Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time.

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

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, as the representative of a district in a floodplain, I understand the need for a healthy flood insurance program. My hometown of Sacramento is the most at-risk river city in the Nation. Whenever I talk about our efforts to improve Sacramento's level of flood protection, I also mention the importance of flood insurance. If you live behind a levee, you should have flood insurance.

I also recognize that to accomplish this we need a healthy and robust National Flood Insurance Program. That is why the legislation we debate today, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act, is so significant.

Through this legislation, we will meet our responsibilities. We will ensure coverage is available to those at risk, and we will educate those same individuals as to the benefits of flood insurance. This bill takes us in that positive direction.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the deficiencies in the program were laid bare. What remained was a program $25 billion in debt with a questionable future. It is imperative that we rebuild the flood insurance program.

For many Americans, owning insurance that protects against a flood is more valuable than in case of a fire. That is because homes in a federally designated special flood hazard area are three times as likely to be destroyed by flood as a fire. This is the case for almost three-fourths of all homes in Sacramento. This is an important program that must be reformed to ensure its long-term stability and solvency.

The bill we are considering today makes reasonable reforms. It will lay the foundation for a stronger and improved flood insurance program. For that, I would like to thank Chairman Oxley, subcommittee Chairman Richard Baker and Ranking Member Barney Frank for their work on this bill, as well as the minority staff of the Financial Services Committee, particularly Jeff Riley, for all their tireless work.

This bill takes important steps to modernize the flood insurance program. It raises maximum coverage limits to keep up with inflation. It provides new coverage for living expenses if you have to vacate your home, and it also provides optional coverage for basements and business interruption coverage for commercial properties.

These are all positive steps that will allow the program to continue to provide peace of mind to those impacted when a flood event occurs.

Moving forward, Congress is also making the flood insurance program sustainable in the long run. It tightens enforcement of purchase requirements and ends subsidies on vacation homes, second homes and businesses. These steps may not be popular, but the program needs this kind of tough medicine.

Additionally, it directs FEMA to provide Congress with information that will allow us to evaluate whether we should modify the program's mandatory purchase requirements. This is an issue that demands serious consideration, and I know that we will hear further debate on it once this bill reaches conference.

As I conclude, I would like to express my disappointment that an important amendment I offered was not adopted. It would have created an educational outreach grant program to ensure homeowners in high-risk flood areas retain their flood insurance. This grant program works.

Last year, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, with a FEMA grant, conducted just such a campaign, SAFCA, and reached out to more than 45,000 NFIP policyholders in the American River floodplain with impressive results.

Of this group, 43 percent now carry preferred risk flood insurance. Preferred risk policies provide policy owners who are protected by a levee or other flood mitigation method with full flood insurance at a reduced price. Because of the lower price, the preferred risk policies have a higher level of policy retention.

To put the success in perspective, FEMA more than recouped its investment. SAFCA exceeded its target for policies, retained more than 20 times over, adding millions to the flood insurance program's bottom line.

Extending these grants to other flood plains will only strengthen the National Flood Insurance Program. I will continue to move this program idea forward; and I look forward to working with Chairman Oxley, Chairman Baker and Ranking Member Frank on this grant program.

Ensuring the long-term stability and solvency of this nearly 40-year- old program is critical. The Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act is an excellent step in the right direction. As my grant program demonstrates, there is still more to do.

Having said that, this is a good bill and a much-needed start. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we can enact this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I will proceed to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this bill represents an incredible amount of collaboration between Chairman Baker and Ranking Member Frank.

This is a very important bill. It makes reasonable changes to the flood insurance program. It will lay the foundation for a stronger, improved flood insurance program. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we can enact this important legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply asks that FEMA utilize emerging weather forecasting technology as they update our national flood maps. Applying such technologies gives us new

ways to solve old problems and address rising challenges. FEMA needs to be prepared to utilize this technology as it becomes more available to us.

This amendment makes sense. It will ensure that FEMA has the highest quality information when it works to determine the level of risk for vulnerable geographies. This language would not impose any additional financial burdens on FEMA.

As a member of the Science Committee, I made it one of my priorities to find ways to integrate emerging technologies into complex policy initiatives.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much for supporting my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment directs the GAO to study potential methods, practices and incentives that would increase the degree to which low-income property owners living in high-risk locations participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.

I am joined in offering this amendment by two of my colleagues from Texas, Representative Gene Green and Ruben Hinojosa. I thank them for supporting this amendment. This is an important issue for our districts, but I think this is an equally important issue for Congress to consider.

Most of the amendments we are considering address the impact of the pending updates of our national flood maps on property owners.

It is difficult to craft a policy or an approach when you are missing the correlative information. In this case, the revised flood maps.

We will reauthorize NFIP in 2008. Anticipating the degree to which these new maps will affect low-income property owners' participation in the National Flood Insurance Program is a good and necessary first step toward writing that legislation.

I want to take this opportunity to begin to address the needs of low- income individuals who live in the floodplains or in high-risk flooding areas now.

This amendment will ensure today's legislation will provide us with the information required to plan for the future of the flood insurance program. This is responsible and forward-looking policy, and I hope my colleagues will be able to support our amendment.

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

Thank you.

I have two additional speakers to speak on this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my other colleague from Texas who is cosponsoring, Mr. Gene Green.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

We direct GAO to report this study to Congress no later than one year after enactment of this legislation, but I want to make so clear, the sooner we have this report the better.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and my colleagues from Texas for your support on this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, passage of H. Res. 877 will allow the House to consider the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill under an open rule. I would like to thank subcommittee Chair Young and my good friend Ranking Member Murtha for their hard work to craft a responsible bill for consideration by this House. It provides robust support to our troops stationed in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe. In particular, I would highlight the increased funding to test new jammers for IEDs and additional funds for troop body armor and Humvees.

Importantly, the bill also focuses significant resources toward rebuilding our military. This includes addressing the strain placed on our National Guard. Wisely, the committee provided funding to maintain the Guard's current force size. In addition, they provided critical resources to ensure these men and women have equipment necessary to accomplish their mission.

I appreciate the committee's intense focus to mitigate the effect Iraq has had on eroding our military readiness.

I would like to highlight a few provisions which I feel are particularly forward-thinking. Many Members, including myself, felt that the House missed an opportunity last week to engage in substantive debate with regard to our policies toward Iraq. For that reason, I am very pleased that this bill contains a real policy proposal. It clearly states that it is not the intent of the United States to build permanent bases in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, intentions matter. For too long this House has passed on opportunities to clarify our intentions in Iraq. Not only is such a statement in the best interest of our troops, but it is critical if we are to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. I would like to commend Mr. Murtha for his leadership in bringing this issue to the House for consideration.

This bill also begins to bring funding for the Iraq war into the regular budget process. Since the start of the war, the majority leadership has been engaged in a shell game. We pass budget resolutions that pretend we are not at war, and in doing so, we ignore the idea of shared sacrifice.

Only a select few are paying for the costs of this war, the men and women

in uniform and their families, and those who rely on critical domestic programs which have been cut to finance the war.

Let us admit we have lost the principle of shared sacrifice. This bill will be a first step toward again embracing that idea. Commend the subcommittee for returning to this path.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the bill made in order under this rule reaffirms our ironclad support for our men and women in uniform in two fundamental ways. This legislation upholds our part of a solemn pact to provide our Armed Forces with everything they require, and it fulfills our duty to act responsibly in our Nation's interests. I commend the committee for achieving both goals in one bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I would like to inquire of the gentleman whether he has any additional speakers.

I am prepared to close. Thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill is critical to our warfighters, to our national security, and to our long- term strategic interests. It reaffirms the unwavering commitment all Members have for Armed Forces now more than ever.

Once again, I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha for their hard work in crafting an excellent bill that will allow our Nation to achieve these goals.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jack Wagner, the clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. This week, Jack will retire from a truly distinguished career of public service that spanned over thirty years. As his friends, family and colleagues gather to celebrate his career, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the dedicated service of one of the federal court system's long-time public servants.

Jack began his career of service to the courts in 1972 in Toledo, Ohio, with the Lucas County Common Pleas Court. From there he was named Clerk of the U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and later the Clerk of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles. In the summer of 1990 the judges of the Eastern District of California selected Jack to join their team as Clerk of the Court.

For 16 years Jack has successfully administered the 6 District Court offices that stretch from Bakersfield to Redding which make up California's Eastern District. During his tenure, he has overseen the construction of two new beautiful courthouses in Sacramento and Fresno. He was deeply involved in the planning, design and construction of each building, both of which now stand tall as proud symbols in the Central Valley's skyline. Jack's work on the Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse won a Design Award from the General Services Administration and Bob surely is proud to have his name on such a beautiful building.

In 1998, Jack was a recipient of the Director's Awards for Outstanding Leadership from Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The award paid tribute to his efforts in developing the Capital Construction Training Program that he co-created with Bruce Rifkin. This program

grew out of his work as a member of the Capital Construction Committee and has helped train court personnel from across the country on how to successfully plan and build new courthouses. This innovative program encourages effective partnerships in court construction projects with a goal of reducing cost overruns.

Jack has also worked closely with the U.S. Court's Administrative Office and taken a leadership role in the court's community. In the early 1990's he was a member of the Standing Committee on Gender, Race, Religious and Ethnic Fairness. Through this committee he contributed greatly to the Early Dispute Resolution Plan adopted throughout the circuit in 1999.

As he prepares to leave his position with the U.S. District Court, Jack leaves behind a legacy of strong leadership. I and my staff have had the honor and privilege of working with Jack in the Sacramento Courthouse and know the judges of the Eastern District appreciate his hard work and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to one of Sacramento's most distinguished citizens, Jack Wagner. As his wife Milani, his children and friends gather to welcome him into retirement I ask all my colleagues to join me in wishing Jack, continued success in his future endeavors.

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

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is long overdue. For the past 3 years, the United States has had a military presence in Iraq. In fact, when the authorization for war in Iraq was authorized,

I was not a member of this body. Yet this is the first extensive public debate Congress will have had on the most important issue of the day.

Even now, however, the rule put forth by the House leadership asks Members a simplistic question: Do you accept or renounce the President's vague appeal to stay the course and be patient? Such a narrow focus does a disservice to our role as representatives of the people.

The American people want to hear practical, well-thought-out ideas from their elected representatives. Today we could have had that honest, engaged and realistic debate.

I had hoped to discuss the reality of Iraq right now and how we may best help a political solution to emerge. This isn't a debate we should be afraid of. We can have this debate and can have it respectfully. But the House Republican leadership has decided to pass on this opportunity.

What should we be debating? I believe there are several things upon which all Members can agree, Republican and Democratic alike.

The first is that the United States has no desire to control Iraq's oil supply. The second is that we will not build permanent bases in Iraq. Taken together, these statements say clearly to the Iraqi people that the United States presence in Iraq is not permanent. And it says clearly to the administration that our strategy in Iraq must reflect the fact that we will not be there forever.

But, Mr. Speaker, the focus of this House must move beyond these specific details and rapidly toward our broader policies on Iraq. We all want a free, stable and prosperous Iraq, and we have an important diplomatic role to play. But ultimately, it is up to the Iraqis to achieve those goals through the political process.

The United States should continue to offer support for Iraqi security forces; and regardless of our troop deployment, the United States must maintain its responsibility to assist in rebuilding the country's economy and infrastructure.

But beginning to draw down troops stationed in Iraq can be done while keeping all of these goals in mind. I respect several redeployment proposals put forth by Members of this body for those reasons.

The President's exhortations to ``stay the course'' remain disconnected from the reality on the ground and from a sincere engagement on the policy details.

In contrast, the proposals put forth by several Members of the House were developed after much thought. The Members struggled to mold the chaos in Iraq into a workable solution that upholds the best interests of the Iraqi people and that of the American people.

These proposals and ideas deserve to come to the floor. They deserve to be debated, and they deserve a vote. Unfortunately, under the rule reported out, this will not happen. Instead, we will have a gripping session that yields no results. Congress is part of this government. In fulfillment of its responsibilities, this House should reject this rule and bring real policy to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in tribute to Jim McClatchy, a legend within the newspaper business who helped set the standards for journalism in northern California and across the globe. As his family and friends gather to honor and remember his life at a funeral service next week, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Jim McClatchy for his service to our Nation, to journalism and to the Sacramento community.

The son of C.K. and Phebe McClatchy, Jim McClatchy was born into a family steeped in journalistic tradition. Early on it was clear he would follow his great-grandfather, grandfather and father into the newspaper business. His studies at Stanford University were interrupted by World War II where Jim served our Nation in the Army Air Corps. Jim returned from World War II, completed his Stanford education and went on to earn a Master's in Journalism from Columbia University.

Jim made his mark as a hard-working reporter with both the Sacramento Bee and the Fresno Bee. Early in his career, he covered subjects ranging from State politics to education and advanced through the ranks to the Bee's Washington Bureau where he covered the 1956 presidential election and Congress. While serving the public as a reporter, Jim continued to serve our Nation in the Army Reserves and was called to duty during the Korean War.

In 1980, Jim became Chairman of the Board of McClatchy Newspapers and in 1987 he was elevated to Publisher. He served on the company's board until his retirement in 2004. Throughout his tenure, McClatchy newspapers received numerous Pulitzer Prizes, advancing the family's commitment to excellence in journalism.

Jim's commitment extended beyond Sacramento and the McClatchy family of papers to strengthening the international free press. Jim worked with the Inter American Press Association in 1994 to help write the Declaration of Chapultepec, a document that established the role of a free press in democratic societies. Dozens of heads of state signed the Declaration of Chapultepec, including President Clinton.

Closer to home, Jim was instrumental in actively planning the Central Valley's future. He led the drive to create Valley Vision, a non-profit that facilitates discussions to solve regional problems. Jim also created an endowment in the name of his mother to support the classics and bilingual education at California State University, Fresno, where he received an honorary doctorate just weeks before his passing.

Mr. Speaker, as Jim McClatchy's family, friends and colleagues gather to honor his legacy, I am privileged to request that the U.S. House of Representatives commemorate his life as a patriot, a community servant and man who always strove for the highest standards of journalistic integrity.

Mr. Speaker, I was participating in a very important briefing by the Army Corps of Engineers on flood protection in my district on Monday, June 12, 2006 and missed 5 votes. Please note in the appropriate place in the Congressional Record that had I been present, I would have voted as noted below:

Rollcall vote 255: ``nay''; rollcall vote 254: ``yea''; rollcall vote 253: ``yea''; rollcall vote 252: ``yea''; rollcall vote 251: ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to honor Rabbi Brad Bloom, the Senior Rabbi at B'nai Israel since 1995, who is leaving this week for a new pulpit after a distinguished professional career here in Sacramento. As his friends, family and coworkers all gather to celebrate his farewell, I ask all my colleagues to join in honoring his community leadership and many remarkable accomplishments.

After Rabbi Bloom completed his BA in History from the University of Wisconsin and his Master's in Social Work from the University of Maryland, he realized his calling in life: the rabbinate. He began his career by serving as the Associate Rabbi at Congregation Beth Am in Los Altos Hills.

Following his service with the Congregation, Rabbi Bloom was Associate Rabbi at the Sinai Temple of Champaign-Urbana in Illinois. In 1995 he became the Senior Rabbi at Congregation B'nai Israel, where he has served with distinction for the past 11 years.

Rabbi Bloom has been a strong leader for B'nai Israel. He guided a devastated congregation and the greater Sacramento community through one of its darkest hours in June of 1999, when arsonists attacked three of Sacramento's synagogues, including his own.

Rabbi Bloom's calm, uniting voice emerged from the dense fog of hate and fear in the weeks and months following the attacks. He revived the community's spirits and helped bring forward a united front against hate. In order to build a dialogue, he helped create the Children of Abraham group, which brings together clergy and congregants of Muslim, Jewish and Christian faiths. And under his leadership, the synagogue opened its door to gay and lesbian Jews to perform commitment ceremonies inside the sanctuary.

Through it all Rabbi Bloom has been dedicated to cultivating a strong and thriving Jewish community. With his gifts as a teacher, he has shown a commitment to life-long learning and instilling that value in others. He has led adult education groups, including Talmud classes, Kabbalah courses and a women's book group. These unique programs have helped educate and unite the Jewish community.

Since 1995, Rabbi Bloom has been a strong voice for B'nai Israel, and helped foster compassion and understanding throughout our community. On behalf of the people of Sacramento and the Fifth Congressional District of California, I ask all my colleagues to join me in thanking Rabbi Brad Bloom for his public service as we wish him success in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in January, the Department of Homeland Security made significant changes to our homeland security effort. They announced the areas eligible for fiscal year 2006 UASI grants.

For the first time, Sacramento and San Diego were not identified as high-risk areas. While Sacramento and San Diego did receive fiscal year 2006 funding, the new eligibility guidelines have put our funding for next year and beyond in jeopardy.

Sacramento is the capital of the sixth largest economy in the world and home to dozens of critical Federal and State governmental buildings. Much of the State's water, electricity, and telecommunications systems are managed from Sacramento. Of considerable concern is an attack on Sacramento's dams and levees, not only because of potential loss of life and impact to Sacramento's families, but an economic impact as well. According to a Sacramento Bee analysis, the economic impact of a major flood in Sacramento would cost the region $35 billion. This is damage to homes, loss of jobs, and government revenues.

The San Diego area contains the Nation's seventh largest city adjacent to a heavily trafficked international border, a busy port, and tourist attractions. Nor should it be overlooked that a number of naval and Marine bases are located in San Diego, including the largest naval base in the country.

With fewer installations after four rounds of BRAC, an attack on even one could result in even greater impact. An attack of either of these cities would have repercussions well beyond our region.

Therefore, Congressman Filner and I have very real concerns about DHS's new eligibility guidelines accurately addressing our homeland security needs. We all agree that a risk-based grant program is an effective use of our limited resources. However, policy is only as good as the information that goes into it.

DHS has already acknowledged that it failed to take into account the catastrophic downstream impact to my district if there were an attack on Folsom Dam. This only raises the question of what other targets have they overlooked.

That is why we need to ensure that DHS properly considers the catastrophic and cascading effects of an attack on critical infrastructure such as dams and levees, as well as determine a way to factor in the presence of drug trafficking and other organized crime activities that relate to terrorism and strategic defense considerations.

This amendment would withhold funding until DHS has properly addressed these issues. It would ensure accountability. It is important that DHS address these concerns. We need increased transparency and understanding of the process before the next UASI review is conducted.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that a DHS reauthorization bill will come to the floor before the next risk assessment begins.

As a result, we must take this opportunity to require DHS to perform a thorough threat assessment of each urban area. We have an obligation to ensure we are meeting our national security needs. But the questions surrounding the UASI grant eligibility draw into question whether we are meeting that need.

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

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman would withdraw his point of order.

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

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me time.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, when I was home in Sacramento last week, one constant topic of conversation was gas prices and energy policy. I heard several different perspectives on the issues.

Many working families told me they are having to adjust their monthly budgets to offset the cost of $3 a gallon gas. Other individuals expressed concern about global warming and how our dependence on fossil fuels is driving dangerous climate change.

Still others told me they are worried that our economy and our national security are frighteningly dependent on unstable oil producing countries like Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria.

From speaking with my colleagues, it is clear that Americans are echoing these concerns across the country. So I would hope that we could all agree that our constituents, from Sacramento to Miami, want Congress to do something substantive about gas prices and energy policy.

Unfortunately, today's debate represents another missed opportunity for strategic long-term national energy policy. Today we could be addressing the pressing issues raised by my constituents and yours. But we are not.

This resolution would provide for debate for H.R. 5254. This bill purports to address the problem we saw in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, the vulnerability of America's energy infrastructure to supply disruptions.

Because of last year's hurricanes, many refineries in the gulf are running at reduced capacity, or were knocked offline entirely. This tightened supplies and played a role in the rapid rise in gas prices. So there is an issue here for Congress to address. But there is some disagreement on exactly what the problem is.

During debate on this bill, you will hear conflicting explanations for why no new refineries have been built in the United States since 1976. The majority might cite the environmental permitting process saying it has impeded the ability of companies to build new refineries.

They will argue that if Congress just pushed the permitting process harder, if we can do some more streamlining, then new refineries will start sprouting up across the country.

However, the reality is a different matter. The central provisions of this bill are designed to streamline the environmental permitting process for new refineries. Yet, there is no evidence these changes would actually lead to the construction of one new refinery.

That is because there has not been one convincing example of a situation where the permitting process prevented, held up or stalled the construction of a refinery.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can refer to the testimony of the energy company executives. During Senate testimony last year, even they could not cite such an occasion. The fact is, new refineries have not been constructed because it has not been in the interest of industry to do so. And that is fine. It is their right to not to construct refineries. But Congress should not respond to profit motivated decisions by altering permitting processes that are functioning just fine.

Furthermore, the refinery permitting process was altered just last year in section 103 of the energy bill so why are we doing it again? Let's see if that process works before revising it again.

This flawed bill reflects the manner in which it was brought to the floor. The Energy and Commerce Committee has not held hearings on H.R. 5254. It hasn't been marked up either. If this is truly an important piece of legislation, shouldn't it come to the floor in regular order?

If the House wanted to truly address the issue of refinery capacity, we should be taking up H.R. 5365, offered by Congressmen Dingell and Boucher. Their legislation would enhance America's refinery capacity by creating a Strategic Refinery Reserve to complement the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Unfortunately the majority on the Rules Committee did not allow a vote on this legislation.

This is a commonsense proposal because in emergencies like Katrina, even when the President releases crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we may not have the refinery capacity to process it.

The Dingell/Boucher bill would direct the Energy Department to establish a Strategic Refinery Reserve that can produce 5 percent of daily demand for gasoline.

This reserve would ensure that additional refinery capacity is available during emergencies, strengthening our national security while helping to mitigate upward price pressures. And in non emergencies, it would provide refined products to the Federal fleet, easing demand on the rest of the market.

This is a forward-thinking and logical proposal. I was disappointed that the Rules Committee voted against making it in order as a substitute, because if we had passed a Dingell/Boucher bill, at least I could tell my constituents Congress did something substantive to deal with America's energy challenges.

When I return to my district next week and in the coming weeks and months, I would like to be able to tell my constituents that Congress understands what you are dealing with in terms of gas prices and energy.

We know we can't fix everything overnight. But we have got a real plan for the future.

I want to be able to tell them that we are going to reduce demand by promoting energy conservation and fuel efficient forms of transportation. And we are going to work to develop renewable sources of fuel and other innovative technologies.

Taken together, these will help America move towards energy independence. And we are going to stop providing subsidies to companies that are making record profits, and instead, we are going to help working Americans deal with high gas prices.

I really wish I could say all of those things. But that is not going to be possible if the House continues to consider unnecessary and misguided legislation like this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule because this bill did not go through regular order, because it comes to the floor under a closed rule which does not allow for its improvement, and because it does not allow the commonsense Dingell/Boucher substitute.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill. Such a vote will reject this misguided approach to energy policy. A ``no'' vote on this legislation would send a message that Congress is ready to consider truly substantive legislation that addresses the energy crisis this Nation faces. Please join me in sending that important message.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend this rule, closed rule, and allow the House to consider the Boucher-Dingell Strategic Refinery Reserve substitute.

This substitute was offered in the Rules Committee when this rule was reported last month, but was blocked on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, whatever position Members have on this legislation, they should vote against the previous question so we can consider a much better approach to our Nation's refinery shortage.

The Boucher-Dingell substitute, which is identical to the text of H.R. 5365, will establish a strategic refinery reserve. This reserve would complement the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It would provide a much needed safety net for this Nation during times when existing refineries are temporarily or even permanently unavailable.

It would also be used to supply fuel to the Federal Government and the military during those times when oil production is not compromised.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider this important and responsible substitute. I want to make it very clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering H.R. 5254, but a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of the Boucher-Dingell substitute.

Again, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, the security of our Nation is this institution's highest priority. Therefore, I was pleased to see that overall funding for homeland security was increased. This includes an increase for our security efforts at our ports, borders, critical infrastructure, and all modes of transportation. There is also increased funding for our brave State and local first responders.

This bill, however, still falls short because it is controlled by limited resources rather than need. The allocation isn't high enough; and, therefore, our security is compromised as a result.

For example, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program grants which are very important to local police response capabilities. These are funds my own hometown of Sacramento has received and used for things like information analysis. Unfortunately, the administration zeroed out its funding. Wisely, the committee recognized the value of this program and restored its funds. But to do so they had to move funds from the Urban Area Security Initiative grant known as UASI, to the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program grant.

In Sacramento, UASI funding has proven vital. Funds have been spent on such items such as gas mask filters, first responder training and communication equipment upgrades; but earlier this year, the guidelines changed. Sacramento, along with a number of other cities, was deemed ineligible to apply. Yet in all of my meetings and letters with DHS and the White House, the only plausible explanation I walked away with is that budgetary constraints necessitated this change.

Both of these programs provide critical resources to our communities, but to ensure preparedness we are left robbing Peter to pay Paul. DHS's core mission is to secure the safety of Americans. It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that their efforts are adequately funded. However, Democratic attempts to boost funding by $3.5 billion for border security, port security, aviation security, first responders, and disaster preparedness were defeated.

I have an obligation to ensure that we are meeting our national security needs and a responsibility to my constituents. I am glad that this bill does increase funding. I hope that will continue to address all of our security funding needs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, today we consider the rule governing debate for the energy and water appropriations bill. The issues of energy and water are always important, but this year these issues are front and center of our national dialogue.

Over the past 9 months, the American people have seen the direct impact of water infrastructure on their day-to-day lives, from Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans and the gulf coast to the worst flooding the New England States have experienced in 70 years, and just this week NOAA announced the upcoming hurricane season will bring an increase in strong storms reaching land, category 3 and above.

In our communities, in our States, and every region of our country we are seeing the importance of flood protection. But we are also witnessing the growing strain on our already fragile water infrastructure. Yet even with this added pressure, our Nation's civil works programs do not see a corresponding increase in funding. These projects provide critical protections and we need to make investing in them a priority.

On repeated occasions you have heard me discuss the critical need to improve flood protection in my hometown of Sacramento.

In terms of lives and property, I recognize what is at stake. Sacramento has the dubious distinction of being the most at-risk river city in the Nation. I certainly understand the heightened concern that arrives with each rainfall. This year, our region has experienced an especially wet winter and wet spring. Each year we delay making these necessary investments is one more year of wondering what Mother Nature will bring.

Members of the committee attempted to make the most with its limited resources. They did improve on the President's budget. However, as Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Obey and Energy and Water Subcommittee Ranking Member Visclosky rightly pointed out, we still need an additional $250 million to protect vulnerable areas from flooding.

With these funds, the Army Corps of Engineers could speed up construction on a number of flood protection projects across the country. Additionally, they would be able to provide some support to the operation and maintenance of completed projects, as well as restore the Corps' research and development program.

As a Nation, we are at a crossroads. We can continue in a defensive position, responding to Mother Nature's whims as in New Orleans and recent storms in the northeast, or we can take the offensive, working to strengthen and reinforce our Nation's water infrastructure.

In my view, we must seek out opportunities like this to be proactive and not reactive, as Congress is beginning to do in science and investing in renewable energy sources.

I was pleased that the committee increased funding from last year's level for the Department of Energy's Office of Science. This will fund basic energy research, nuclear physics, as well as biological and environmental sciences. A 15 percent increase is a good start, but if we truly want to reverse the trend of the past few years, we need to make a greater investment in science and research and development.

I was home in Sacramento this past weekend and everyone was talking about rising gas and energy prices. The net effect for working families is perhaps a shorter vacation and perhaps not eating out at a restaurant. Escalating energy prices threaten not only the quality of life and pocketbook of every American but the very stability of our national economy.

We must do more as a Nation to develop energy alternatives. I believe that America must modernize its energy policy to decrease this Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and preserve the environment. To accomplish this, Congress must develop a strategic and forward-looking energy plan that places a high priority on new research into renewable fuels and greater energy efficiency.

Unfortunately, the programs this bill cut are the exact programs necessary to develop a national renewable energy portfolio for the 21st century. There are drastic reductions in funding for wind, solar and geothermal programs, some of the programs that must be grown if we are ever going to curb our reliance on oil. I am concerned that we are missing an opportunity to expand our energy alternatives.

As much as this Energy and Water Appropriations bill is about funding current needs, it is also about investing in the future. While I think the committee tried to the best of their abilities to do this, in the end, the tight funding constraints limited their ability to strike the necessary balance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make some comments also that I appreciate Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for working with me on my project in Sacramento. That is much appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can consider the Visclosky amendment that was rejected in the Rules Committee tonight on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Visclosky amendment would provide $250 million for a number of ongoing flood projects that are not funded in the bill. It also adds $750 million for research into alternative sources of energy, such as coal, ethanol, and biodiesel, that would reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. The spending increase in the Visclosky amendment is offset by reducing by 2.4 percent the tax cut received by people earning more than $1 million a year.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment deals with two urgent national priorities. It puts our money where our mouth is when we say our country needs to diversify our energy supply, increase energy efficiency, and reduce our addiction to foreign oil. With the hurricane season approaching, it puts more resources into the major flood control projects that would protect our property and our lives.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for Members to know that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the energy and water appropriation bill under an open rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Visclosky amendment.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us will allow the House to consider the fiscal year 2007 Military Quality of Life and Veterans Administration Appropriations bill. All Members know that the support in this bill for military housing, for veterans' health care, and for retiree benefits is part of the promise we made to the men and women when they joined our Armed Forces.

As we consider this bill, there should be little disagreement over the tremendous demands being placed on the Veterans Administration and on the military construction accounts.

In 1995, the VA treated 2.6 million veterans and their families. By the end of this year, that number will have more than doubled to an estimated 5.4 million people. This places additional stress on the many hospitals and the VA network. These World War II-era buildings are badly in need of upgrades at the cost of billions over the next 5 to 10 years.

It was for this reason, increased strain in time of war, that the Democrats have consistently criticized the administration's less-than- adequate funding for veterans and veterans' health care.

Last year, the administration admitted to accounting errors which underestimated the demand for veterans' services by $3 billion in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. It turned out that the administration had failed to account for the new veterans, those returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After Democrats, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans and many other veterans organizations expressed outrage, steps were taken retroactively to address the shortfall.

With that backdrop, this year's appropriations bill does increase veterans' medical services by $2.6 billion over last year's amount. Unfortunately, it does so by employing a budget gimmick.

This year's shortsighted budget did not provide full funding to meet this Nation's veterans' health care needs in a time of war. So the Military Quality of Life Appropriations Subcommittee was forced to boost money for veterans using money originally designated for military housing and then pay for military housing by declaring that money emergency funding.

In truth, it was no emergency. It was simply a shell game that ignored the principle of shared sacrifice upon which our Nation has relied in every other time of war, except this one. These budget gimmicks should come as no surprise. Even to the casual observer, this majority has shown disregard for budget matters. After all, 3 years into the Iraq War, the administration and this majority continue to fund it with ``emergency spending.''

We are using a credit card to pay for war and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the only reason this bill comes close to meeting the health needs of so many veterans is because of this gimmick. And the bill pays for construction of some housing for military families, but again only because of this gimmick. Many Members on both sides of the aisle are frustrated with this approach.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government cannot go back on our responsibility to support our troops, assist their families, and continue our commitment to the veterans. This responsibility is particularly important in a time of war. With troops fighting the war in Iraq, they should not be the only ones to make sacrifices; they must be shared by all Americans. No loopholes for a select few, no kicking

the can down the road for another generation to deal with by way of increasing the national debt.

In cities and towns across America, our constituents notice when Congress uses these gimmicks. My local paper, in fact, hit on this very theme of sacrifice in time of war earlier this week, and I include for the Record an editorial from the Sacramento Bee. Its title says it all: ``Where's the Sacrifice.'' I could not agree more.

[From the Sacramento Bee, May 16, 2006]

Where's the Sacrifice?

The Republican majority in Congress wants to go into the

November elections bragging that they've cut taxes again. The

House and Senate just extended record-high Bush tax cuts

until 2010. They call it a political victory.

Will the American people really buy this one-note chant

again?

It represents the triumph of rigid ideology over practical

reality.

At a time of war, these members of Congress are demanding

sacrifice only of the young people fighting in Iraq and

Afghanistan. The tax cuts of 2001, 2002 and 2003 have given

us record-high deficits and debt, driving this country into a

financial mess political leaders are passing on to future

generations.

The tax cutters rely on two fallacious arguments.

The first is the ``starve the beast'' idea. Tax cuts, the

theory goes, will reduce government revenues and choke off

government spending, making government smaller. Even

conservative economists now reject that hypothesis. For

example, economists William Niskanen and Peter Van Doren of

the Cato Institute show convincingly that since 1981, for

each one percentage point decline in tax revenues, federal

spending increases by about one-half percent of GDP.

Government spending grows because tax cuts make government

look cheaper than it actually is, so people want more of it.

A tax increase does a better job of reducing government

because it forces people to pay for government services.

At least ``starve the beast'' proponents were honest in

saying that tax cuts would reduce government revenues.

Today you have members of Congress actually saying the

opposite: ``Lower tax rates equal more federal revenue.'' The

facts show otherwise. Bush tax cuts have contributed to

revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of

the U.S. economy since 1950. Where revenues typically have

been 17 percent to 20 percent of the economy, in 2004 they

were 16.3 percent, according to the Congressional Budget

Office.

A CBO report, ``Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary

Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates,'' shows that

a 10 percent cut in income tax rates lowers revenues by $775

billion over 10 years.

So when tax cut proponents say that tax cuts benefit the

Treasury, take it with a grain of salt.

The tax cut vote was a party line vote. Voters know whom to

blame for the nation's financial mess come November.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas to respond to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I understand the gentleman has no additional speakers.

Then I will proceed to my closing.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider three important amendments that were not included in this rule. These amendments will help fix the funding shortfalls in this bill.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of these amendments and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.

The first amendment by Ranking Member Obey would pay for the $507 million cost for 20 routine military construction projects instead of designating them as ``emergency spending'' so that the funding would not count against the bill's allocation.

The Obey amendment pays for the 20 projects by reducing the tax cuts for people making more than $1 million a year by $1,400 or 1 percent.

The second amendment by subcommittee Ranking Member Edwards provides the $735 million needed to fully fund the Defense Health Program throughout the next year. The cost of the amendment is offset by reducing by 2 percent the tax cut for those making over $1 million annually.

The third amendment by Representative Farr, would increase veterans health care by $1.82 billion and pay for it by reducing the average tax cut for those with incomes above $1 million a year by about $5,000, leaving them with $109,025,

Mr. Speaker, these amendments together will help us meet the obligations we have to the members of our military, our veterans and their families. This Nation made a promise to those serving in the military that they would receive quality health care in return for their valiant service to this country, and now that wounded soldiers are returning to their homes, they deserve the best medical treatment and care available.

We can fix this today if we allow these amendments to be considered on the floor. But the only way that will happen is if we defeat the previous question.

I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Military Quality of Life Veterans Appropriations bill under an open rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to vote on these important amendments.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.