Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the rule, and I appreciate her leadership dealing with the critical issues of arts funding and for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

I look forward later today to being part of debate, and I hope amendment approval that will move us back in the direction that we need to go. But I too am a little frustrated in the context of billions of dollars that we are hemorrhaging with red ink where we seem to be able to find all sorts of resources for things that are suboptimal in some cases, to say the least, but certainly not the highest of priorities, that we are scrambling here for less than $14 million that has such a vital connection to our communities.

I would hope that as our Members come to the floor to deal with the debate on this amendment and the final vote that they have a chance to look back at the records in their own offices of the dedicated men and women who are part of the arts councils, who are part of the local councils for the humanities. To consider the incredible mileage that is extracted from a few small dollars that benefit primarily the rural and outlying areas of our State, not necessarily the large cities like Seattle, New York City or even Portland, Oregon. Larger cities have a higher level of programming. It is the smaller communities that benefit. It is a tragedy that we are not meeting even what the President had requested.

I also am pleased to follow my good friend from Washington who has worked so hard for so many years to keep our eye on the ball on the investment we need for critical parks infrastructure. Our national parks are part of the infrastructure every bit as much as our highways and our airports. I appreciated what he did with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) fighting in tough difficult budget times. I am hopeful that we will be able to honor the hard work here to see if there is something in the course of the amendment process and as the budget is working its way through the process here this year that we not turn our back on America's treasures.

Last, but by no means least, I must acknowledge the hard work that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) did with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), to deal with the land and water conservation fund. This has been an area that had been ignored for decades. It had been, frankly, a bipartisan shame that we did not fully fund the land and water conservation fund. These were resources that have such an important impact on States and localities. We reached a deal, as the ``little CARA'' was set aside. We have an opportunity to keep faith with the spirit of that agreement, and I am hopeful in the course of the budget process that we are able to do so.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's underlining that.

And I would just conclude by saying that I hope in the spirit of bipartisan accommodation that has accompanied much of the work with the arts, with the parks infrastructure, and with CARA that we are able to give our affirmative vote to preserving the integrity of them in the course of this budget process.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in times past I have come to the floor debating ways to deal with reducing the demand for water in the Klamath Basin while being able to fulfill our many obligations. The problems in the Klamath Basin are not going away this year. As we begin another summer, it looks as though there will not be enough water to go around to meet these multiple demands that fundamentally result from the Federal Government's promising more water than nature or creative plumbing can deliver.

The land management on the refuges in the basin continues to be guided by two priorities that are not just in competition but are fundamentally incompatible: The reclamation of wetlands for agriculture and the preservation of wetlands and habitat for wildlife. The situation is further complicated by the Klamath Basin tribes, four of them, which have a longstanding and unique role in the basin which predates the water allocation decisions and environmental regulations.

It is likely by the time this Congress completes the appropriations process we will have more conflicts in the basin. I hope not but I fear there may be additional fish kills and certainly another summer of dry refuges.

In the past I have come to the floor to discuss ways in the Klamath basin to reduce the water demands in the wildlife refuge which hosts 80 percent of the waterfowl in the Pacific flyway. They have been called The Everglades of the West. Unfortunately, they are the only refuges in the country where farming occurs purely for commercial purposes instead of including some benefit for wildlife.

But one of the problems that has taken place in the debate, and we have had exhaustive discussions, has been a fundamental lack of factual understanding. And I thought this year, Mr. Chairman, it might be possible to look more broadly at the underlying challenges facing the wildlife refuges in terms of water use and supply.

I have drafted language and shared it with committee staff to require the Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake a study of the water needs of the refuges both in terms of how much water and when during the year the water is needed. Much of the difficulty in finding common solutions has stemmed from our inability to have a comprehensive understanding of the competing demands. And I would hope that it would be possible in the course of a study to examine water deliveries, the amount of water necessary to be available to sustain the wetlands, issues that deal with providing the sufficient water for the wildlife refuges, feasibility of water storage.

I have a series of elements here in the study, but rather than offering up an amendment at this point because I realize the committee has had a very difficult time and they have a carefully balanced item, but as it works its way through the process I was wondering if it would be possible to work with the committee and the staff to see if there is some way to coax this information from the process. I would, if I could, yield to the Chair of the subcommittee to see if this would be possible.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the expressions of support and cooperation from my two friends. It is my intention to work with them to be able to find a way to provide the information we need to avoid unduly contentious discussions here on this floor and be able to craft solutions that will protect our obligations to wildlife,

the obligations to farmers who have been lured into the basin by the Federal Government to farm there, not once but on several occasions, to meet our tribal obligations, and to avoid horrendous fish kills that we have seen in the past.

I appreciate the expressions of support and look forward to working with the committee to see if we can provide this information to guide more rational decisions in the future. Hopefully, we can protect this jewel, the Everglades of the West.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the eloquence of my friend, the gentleman from West Virginia, and the concerns that have been expressed by the chairman of the Committee on Resources.

We have had on this floor in my tenure, brief though it seems, it is nonetheless 8 years, we have seen a parade of items of legislation on appropriations, and most of them that have been successful have come from the majority party. If we are going to reach the point now where we are going to change the policy and we are not going to legislate via riders and amendments on an appropriations process, I think that is interesting and well-intended, and maybe we should think about changing.

But the fact is, we have not been doing that in the past. It seems to me that we have had a parade of legislation that has come to this floor that has never gone to committee, that has been offered up by the majority party, that has not gone to the committee of jurisdiction, that there have not been substantive hearings. I can think of a wide range of things that have come from the Committee on Ways and Means, for example.

Now, with all due respect, I think the gentleman from West Virginia has identified a critical area. He spoke with great eloquence about the special obligations that we have as Members of this assembly to be sensitive to the needs of native Americans. And the history of this country brings no great credit to the government or to this body, and there has been lost opportunity after lost opportunity.

I think we ought to move forward with this amendment. It in no way precludes an opportunity for the Committee on Resources to come forward, do whatever fine-tuning they are going to do. But I think it is time for us to seize the moment and change the balance of power on this for sensitivity to Indian country.

The gentleman from West Virginia mentioned the concerns from the Cow Creeks in my State. There are issues in the Klamath Basin. He mentioned the 1,600-acre open-pit gold mine in the Quechan Tribe at Indian Pass, California, which is true, BLM could have done something about, but BLM did not do anything about, and under the gentleman's amendment, would be required to. There would be some leverage to the people who too often do not have the leverage to meet their needs.

I think we have seldom erred on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt to Native Americans. For me, as a member of this assembly and work that I have done in other government bodies, it is like that old adage in baseball, ``the tie goes to the runner.'' I have felt that if it is even a close policy question, I will give the benefit of the doubt to Native Americans who time and time and time again have been shortchanged by this government, by this Chamber; and they deserve better.

It is my intention to support the gentleman's amendment. I hope that we have people act on good faith on the other side of the aisle to refine it as it moves through, to work in the Committee on Resources, if that be the will of the body, to ultimately have the last word and do it. But in the meantime, there is no good reason not to move forward to deal with this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment. I listened to my good friend and colleague from Oregon talk about concerns about how long the process takes and I think there is something here that strikes me as being slightly disingenuous, because we have seen, for example, Senator Craig in the late nineties added a provision in an appropriations process that forbid money to be used to finalize forest plans. In some of these cases, that doubled the time that was involved with finishing the planning process. There may well have been some problems that are involved here, but I would suggest looking at the struggle where we have some of our friends on the other side of the aisle who have actually been impeding this process.

Forest management plans are long-term blueprints for broad land management issues that do not specify individual projects. Fire management plans deal with fire planning. I think that we ought to take a step back and deal with the reimplementation that my colleague has talked about. It, in fact, has functioned well under both Democratic and Republican administrations if Congress funds it and allows it to move forward. It is talking about an impact on over 8 percent of our landscape. These national forests are key in terms of housing threatened and endangered species. There are critical monitoring requirements of the current forest management act that are vital to prevent further extinction.

I think as we have looked at the approaches that have been taken by our friends in the administration where the process in agency after agency has been dominated by the very industries from which they are supposed to be regulating, the forest products industry, in terms of mining, livestock, we have had examples after example that the media has filleted out where we have not had a dispassionate process, where we have not had independent actors, where we have found that the scientific experts and the panels within agencies have been dismissed, have been suppressed, have been overridden.

I do not think there is any particular cause for excitement on the part of either the environmental community or the vast majority of the American public to short-circuit this process. And as my colleague from New Mexico pointed out, we find out not in an open process but because people in the inside are so frustrated by what they see, career civil servants are allowing the public to see via leaked documents that in fact the vast majority of these comments are not taken into account, that the public needs and interests are circumvented.

I think that it is important for us to step forward today to reinstate these protections and to enter into the reasoned discussion that people are talking about, adequately fund the studies, do it in an up-front, aboveboard fashion, have the administration stop twisting what is happening in terms of the process. Whether it is dealing with natural resources or it is dealing with mercury emissions from power plants, I think we ought to let daylight shine in. Starting today with the enactment of the amendment from the gentleman from New Mexico is a step towards reestablishing a little balance, build some confidence and have the protections of the system.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy for yielding me this time and permitting me to speak on this.

One would think that if our Republican colleagues were so concerned about renewable energy, they would not have bottled up the wind energy tax credit that has been allowed to expire, languishing, stopping projects in my district that the business community, the environmental community, and farmers, frankly, who would like to harvest a little wind, would have benefited from. The months go by. It ticks off. We could have had a clean, precise, up-or-down vote on extending the wind energy tax credit if we were serious about renewables. It would have passed by 400 votes on this floor if the gentleman and the Republicans were serious about it and not bollix it up with a whole range of other items. Instead, we are given a proposal that would compromise the development of renewable energy by narrowing the scope of NEPA.

It is true that we have a shell of NEPA under this proposal, but it is basically an up-or-down vote. They seek to compromise the amount of time that is used. It is part of this notion of dodging the fundamental issues, a failure to pass a comprehensive energy bill that would really help renewables; that would help energy conservation; that would provide a vigorous debate on the floor of this House on things that would be able to help move the country forward. Instead, we are given this proposal.

Let us talk about this proposal for a moment. Certainly, hydroelectric energy is a renewable resource. We have got 400 or more dams that were licensed in the 1950s that were never under the NEPA process. If this proposal that has been advocated for us today is approved, these 400 dams will move forward without ever having the benefit of the complete environmental review. It is not about just an up-or-down. Anybody who has worked in areas where there has been significant environmental controversy knows that having the full range of alternatives being discussed, being debated, being analyzed results in having stronger proposals.

I have listened in vain to hear all of the proposals that have been sidetracked because renewables have been bollixed up in some sort of protracted environmental analysis. We are still listening. Where is the list of the projects? I am not aware of any. But let me say that there is a precise analogy to what happens sometimes on projects that have been hung up when we look at some that are in the infrastructure arena and what happens when people ignore the requirements of the law, when people do not engage the public, when they do not do a good job of studying the environmental impacts. Then we find that people push back. Then we find that we have inadequate proposals. Then the local politics intervene, and the people insist that the project be halted so it can be done right.

I would respectfully suggest that enabling hydroprojects to be built in virtually any waterway in the United States without a full range of environmental analysis is not good public policy and will engender more negative reaction. To have 400 dams that were never involved with a full range to begin with go through relicensing under this proposal would be a mistake.

I would hope the time will come that we can have an honest debate on a range of proposals that the American public deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic after the fumbling underreaction to mad cow disease that the United States Department of Agriculture is considering a Draconian emergency order for all Oregon nurseries in order to deal with an infection of sudden oak disease on one nursery.

The State Department of Agriculture has already appropriately quarantined the nursery. But before we create a regulatory nightmare for hundreds of small businesses and a huge regulatory roadblock, I would hope that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will work with the experts and our industry to protect both the environment and the vital commerce in nursery products.

There is no reason that we cannot do right by the environment and do it in a way that promotes proper treatment of this dangerous disease but avoids doing more harm than we do good.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak this evening.

As we observe the news, we have commentators rushing to give an assessment of the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Conservative commentators will credit him with the fall of the former Soviet Union, new approaches to the economy, especially with tax cutting strategies. And, in large measure, the rise of today's Republican Party can trace its roots to his leadership. His was a strong voice for the conservative perspective from corporate spokesperson to the governorship of our country's largest State, to two terms as our President.

There were, of course, areas of policy disagreement, some of which I had strong feelings about. There were also areas of mistakes, blunders for which President Reagan characteristically and clearly assumed personal responsibility.

Balanced commentary will spotlight his pragmatic approaches as Governor and President; his ability to reach across party lines, to listen, to work, to add a human touch. There was his willingness to protect the economy and work with moderates, for instance, in both parties, even to the point of significant tax increases when he was faced with spiraling budget deficits and felt that it was important for our country.

I personally am content for history and the passage of time to sharpen the focus and place his entire career in perspective, but I am thinking this evening of how he became a leader and a symbol in his last years as he made a stark admission that he suffered from Alzheimer's disease. His wife Nancy became a champion in this great struggle to help lead the fight against Alzheimer's.

At a time when there are some who would put ideology ahead of meeting the needs of victims and families, Nancy Reagan stood tall and spoke out forcefully on the needs and benefits of stem cell research. Because of the affection for President Reagan and the strength of Nancy Reagan, millions will someday be spared this suffering.

My personal memory of President Reagan will be dominated by his almost magic ability to reach out and touch the American people. Along with Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan stands out as someone who could truly communicate with the American people. Would that the American public today would be able to hear his calm, confident, friendly voice.

He has earned our respect and our thanks. The American people send their condolences and best wishes to Mrs. Reagan and the entire family.

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, June 5, marks the American Hiking Society's 12th annual National Trails Day. This year's theme: ``Trails and Health . . . A Natural Connection.'' More than 1 million people across the country will participate in a trail related activity in observation of this special day.

All 50 states have participated in National Trails Day, along with the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. The significant role trails play in Americans' lives often goes underappreciated--nearly 70% of all Americans 16 or older participate in at least one trail-related activity on the United States' 200,000 miles of trails. The use of trails appeals to almost any individual, allowing access to nature for exercise, study, photography, camping, relaxing, and a variety of other recreational activities.

With an increased rate of obesity amongst Americans and a growing trend of sedentary lifestyles, it makes more sense than ever to take advantage of trails, which provide an excellent means for individuals to incorporate exercise into their lifestyles. I urge every member to take note of the National Trails Day events in their Congressional District and to become involved in a day that celebrates important aspects of livability--health, fitness, and the great outdoors.

Mr. Speaker, I would welcome a constructive approach to help people who are struggling with the consequences of long-term unemployment. For nearly three years now, Oregon has had one of the highest unemployment rates in the entire country. Largely for circumstances beyond our control--the national and international economies, the manipulation of energy markets--Oregonians have suffered. Unfortunately, this bill falls short of providing meaningful help to the 65,000 Oregonians who have lost their jobs during the Bush presidency.

This bill caps the benefit at $3,000 per unemployed worker and provides no assurance that it will approach that much for most people. The one thing that is guaranteed is that recipients are cut off from other Federal programs for one year after they use their ``reemployment accounts.'' This is a poor bargain with no guarantee of success.

Congress can and should do better than create a cynical shell game of taking away funding from existing Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs and reusing them in a lesser, unestablished program. Congress should place its priorities behind what the President campaigned on and existing, productive programs: enhancing Pell Grants, fully funding the WIA, and using the $14 billion already in the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. Congress has established programs that are useful, flexible and creative that can help our 8.2 million unemployed workers. This new draconian proposal is ill-advised and unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, a moment ago we heard the majority leader say that numbers alone do not give the full picture about the economy. Well, I could not agree more, with the spiraling deficit, more tax cuts for people who are already well off, the refusal of the President and the Republican leadership to fund the No Child Left Behind initiative, or ignoring the promises of candidate Bush to enhance Pell Grants, along with a refusal to tap unemployment insurance funds to help the long-term unemployed.

Americans understand that numbers alone do not give the full picture about the economy. But what I find, meeting with the long-term unemployed in my community, they are looking at misplaced priorities and broken promises; and they, like most Americans, do not like what they see.

Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution lays out the framework for next year's Federal Government revenues, spending and borrowing. It is clearly a roadmap for continuing fiscal mismanagement and misplaced priorities.

The budget allows for further tax cuts, which primarily benefit those least in need, while increasing the nation's debt limit to over $8 trillion. The projected $367 billion deficit for 2005

is the result of these policies and this does not include funding for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A serious concern for people who care about the environment and the economy is the failure to fund even the inadequate level required by the House passed transportation reauthorization. The Republican budget resolution assumes $273 billion for transportation, $11 billion less than the $284 billion provided in House legislation and $45 billion less than the Senate-passed funding level. This is wholly inadequate and will have serious consequences for every State in America.

Tax cuts during wartime that benefit the wealthy, shifting fiscal burdens to our children, shortchanging America's priorities, risking the Social Security and Medicare funding on which retirees rely--this budget is at once shameless and shameful.

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the contribution that our friend Charlie Johnson has made to the rules of the House, and that he has provided the context to understand the rules. But I think the thing that I have come to appreciate is the human face that he puts on it. It is the dimension provided by the outstanding men and women who make this place work behind the scenes, that we all come to appreciate.

Charlie, you epitomize those people; and ultimately it is that human face that is going to provide the strength to make sure that the House follows through on the path that you have charted so ably in the past 40 years. We greatly appreciate your contributions.

Mr. Speaker, helping hard-pressed families is a valuable activity here on the floor of the House. We have an opportunity to do it today. Yet my Republican friends are advancing a fundamentally flawed proposal.

For two families each with three children, one making minimum wage, the other over $300,000 a year, my Republican friends propose a new benefit for the family that makes over $300,000. They will however slam the door on the family at minimum wage earning $10,300; no benefit for them.

I keep hoping my Republican friends will show the same compassion for the people who need our help the most as they shower new benefits on those who need our help the least.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the Kennedy- Snyder amendment. This is an area that is inherently controversial, but we have finally put a process in place that helps depoliticize it. The bill, in its current form, represents an unfortunate step backward.

I want to speak to a point my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) raised because I have talked to him repeatedly about what I think is a scandal. We do not deal with the unexploded ordnance and the military clean-up. Yes, there will be some costs that are associated with base closures, but they are costs that are our responsibility now. If we did a better job of cleaning up after ourselves with the toxics, the unexploded ordnance and the pollution, we would save money in the long run and we would not have communities go ballistic. In fact, they would have a resource that could be recycled.

Ultimately, we will have to pay the cost for the military clean-up. Delaying another round of BRAC is not going to save money; it is going to cost money. It is going to delay returning that land to productive use, and it is going to have us engage in politics that will be unseemly and very difficult.

Mr. Chairman, I hope this bill signals the beginning of a different approach from Congress in dealing with Defense Authorization. I'm pleased that there is at least some money for Iraq, with some instructions on how it's to be spent rather than relying exclusively on the discretion of the administration. It is encouraging that more attention is given to the specific needs of our men and women on the ground in Iraq. It's unfortunate that despite hundreds of billions of dollars authorized in previous bills, not enough has made it to our troops for essential things that they need.

The bill continues to spend too much money on the wrong things. The most graphic example is the 13 percent increase for missile defense; $10.2 billion that's critically needed in other areas of homeland security and defense activities.

One other area I take strong exception to is delaying the next round of base closings. Base closings have historically been highly controversial and political, and Congress was unable to deal with it until we had a BRAG process that helped to de-politicize the process. This bill represents an unfortunate step backwards placing politics over economic or military concerns. We continue to have inventory left over from a bygone era of defense needs that is far more than is necessary. It doesn't speak to today's demands, to say nothing of where we're going to be in the future. We have to be able to close and realign military facilities.

Part of the reason that people are upset when a military base is closed is that we do a terrible job of transitioning what can be extraordinarily valuable resources back to the community. If we were to clean them up and recycle them in a way that helped the environment, local governments, and local enterprises, there would be much less reticence. Unfortunately, we hamper communities by not providing the resources or guidance to bring these lands back to productive use. Simply delaying the next round of BRAG closures gives us the worst of both worlds. We have an inappropriate inventory of facilities, and we do nothing to speed the transition that could help everyone--the taxpayers, the military, and the local communities in which they're located.

I am disappointed that my amendment to help the Department of Defense return former military bases back to local communities was not made in order. My amendment would have codified a recommendation by the Defense Science Board, issued in November, 2003, to implement a national Wide Area Assessment for unexploded ordnance (UXO). This assessment would enable the Department to determine the extent of UXO contamination and help restore at least 8 million acres of potentially contaminated sites scattered throughout the country.

This is the largest and arguably the most important authorization Congress takes up each year. It helps shape the largest single federal expenditure. I long for the day when there is a full and open debate and when there's a way to right-size and re-direct these funds. Never has the need been greater. It's unfortunate that this bill continues to miss the mark.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the provision in the FY 2005 Defense Authorization Bill that would finally end the Survivor Benefit Penalty (SBP), a reduction in survivor benefits when a beneficiary reaches age 62. I have heard from many veterans and military families among my constituents who have waited for too long to end this discriminatory policy. Members who signed up for SBP in the 1970s were led to believe they were purchasing annuities that would provide their surviving spouses 55 percent of retired pay for life. After paying decades of premiums, they understandably feel betrayed upon learning that their benefit drops by more than one-third when they reach age 62. To make matters worse, the U.S. Defense Department Actuary has confirmed that the federal subsidy has dropped to 19 percent--far below the 40 percent level Congress intended when the program was first enacted. There could be no more effective way for the Federal government to restore the intended cost-sharing relationship than by raising the age-62 SBP annuity.

I have been a long-standing cosponsor of two free-standing bipartisan bills, H.R. 548 and H.R. 3763, to make this change in the law and eliminate this penalty as quickly as affordable. Unfortunately, these bills remained stuck in committee until a discharge petition was filed a few weeks ago to bring this matter to a vote. I was happy to co-sign that discharge petition, just as I was glad to be one of nearly 170 Democrats in this House to co-sign the letter sent to Congressman Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, urging that this provision be included in this bill. Now we must fight to retain this provision in conference to ensure a 5-year phase-in to finally eliminate this penalty once and for all.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose those provisions in the FY 2005 Defense Authorization Bill which authorize an additional $28 million on the nuclear bunker buster, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, plus $9 million for ``advanced concept initiatives.'' The direction in which the Bush Administration is leading our nation on nuclear weapons policy by steadily increasing funding for this type of de-stabilizing research is reckless and ill-advised. That is why I support the amendment offered by my colleagues, U.S. Representatives Tauscher, Markey, and Spratt, which would have shifted the funding in this bill away from Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator to increase both U.S. intelligence capabilities to get at hard and deeply buried targets and improved conventional bunker-busting capabilities.

The U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, originally planned to spend $45 million on such research between FY2003 and FY2005. According to the Congressional Research Service, DOE now projects spending $71 million through FY2006.

We should be stepping away from researching new tactical nuclear weapons for new uses, not warming to that proposition. We are sending the wrong message to our allies and potential adversaries around the world. When they see the Bush Administration steadily increasing U.S. spending for this kind of research, they are understandably concerned that the U.S. is opening Pandora's box and encouraging the development and procurement of a new generation of nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, this type of research does not make practical, scientific sense.

Supporters of the nuclear bunker buster claim that such weapons would accomplish the destruction of deeply buried targets without causing massive collateral damage. But they ignore some fundamental considerations that are underscored in several recent scientific studies including some by scientists at Princeton University and by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

First, since weapons cannot penetrate very deeply into the ground, then destroying deep hardened targets would require powerful, high- yield nuclear warheads.

Second, it is relatively easy to build a bunker so deep, 1,000 yards underground, that no earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, no matter how large its yield, could destroy such a bunker.

Third, even a small, low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapon will create enormous radioactive fallout because the explosion could not be contained underground. The radioactive debris thrown into the air would drift for miles on the wind.

Fourth, there is no guarantee that a nuclear blast would successfully destroy chemical or biological weapons. In fact, a nuclear attack on a bunker that contains chemical or biological weapons could easily lead to the release and spread of those agents.

Fifth, there are conventional alternatives to the use of nuclear bunker busters. Current

precision-guided conventional weapons could instead be used to cut off a bunker's communications, power, and air supply, thus effectively keeping the enemy weapons underground and unusable until U.S. forces could secure them.

Finally, it is very troubling to me that, while Bush administration officials are quick to point out that no funds are authorized in this bill for production of these weapons, it is worth noting that their preferred federal budget plan over the next 5 years outlines spending $485 million to move into the deployment and engineering phases for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of retaining the BRAC language in the Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005. The bill as it currently stands would postpone BRAC for 2 full years, and require the Pentagon to submit reports by certain dates or BRAC will not take place.

The United States military is being stretched thin due to the war against terrorism and the effort to rebuild Iraq. In addition, the Department of Defense, DOD, is currently considering significant realignments of forces in Europe and Asia while it transforms its forces. While I agree that we should evaluate overseas bases first before considering closing domestic bases, for DOD to make irreversible decisions to close or realign military installations before these changes have been fully considered by both DOD and Congress would be an enormous mistake.

Further, the BRAC process is estimated to cost roughly $15 billion with savings not required until 2011. These funds could be used now for more equipment and supplies for our military troops. Make no mistake, our troops will be in Afghanistan and Iraq for a long time. It is our responsibility to provide them with the necessary resources they need for survival. In addition, savings from previous BRAC rounds are almost entirely due to significant reductions in force structure and end- strength. DOD and Congress are not decreasing either of these; instead, we are increasing end-strength by 39,000 over 3 years and considering increases in force structure.

I also continue to be extremely concerned that if the BRAC round in 2005 commences, we will revert back to pre-World War II days when our valuable military assets were located in very few places. The attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 completely crippled our Pacific Fleet. Further, the September 11th attacks are a fresh reminder that our homeland and our military headquarters, the Pentagon, are susceptible to attacks. History tells us we should not push for more base closures and consolidation of our forces.

Finally, as the BRAC process currently stands, Congress is virtually eliminated from the decision-making process. There has been no effort on the part of DOD to work with Congress on basing locations, rotational plans and policies, and overseas and domestic infrastructure requirements which all directly affect BRAC.

Mr. Chairman, since September 11th, the needs of our Nation continue to change. We are constantly reevaluating what resources we will need in the future. When a base is closed, that asset is lost forever to the community it serves and the military. We have fundamental decisions to make about overseas basing, transformation, and major military deployments before we make BRAC decisions. It is my preference that we eliminate this process completely; however, if Congress decides to move forward on another BRAC round, we have only one opportunity to do this right and Congress must be given the opportunity to provide sufficient oversight of the BRAC process. We cannot afford to act hastily. I urge my colleagues to support the BRAC language currently in H.R. 4200.

Mr. Speaker, the objective of child tax credits should be to help families with children who are in need of assistance and to improve tax fairness. This legislation provides little to no help for a single mother making minimum wage, while increasing the income ceiling allowing parents that earn as much as $300,000 per year to receive tax credits.

Low-income working mothers and fathers pay a disproportionately high cost for providing care to their children so that they can earn a wage outside of the home and stay off of welfare assistance. These are the families most in need of a child tax credit, yet, they are the families that are short-changed and left behind by the Republican tax bill.

The money to provide these tax credits for families making well over $100,000 per year is taken from the thin wallets of families making up to $10,000 per year, who receive no benefit from this legislation, and from borrowed funds that will further increase our record deficit. The inequities of this legislation are unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, I too was struck by the words of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) because I think he has the rhetoric right, but I am concerned about the target for his concern. The Republican bill takes resources and extends them to families who make up to $309,000 a year for a family of three. I have people like that in my neighborhood who would like compassion, who would like some help, who are soccer moms and dads. But frankly, I am more concerned about those parents that do not have the resources to be soccer moms and dads, that parent who has three kids and works at minimum wage and who is left off altogether.

Somehow the concern that we have to raise the level to over $300,000 and ignore the people who are most in need, I find disingenuous and I find it sad.

This is not any confusion about whether or not the Democrats want to provide assistance for the middle class. The millionaire's tax that my Republican colleagues refused to fix on a permanent basis so they can use over a half trillion dollars to mask the costs of further tax cuts for people who need it the least is something that we tried to do something about so they would not be subjected to the millionaire's tax.

But today, we are talking about the child care credit. The Democrat substitute is seeking to focus it where it is needed most, not the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), not my friends in my neighborhood who make over $300,000 a year.

Most important, it is an opportunity for us to step back and think about who our priorities ought to be directed at. He talks about attacks on entrepreneurs because we would have a small surcharge on people who make over a millionaire dollars a year. Yes, it includes some entrepreneurs, it includes some power forwards, it includes some actuaries, but these people have been treated most generously. They have received massive reductions, increased disposable spending. To provide a modest adjustment to help the families most in need is something I can go back to my middle class, my upper middle class, my rich constituents, and I can defend.

Indeed, I do not have to. I have them asking me to do this for poor families. I have CEOs sitting next to me in airplanes saying why are you giving me these tax cuts when there are people who are more in need. I would hope our Republican colleagues would get in touch with those who need help the most.

Mr. Speaker, General John Logan, the national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, officially declared the first Memorial Day to be observed on May 30th, 1868. In a healing moment for our Nation, flowers were placed on the graves of both Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington Cemetery. Our nation was united in our grief.

On this Memorial Day, 136 years later, we are again united in our grief and our respect for our fallen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. Whether speaking of those from the wars of our past or those from our current conflict in Iraq, we acknowledge their valiant service and sacrifice, as well as the void that their loss has left for their families, their communities, and our Nation. In my thoughts now, along with all of those whom we have lost, are six young men from my congressional district who have given their lives in Iraq:

Specialist Brandon Tobler, Corporal Travis Bradach-Nall,

Specialist Christopher Rivera Wesley, Private First Class

William Ramirez, Specialist Philip Rogers, Lance Corporal

Bob W. Roberts.

There are no words that Congress can utter today that would be as noted as the silence of these soldiers. There is no way to express our appreciation and sorrow to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. We can only fulfill our duty to ensure that our men and women in uniform receive the best training and equipment, adequate pay and fair treatment during their service and after. We must then assure our veterans new and old, that they will receive the treatment they have been promised. Most importantly, we must

pledge our valiant and tireless effort for peace and security at home and abroad.