have here in the energy bill for those contributions.

Mr. Speaker, environmental groups all across the Nation support this instruction: The Audubon Society, the American Rivers, the Center for International Environmental Law, Clean Ocean Action, Clean Water Action, Coastal Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project, Friends of the Earth, the Gulf Restoration Network, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Environmental Trust, the National Resources Defense Council, the Save the Dunes Council, the Sierra Club, The Ocean Conservancy, The Wilderness Society, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The National League of Cities supports my instruction, and not only these environmental groups support the motion but hunting and fishing groups in America do, Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League and the National Wildlife Federation.

It is clear that an exemption is being carved out to allow one business, one sector of our economy, one extremely powerful sector of our economy to buy its way out of the Clean Water Act. I think that is a terrible terrible thing to say to our Nation, that if one gives the campaign contributions they get exempted from the environmental protection that is required of everyone else.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge us to adopt this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have someone to counter whatever the gentleman says.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said, if I heard him right, that he might be going over previously active fields, right, construction that were, am I to understand, active fields?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, would there not be the possibility in active sites or previously at the sites benzene, toluene, other heavy metals? There would not be just dirt there?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the gentleman from Abilene, Texas (Mr. Stenholm) did such a good job for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that they should have treated him better in the Texas redistricting law.

We have been told we ought to cry for some of these gas and oil producers and developers, and that these poor folks, we have to let them produce. I am told that the permit that would be needed for such a situation only takes 7 days. That is the law. I do not know what Members are talking about--6 months, or we will never be allowed to prepare the site. It is 7 days for the permit.

In an arid area such as the gentleman's, the law specifically waives the requirement for a permit. If there is no corrosive rain, there is no permit required. I would be tempted to say the gentleman is throwing red herrings across the debate, but with the gentleman's policies, the red herrings might all be killed so I will not.

Let me get to dirt.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's concerns. In California we have the same ones. Litigation is not the route that we wouldfavor. We would like a commonsense, as the gentleman from Texas kept saying, a commonsense law.

But dirt, siltation, is in fact the second leading polluting problem in our Nation's rivers and streams. It suffocates fish and eggs and bottom-dwelling organisms. It alters aquatic habitat, and interferes with drinking water and the recreational process of the river. So siltation is a real problem.

In conclusion, our country needs energy. We support its development, but clean water is as important as energy. It is vital for our economy and for our life itself. And the lands where the wells are drilled are the same lands that provide water for our ranchers and our city dwellers, as well as our fish and wildlife population.

The oil and gas industry say, and I have seen TV advertisements and full-page ads in magazines, that we can develop energy and protect the environment at the same time, and we agree with them. So why should Congress weaken environmental protection by writing a special exemption for one industry alone? I ask for approval of the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Warren Heyer, one of my district's most persistent and effective community advocates.

As a young man, Heyer served in World War II, where he saw combat in General George S. Patton's 3rd Army and took part in the liberation of a Nazi concentration camp. After witnessing the horror of war and genocide, he became an ardent anti-war activist. And in the mid-1960s, his activism focused on his community.

After Heyer graduated from San Diego State College in 1950, he taught in a local elementary school--where he met his first wife, Roberta Calvert, who passed away in 1996. He continued his education, receiving a Master's degree in librarianship, and worked as a librarian at both San Diego High School and San Diego City College. In 1964, he was a founding faculty member of Mesa College, where he was instrumental in developing numerous important school policies. He was the elected chairman of the Library Department, a position he held until 1979, when he retired. Retirement did not stop his service to the college: he continued to serve as an adjunct librarian, training and assisting new employees and students.

He was also a central figure in the efforts to re-zone his community of Encanto. If it were not for Warren Heyer, the quiet and inviting character of Encanto would have been lost. He served as vice-chairman of the Southeast San Diego Development Committee and went door-to-door to gain support for his efforts, without which, I am convinced, the planning measure would not have passed.

Heyer suffered a stroke in Chichicastenango, Guatemala, where he was building a church on behalf of a humanitarian organization. He died as he lived: putting others before himself and working for the betterment of society.

My deepest condolences go to Heyer's family; his wife Patricia and his three children: Kathryn, Robin, and Andrew.

William Heyer was a model constituent and his legacy will continue to benefit my district for years and years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 425, a resolution honoring and commemorating the heroic efforts of the firefighters who fought to save lives and property. These firefighters exhibited resilience and courage, continuing to stay on the lines, often in back-to-back shifts and, in some instances, knowing that their own families were in danger or that their personal homes had been lost.

The fires that swept across Southern California tested our resolve. All of us in the fire's path were forced to wrestle with the magnitude of the destructive force bearing down on our neighborhoods. Clearly, we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the brave firefighters who met this huge obstacle head on, and I think all of us were impressed by the outpouring of compassion in our communities as neighbors helped neighbors, and strangers came to the aid of those they had never met.

I have made a commitment to my constituents to fight for our neighbors as we begin the difficult process of rebuilding. I will be a vocal advocate in Washington for the necessary federal assistance being made available so our neighbors can begin to put their lives back together. Just yesterday, I took part in meetings with the President of the United States when he visited San Diego to tour the fire damage, telling him that our people need all the resources of the federal government marshaled for their support over the upcoming weeks and months. There will be questions that need to be answered about what preparations were made to combat a fire of this magnitude in our region, and I will not pull punches in getting to the bottom of any culpability that could have hampered our ability to stop this fire.

In addition to co-sponsoring this important legislation, I have co- sponsored two other important fire related bills. H.R. 3407, the California FIRE Act, to provide $500 million in immediate disaster relief to the victims of the California fires, and H.R. 3431, the Firefighters Medical Monitoring Act, to keep track of the health of the California firefighters after the fires are extinguished. We must ensure that the firefighters who put their lives at risk do not become ill following the fires. I recently voted in favor of the Supplemental Appropriations bill because of the terrible suffering and devastation endured by the citizens of San Diego County as a result of the firestorm, $500 million was added for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster assistance in California. Last week, I contacted FEMA Director Michael Brown and President Bush, urging them to make a FEMA center operational immediately in San Diego, to help my constituents in processing the necessary paperwork to begin the process of rebuilding their lives. This important funding will allow FEMA to open one-stop clearinghouses for information and assistance in expediting the huge volume of disaster claims that will result from this tragedy.

I know, in a very personal way, the suffering of San Diegans in the recent firestorm and because I want to say ``thank you'' to the thousands of professional firefighters who exhibited so much bravery and courage in recent days, I support this important bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo); the ranking member of our committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), for bringing us this legislation--and that I was proud to work on it with them. It is a culmination of our work this session examining the Coast Guard mission, with particular emphasis on the funding for the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.

This bill, H.R. 2443, authorizes $7.1 billion, and we hope that this will be sufficient funding for the Coast Guard to carry out the many missions that Congress has given the Coast Guard, including homeland security, search and rescue, marine safety, drug and migrant interdiction and law enforcement.

H.R. 2443 authorizes $39 million for a squadron of what are called HITRON armed helicopters for the west coast. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) talked about return of investment on this bill. Well, that is true, certainly, of this HITRON helicopter. Since their establishment, the Jacksonville, Florida, HITRON squadron has stopped over $1.5 billion in illegal drugs from entering the United States.

Deployment of the HITRON squadron on the west coast will help stem the flow of illegal narcotics through the eastern Pacific Ocean. If one were to look at this using a cost-benefit analysis, $39 million is spent for the armored HITRON squadron on the west coast, but drugs that are stopped and interdicted are worth more than 20 times that amount.

It is my strong view that the Coast Guard must increase Airborne Use of Forces assets for port security and drug interdiction. The lease option for these aircraft is already in place. The lease provides antiterrorist and antidrug coverage for the next 3 to 5 years while providing flexibility for the Coast Guard to engage in competition to select a permanent multimission cutter helicopter to meet our challenges post-9/11. When these multimission helicopters are deployed, the HITRON helicopters can be returned to their manufacturer at the option of the Coast Guard.

There are a number of changes to existing law which the previous speakers have spoken to. I would again like to thank the members of the committee for their bipartisan effort to put this bill together and look forward to working with them as we work with the Senate to reach an agreement on the authorizing legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support passage of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act.

The form of the motion is as follows:

I move that the managers on the part of the House at the

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the

Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 6, be instructed to reject

section 12403 of the House bill, relating to the definition

of oil and gas exploration and production in the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act.

Madam Speaker, I missed rollcall vote No. 602, because I was touring the wildfire damage in my district with the President of the United States. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to report on the progress we are making towards the passage of benefits for Filipino World War II veterans.

My colleagues know of the extreme sacrifices made by Filipino soldiers during World War II in the battles of Bataan and Corrigidor. They know that Filipino soldiers were instrumental in the successful outcome of this war in the Pacific. And they know, too well, that many of these soldiers were denied their benefits by a law passed by the 1946 Congress.

Today, I am happy to report that the House of Representatives and the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee have passed legislation to restore health care services, improved disability compensation, and burial benefits to many Filipino World War II veterans living in the United States. We are working to get this legislation passed by the Senate and forwarded to the President to sign into law.

In addition, the President announced during his recent visit to the Philippines that we will be doubling, from $500,000 to $1 million in FY2004, the amount of medical supplies and equipment that the United States is sending to the veterans' hospital in Manila.

These are important steps in restoring benefits to the brave Filipino World War II soldiers who have been waiting for sixty years for equity.

Mr. Speaker, since the President first proposed his $87 billion supplemental appropriations package last month, I have worried that the President's plan for bringing stability to Iraq lacks fiscal accountability and a clear plan for bringing our troops home, and has relied on U.S. troops taking almost all the risks, and American taxpayers paying virtually all the bills.

I have been angered by the repeated stories of our troops in Iraq not being outfitted with state-of-the-art Kevler bulletproof vests and armored HMMVVs.

Equally troubling is the lack of parity for important funding at home. This bill sends direct aid to Iraq for infrastructure improvements that dwarf investments in our own country. The bill spends nearly twice as much per capita for border protection and public safety services in Iraq as we spend at home, and 10 times more per capita in Iraq for new hospital facilities than we spend in the United States. In addition, this bill spends 11 times more per capita for sewer and water services than we invest in our own cities, and 350 times more per capita on rehabilitating Iraq's electric power infrastructure than we are spending on fixing similar problems here at home.

During the House's debate on this bill 2 weeks ago, I offered an amendment to add emergency funding for eliminating the ``disabled veterans tax,'' toppling an unfair law that prevents service disabled veterans from receiving their full military retired pay and VA disability compensation. This amendment, ruled out of order by the Republican majority, drew attention to just one of the many infrastructure and social service spending shortfalls at home that are ignored in this emergency appropriations bill.

Two weeks ago, I voted ``no'' to giving the President a blank check for Iraq while falling behind in investing in our infrastructure and social service needs at home. Today, I will vote ``yes'' because of the terrible suffering and devastation endured by the citizens of San Diego County as a result of the firestorm still raging today; $500 million has been added for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster assistance in California. Earlier this week, I contacted FEMA Director Michael Brown and President Bush, urging them to make a FEMA center operational immediately in San Diego, to help my constituents in processing the necessary paperwork to begin the process of rebuilding their lives. This important funding will allow FEMA to open one-stop clearinghouses for information and assistance in expediting the huge volume of disaster claims that will result from this tragedy.

In addition, this bill increases funds to purchase body armor Special Armor Plate Inserts, and to increase production of armored HMMVVs, which will give our soldiers the protections they should have had all along. I have joined a number of my colleagues in calling for a full congressional hearing to investigate the many reports of American men and women fighting in Iraq without adequate lifesaving body armor--an indication that our preparation for this war was inadequate.

Today, I vote ``yes'' because our soldiers serving in harm's way deserve the best protection and resources our Nation can provide. And because I know, in a very personal way, the suffering of San Diegans in the current firestorm and because I want to say ``thank you'' to the thousands of professional firefighters who exhibited so much bravery and courage in recent days.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act.

The form of the motion is as follows:

I move that the managers on the part of the House at the

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the

Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 6 be instructed to reject

section 12403 of the House bill, relating to the definition

of oil and gas exploration and production in the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, sometimes not so gentle, for yielding me time.

In fact, I thank the not-so-gentle woman for fighting for these facilities in her district. She has fought long and hard, and this is just one of the fruits. She has done a tremendous job.

I want to thank the chairman of the full committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for creating the environment on our committee that we could talk about these issues and work towards solving them without partisan rancor. I sincerely appreciate the efforts by the majority side on these bills.

I too rise in support of H.R. 1720, the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act. I think it goes without saying that if the VA is to provide excellent health care, it must have excellent health facilities. We simply cannot allow our veterans and our VA employees to work and be treated in buildings that are unsafe.

Another such building on the list that you have heard is the Medical Center Building Number 1 in the VA health care system in San Diego, the medical facility used by veterans in all of San Diego and in my congressional district.

This building is in desperate need of seismic corrections, including new exterior bracing enhancements to the existing seismic structures, with an estimated cost of almost $50 million. Not an insignificant sum--but the cost of not doing this project would be much higher in real human lives. The VA has identified more than 60 projects that require seismic fortification.

We cannot continue to turn our heads away while VA patients and employees are in harm's way.

So I compliment all of those who have worked on this, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1720.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution, H. Con. Res. 305, ``If You Build It They Will Come'' Baseball Friendship Act, expressing the sense of Congress that Major League Baseball should select Monterrey, Mexico, as a host for a quarter of the Montreal Expos games next season as a show of goodwill between the United States and Mexico.

In recent weeks, the United States Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza has written to the Commissioner of Major League Baseball Bud Selig urging the League to play a quarter of their home games in Mexico.

The Montreal Expos were bought by the other 29 Major League Baseball franchises before the 2002 season, and to increase revenue, Major League Baseball relocated 22 Expos home games to San Juan, Puerto Rico, for the 2003 season. Under this proposal, the people of Puerto Rico can continue to enjoy Major League Baseball.

Major League Baseball officials have spent many months discussing a permanent move of the Montreal Expos franchise, despite baseball's intention to decide by the end of the regular season, it appears no long-term site will be selected for the 2004 season.

Monterrey, Mexico, is a metropolitan area of about 3 million people 130 miles south of Laredo, TX, and is one of the safest cities in Latin America. Monterrey has played host to a number of successful major league baseball games over the last few years, and is the longtime home to the Sultans of the Mexican League, and the Sultans ballpark that could be expanded to more than 30,000 seats.

I believe a commitment from Major League Baseball to play a quarter of the Montreal Expos' home games in Mexico would be a strong statement of friendship and goodwill between our countries and cultures, as we have shared with our other neighbor, Canada, for nearly 30 years. It's time that we include Mexico and make baseball the North American pastime. For the good of baseball, for the good of the people of these two great nations, if we build it, they will come.

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

Mr. Chairman, I represent San Diego, California, a place from which thousands and thousands of our troops have been sent to the war in Iraq. My constituents' families are personally involved in this effort every day, and I say to them that those who are going to vote against this blank check for the President are thinking about their brave sons and daughters. It is we who are thinking about their safety.

This administration, with $79 billion that we gave them, cannot equip our troops with the body armor they need to survive. We have killed dozens of soldiers. We have maimed dozens of them because they did not have that body armor. What kind of an administration would do that and then say they support the troops? We have no accountability for what they did before. We have no accountability for this $87 billion that they are asking us to give them now. This is not what a legislative branch's duty is. A legislative branch is to exert co-equal control, co-equal influence with the executive branch; and the only way we can do that is through the purse strings.

The gentleman before me said we have to keep going with what we are doing. Even if it is wrong, even if we have thrown in so much money, even if we have no plan to get out, let us keep going. I heard those arguments with Vietnam, and we were in a quagmire then. We are in an ``Iraqmire'' now. And we need to turn those troops' responsibilities over to an international body. We need to make sure that our troops come home alive. We are going to have the accountability that this body deserves only if we vote ``no'' on this matter. And I say to my friends, to my families in San Diego, it is time to turn this matter over to the United Nations. It is time that we internationalize this force. It is time that we bring our troops home; and we can spend that $87 billion on education, on health, on our veterans here at home. Vote ``no'' on the supplemental.