Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding

me this time to speak on this amendment.

This is an example of why our export control regime is broken and badly in need of review. The typical high school teenager's bedroom has more computing power than the United States possessed when it developed the atomic and hydrogen bombs. Our friends and allies are worthy partners to deal with us in the satellite industry. As has been pointed out by my two colleagues in favor of this, what we are doing is we are forcing people to deal with other entities in Europe and around the world, so actually we are undermining the United States' long-term security interests, forcing them to other markets while we undermine American business.

I almost never disagree with my chairman and ranking member, but I would respectfully suggest that this is an illustration of why we need to revise our export control regime. And before and unless we do that, adopting this amendment is good for business, it is good for technology development, and it is common sense. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment this afternoon together with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to provide $800,000 for improved enforcement for the Federal animal fighting law. It is not just enough to fight a law, Mr. Chairman. It must be enforced.

In May, 160 Representatives and Senators requested this $800,000 increase for animal fighting enforcement in letters to the Committee on Appropriation's Subcommittee on Agriculture. The broad, bipartisan support reflects our constituents' concern for meaningful enforcement of the Federal animal fighting law.

Fifty-five State and local sheriff's offices, State police departments from around the country, including Kansas, my home State of Oregon, Colorado, Texas, West Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin and others, have called on Congress to provide this money so that USDA will improve its enforcement for the animal fighting law and have a stronger partner in their efforts.

The increase we seek in our amendment would be offset by a cut of $800,000 in the agricultural building and facilities and rental payments account, only one-half of 1 percent, leaving over $156 million.

Mr. Chairman, in the 27 years since Congress first prohibited most interstate and foreign commerce of animals for fighting, USDA has pursued only a handful of cases, despite receiving a steady stream of tips from informants and requests for State and local police on illegal movement of fighting dogs and birds across State lines.

I was pleased to have the support of so many of our colleagues last year in enacting provisions to the farm bill to close loopholes in the Federal animal fighting law. Now it is time to ensure that the USDA take seriously its responsibilities and has the resources to enforce the law.

The amendment would provide the $800,000 for the Office of Inspector General to focus on animal fighting cases, working closely with State and local law enforcement personnel to complement their efforts.

While dogfighting is banned in all 50 States and cockfighting is banned in 48 States, the Federal Government must be involved, for participants in animal fights often come together from several States at a time and animals are moved across State lines.

This is not some innocent pastime. Dogfighting and cockfighting are barbaric activities in which animals are given drugs to make them hyper-aggressive and drugs to clot their blood more quickly so they can continue fighting. They are pushed by their handlers to fight even after they have suffered grievous injuries, such as pierced lungs and gouged eyes.

Dogfights and cockfights not only are deplorable animal abuse, but they are integrally involved with illegal gambling, drug traffic and violence to people who participate in these activities.

It is well documented that animal fighters often bring their children to these spectacles, sending a terrible message to them about animal cruelty and violence. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs. Some abandon fighting animals, leaving them to roam neighborhoods and wreak havoc. Any dog bred and trained to fight poses a public safety risk.

Mr. Chairman, in October of 2002, the Exotic Newcastle Disease began spreading rapidly across the Southwest United States. Exotic Newcastle Disease is a highly contagious viral disease that affects respiratory, digestive and nervous systems of all birds. This outbreak cost taxpayers upwards of $100 million in containment and compensation fees, and it is very probable the outbreak originated from cockfighting birds imported from Mexico.

According to the State Veterinarian and Director of Animal Health and Food Services in California, game fowl and their owners have played a major role in the dissemination of this virus due to their high mobility related to meetings, training, breeding and fighting activities on a regular basis.

The Texas Poultry Federation takes a similar position in its letter, stating that, cockfighting has spread Exotic Newcastle Disease as their birds travel extensively and come in close contact at fights. It makes no sense to allow illegal cockfighting operations to continue, putting our flocks and livelihood at risk.

Mr. Chairman, surely spending $800,000 to crack down on animal fighting is a smart investment to help prevent the spread of costly future diseases, especially when a significant portion of the eradication expenses the Federal Government has already incurred in the recent outbreak, $11.5 million, according to USDA records, went to compensate owners of birds believed to be illegal fighting cocks.

Why let this illegal industry continue to thrive unchecked?

Animal fighting is no longer simply an animal welfare issue, it is an epidemic that is costing taxpayers millions of dollars, threatening our food supply, and destroying the hard work of American farmers. It promotes illegal gambling and drug activities and puts the public at risk. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just respond very briefly to two points of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

What he describes with the notion of this being a misdemeanor is part of the catch-22 that some of the people in this Congress who are fronting for the illegal fighting animal activities have produced for us. When we had an amendment on the floor that was approved in the farm bill last year, it was to increase the penalties so that it would be easier to pursue. But, sadly, in conference, contrary to the will of the House, these provisions were watered down. So now we can plead, well, it is only a misdemeanor so we should not be involved with it.

The fact is, as I mentioned in my statement, 55 local jurisdictions and State jurisdictions in law enforcement have asked us to come forward, because while these provisions may be misdemeanors, they are tied up in a network of illegal activity that breeds violence, drug, and other activities and is serious. It is not just animal cruelty, if somebody wants to dismiss that.

Second, the gentleman's argument that we cannot afford it I think is a false economy. First of all, I am taking from an account that they have already significantly reduced. It is an area that would already have $156 million. We are only speaking of one-half of 1 percent, but the $800,000 here has the opportunity to prevent vast losses to the Federal Government.

As I pointed out, Exotic Newcastle Disease and all the evidence suggests it is illegal game-fighting that has spread it throughout the Southwest. That is the conclusion from the gentleman's home State of Texas, from California, and has cost us upwards of $100 million that we have had to spend tracking these down, eradicating poultry and other birds and compensating people, including $11.5 million for what are probably illegal fighting cocks.

I would suggest that the gentleman, with all due respect, is not being responsive to the overall economic impact, and it is not simply that we just dismiss as something not worthy of more law enforcement attention. It does not get the attention because the interests that are sympathetic to animal fighting, illegal animal fighting, have deliberately fought to have strong enforcement provisions. The least we can do, the least we can do is provide the resources within the extent of the existing law to cut it back, stop the illegal activity, and prevent the waste of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Mr. Chairman, attached is a letter signed by 122 members requesting this $800,000 increase, as well as a letter of support from the Humane Society of the United States.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 23, 2003.

Hon. Henry Bonilla,

Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rayburn

House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.

Hon. Marcy Kaptur,

Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture,

Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member Kaptur: We are

writing to thank you for your outstanding support in FY 2003

for improved enforcement by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture of key animal welfare laws, and to urge you to

``hold the line'' in FY 2004 so that this effort can be

sustained. Your leadership is making a great difference in

helping to protect the welfare of millions of animals across

the country, including those at commercial breeding

facilities, laboratories, zoos, circuses, airlines, and

slaughterhouses. As you know, better enforcement will also

benefit people by helping to prevent: (1) injuries to

slaughterhouse workers from animals struggling in pain; (2)

orchestrated dogfights and cockfights that often involve

illegal gambling, drug traffic, and human violence; (3) the

sale of unhealthy pets by commercial breeders commonly

referred to as ``puppy mills''; (4) laboratory conditions

that may impair the scientific integrity of animal based

research; (5) risks of disease transmission from, and

dangerous encounters with, wild animals in or during public

exhibition; and (6) injuries and death of pets on commercial

airline flights due to mishandling and exposure to adverse

environmental conditions.

For FY 2004, we want to ensure that the important work made

possible by the FY 2003 budget is continued, that newly hired

and trained inspectors will be able to stay on the job, and

that resources will be used in the most effective ways

possible to carry out these key laws. Specific areas of

concern are as follows:

office of inspector general/$800,000 increase for animal fighting

enforcement

In last year's Farm Bill, Congress enacted provisions that

were overwhelmingly supported in both chambers to close

loopholes in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regarding

cockfighting and dogfighting. Since 1976, when Congress first

prohibited most interstate and foreign commerce in animals

for fighting, USDA has pursued no cockfighting cases and only

three dogfighting cases, despite rampant activity across the

country. USDA has apparently received innumerable tips from

informants and requests to assist with state and local

prosecutors, but routinely ignored or declined such requests.

It is time for USDA to take seriously its responsibility to

enforce the portion of the AWA dealing with animal fighting

ventures. Dogfighting and cockfighting are barbaric

activities in which animals are drugged to heighten their

aggression and forced to keep fighting even after they've

suffered grievous injuries, such as pierced lungs and gouged

eyes. Animal fighting is almost always associated with

illegal gambling, and also often involves illegal drug

traffic and violence toward people. Dogs bred and trained to

fight endanger public safety. Cockfighting has

been linked with the recent outbreak of Exotic Newcastle

Disease that has already destroyed many poultry flocks and

cost taxpayers more than $40 million for containment and

compensation, with costs estimated to rise as high as $250-

$500 million.

Given the dangerous nature of animal fighting enforcement

work, we believe that the department's chief law enforcement

arm--the Office of Inspector General (OIG)--is best suited to

lead this effort. We therefore respectfully request an

increase of $800,000 for the OIG to focus on animal fighting

cases and inclusion of bill language directing the Secretary

to coordinate intelligence gathering, investigation, and

prosecution of animal fighting cases, pursuant to Section 26

of the AWA, through the OIG, working with local and state law

enforcement personnel to complement their efforts, and

drawing on other federal entities including the Attorney

General, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, and

the Office of the General Counsel as needed.

Food Safety and Inspection Service/Humane Methods of Slaughter Act

(HMSA) Enforcement

We greatly appreciate the inclusion of $5 million in the FY

2003 bill to hire at least 50 inspectors whose sole

responsibility will be to ensure that livestock are treated

humanely and rendered unconscious before they are hung upside

down, skinned, dismembered, scalded, or killed. Having these

new inspectors focus on unloading, handling, stunning, and

killing of animals will bring much-needed attention to

slaughter plant practices that have had little oversight in

recent years. We also appreciate your inclusion of language

specifying that the ongoing activities of 17 District

Veterinary Medical Specialists hired as a result of $1

million provided in the FY 2001 Supplemental should be

limited to HMSA enforcement rather than the various unrelated

duties with which they had been charged. And we commend you

for directing the General Accounting Office to review and

report by July 1, 2003 on the scope and frequently of HMSA

violations, with ``recommendations on the extent to which

additional resources for inspection personnel, training, and

other agency functions are needed to properly regulate

slaughter facilities in the areas of HMSA enforcement.''

There are nearly 900 federally inspected slaughter plants

in the U.S., handling millions of animals each day. In

addition to requesting continued funds in FY 2004 to sustain

at least 50 new inspectors and the 17 positions mentioned

above, we hope you will give full consideration to any

recommendations the GAO may have for enhancing enforcement of

this important--and very basic--law.

APHIS/Animal Welfare Enforcement

Thanks to funding increases in the past four years,

Congress has enabled USDA to begin to reverse a serious

decline in the number of AWA compliance inspections. However,

the President's FY 2004 budget proposal--which suggests $1.7

million less for the Animal Care division than in FY 2003--

would fail to cover the salaries of recently-hired inspectors

and substantially undo the gains Congress has made possible.

Moreover, there is still much room for improvement. Many

facilities continue to escape oversight for long periods of

time, giving rise to situations that threaten both human and

animal health and safety. Nearly half of the sites that do

get inspected are found to have apparent violations of the

minimum standards under the Act and, therefore, follow-up

visits are badly needed. We urge you to sustain Animal

Welfare funding at the FY 2003 appropriated level of $16.4

million, in order to keep the current number of inspectors

(approximately 100 to oversee about 10,000 sites).

Again, we are very grateful for the Subcommittee's

leadership in addressing enforcement needs for key animal

welfare laws. We hope you will stay the course, so that funds

necessary to administer these laws effectively will continue

to be available and will be appropriately used. We look

forward to working with you in the coming year, and thank you

for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Christopher Smith, Earl Blumenauer, Thomas Tancredo,

Robert Andrews, Mark Green, Elton Gallegly, Roscoe

Bartlett, Gary Ackerman, David Wu, William Delahunt,

James Moran, Louise Slaughter, Steven LaTourette, Frank

LoBiondo, Dennis Kucinich, David Price, James McGovern,

Steve Israel, Tammy Baldwin, Bob Filner, Barney Frank,

Tim Ryan, Rush Holt, Rick Larsen, Jerry Costello, Jim

Leach, Steven Rothman, Nancy Johnson, James Langevin,

Michael Ferguson, Gary Ackerman, George Miller, Carolyn

Maloney, Mark Udall, Vic Snyder, Jim Saxton, Rob

Simmons, Anthony Weiner, Donald Payne, Johnny Isakson,

Richard Neal, Frank Wolf,

Neil Abercrombie, Dennis Moore, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Ellen

Tauscher, Judy Biggert, Luis Gutierrez, Michael Doyle,

Karen McCarthy, Jerrold Nadler, Janice Schakowsky,

Robert Wexler, Phil English, Mike Thompson, Peter

DeFazio, Dale Kildee, Sherrod Brown, Frank Pallone,

Elijah Cummings, Zoe Lofgren, Robert Menendez, Jay

Inslee, Joseph Hoeffel III, Michael Bilirakis, Bernard

Sanders, Chris Shays, Henry Waxman, Brad Sherman,

Charles Rangel, Fred Upton, Tom Lantos, Hilda Solis,

John Tierney, Peter Deutsch, Edward Whitfield, Lloyd

Doggett, Edolphus Towns, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Barbara

Lee, Major Owens, Adam Smith, Eliot Engel, Michael

Honda, Lane Evans, Julia Carson, Corrine Brown, William

Clay, Jr., Brian Baird, Adam Schiff, Grace Napolitano,

Robert Matsui, Albert Wynn, Anthony Weiner, Martin

Meehan, Nicholas Lampson, Thomas Allen, Nancy Pelosi,

Patrick Kennedy, Sherwood Boehlert, Anna Eshoo, Sander

Levin, Shelby Berkley, James Clyburn, Howard Berman,

Jim McDermott, Nydia Velazquez, Gene Green, John Lewis,

Lynn Woolsey, Sanford Bishop, Jr., Charles Gonzalez,

Michael Capuano, Benjamin Cardin, Ed Case, Harold Ford,

Jr., Pete Stark, Stephen Lynch, William Lipinski,

Charles Bass, Clay Shaw, Jr., Jim Greenwood.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this resolution this afternoon and commend him, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

There is truly a bipartisan consensus on our committee that the time has long since passed for us to address the critical need to change the regime in Burma and to be able to recognize the courage of Aung San Suu Kyi, the potential we have there to have a transformational effect in that troubled country.

It was my great privilege to spend an afternoon with my children in her compound when she was under house arrest. Watching the harassment we went through just to go there with the charge, thinking about what that represented, this brave woman, insightful, being surrounded by thugs at a time when her country was ravaged in terms of AIDS, in terms of economic deprivation, in terms of the atrocities that have been documented on this floor already this afternoon in terms of what the junta has inflicted upon their people.

It seems to me that it is an opportunity for us at a time when people want the United States to throw its weight around the world that we focus on this troubled country that has a recognized leader, that has the potential for us to bring together the force that we saw in South Africa, to be able to focus time, energy, attention in a peaceful fashion but to force the junta to know that we mean business as it regards Burma. I am one that will continue to call it Burma unless and until that name is changed by the democratic majority of that country, and I think the name is a small symbol of why we need to stand up to push back.

This resolution, I think, is a starting place. But beyond that, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that there will be an opportunity for Members in this Chamber to pick up this cause, to beat this drum, to carry it to those who are in business, NGO, other governments, because I think there is now an opportunity for this consensus to work.

I am pleased with the work that our committee has done, I hope the House will unite behind it, and I hope that each Member of this Chamber will find something that he or she can do to advance this important cause.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2214.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 1: Under the heading ``Agriculture Buildings

and Facilities and Rental Payments'', insert after the dollar

amount on page 5, line 1, the following: ``(reduced by

$800,000)''.

Under the heading ``Office of the Inspector General'',

insert after the dollar amount on page 7, line 18, the

following: ``(increased by $800,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education appropriations bill is a logical consequence of misplaced priorities in the budget resolution and tax cut proposals that have been pushed through the House of Representatives this year. Despite the overwhelming support from people in my community and around the country for investing in the future, and for funding our commitments in the President's signature No Child Left Behind legislation, this bill would systematically undercut funding promises. This Congress has authorized funding levels that would help school districts implement costly new programs and provide Pell Grants to help low-income college students struggling in a difficult economy. The House finds itself allocating far less than it authorized just months ago for IDEA programs. The administration's fiscal management leaves us with shamefully low funding levels for these programs and soaring budget deficits.

While our school districts fight their own fight back home, this Labor/HHS bill cuts education funding for Oregon's children by a total of $98,039,089 below the levels authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act and the IDEA Reauthorization Act. This is illustrative of the impact that will be felt in every state, and we ought to avoid this added burden on the nation's school systems.

At a time when so much has been done for a few who need help the least with massive tax cuts, it is unconscionable that we are not meeting obligations under prior legislation or even the minimal levels established under the Republican Budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make in order an opportunity for an alternative proposal from my colleagues Ellen Tauscher and Cal Dooley, in the form of H.R. 1568. Looking carefully at the arguments from both sides of the aisle on the proposals before us today, I am inclined to think that they are both right. There are egregious problems in the proposal by the Republicans. It is going to have serious dislocative effects; it doesn't adequately meet the needs of low-income people; it could actually deteriorate prescription drug coverage for others; and, it extends services to many who do not need it.

The Democratic alternative is well-intentioned and more generous, but there are questions about whether this will be affordable over time. We may be biting off more than we can sustain as Medicare goes into a time of severe strain with regard to cost and the capacity to meet the needs of an exploding retirement population.

I continue to be troubled that low income senior citizens without drug coverage pay the highest prices in the world for their medicines. This is intolerable. There is real potential to harness the vast purchasing power of the United States to negotiate better prices, the same way private employers, local governments and hospitals do. The power of the free market and negotiation should not be denied to the sector that would benefit from it the most. There is no reason that the nation's Medicare recipients should pay a higher price for the same drugs that recipients who are part of our veterans program receive. We can craft a program that is not unduly coercive, and does not lead to a disruption of the drug industry. The pharmaceutical industry needs to be more accommodating of this approach, or I feel that they will inevitably end up with far more draconian solutions. They cannot continue to mine gold from low income senior citizens.

The alternative that I would rather have had on the floor today would expend the same

amount of money that we have determined is affordable, and target it to low-income seniors without coverage, and people with extraordinarily high prescription drug needs. That is where we should target our Medicare resources. It would permit us to keep promises made to help remedy this serious situation. It does not over commit, and leaves the way open for subsequent Medicare reform. It would appear that if either of the other two bills were adopted, it would make long term reform more difficult and would pose significant budget pressures at a time when our fiscal policies are in disarray.

I truly think this is one of those times when less actually is more, and being careful will pay long-term dividends. I am voting accordingly, against the two alternatives, and hope that Congress will reach the point where we can have a more targeted, sustainable, and effective approach that can provide a foundation for future reform.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I come today with deep respect for the hard work that this subcommittee has done. I think it may be the toughest subcommittee in the House given the amazing pressures in terms of the military requirements of our country during a difficult time. This is a difficult budget, and there are crosscurrents that I cannot even imagine, but I get a little hint as I look from a distance.

My special interest has been in an area dealing with unexploded ordnance, being able to protect people at home and abroad from the consequences of everything from landmines to training munitions that are unexploded. This has been an area that I have been deeply troubled with. It is an area that around the country there are potentially millions of acres in the United States that are so affected; and when we look at what has happened overseas, whether it is in the war in Southeast Asia and Vietnam, Afghanistan, what is going on right now in Iraq, and we just had a boy back home die this week in my community as a result of efforts trying to clear landmines.

Around the world, over 300 million landmines have been built, and 75 million that have been placed remain undetonated.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am deeply appreciative of the spirit of cooperation from the chairman and ranking member and willingness to work with us.

We had made a request initially of $20 million before the subcommittee. Frankly, as I watched what moved through the process, I thought we had identified an area with the new generation of ballistic missile defense interceptor, additional research that frankly would be a higher priority. But given the strong encouragement to work with the subcommittee and their willingness to work with us, I look forward to working with them to make sure that at least the $20 million is there to protect Americans at home and abroad. Candidly, Mr. Chairman, it is not just going to save our fighting men and women. I would just conclude on the notion that every single day civilians, including a sad number of children, are killed and maimed as a result of landmines and unexploded munitions. This investment will reap dividends for generations to come. I deeply appreciate the cooperation of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon

Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my support for the efforts of public transportation advocates around the country.

Today, the National Alliance of Public Transportation Advocates (NAPTA) is distributing a letter to the Hill, which asks Congress to double the investment in public transportation to $14 billion by FY2009 when it reauthorizes the federal surface transportation program.

Providing increased, guaranteed transit funding is critical to improving the livability of our communities. In Portland, we have been proud to be leaders in understanding the connection between land use and transportation. Our light rail system has not only provided additional choices to our residents, it has also helped with environmental problems.

Portland's transit system, Tri-Met, has the 13th largest ridership in the nation, despite being only the 29th largest transit district. Rider totals increased 65 percent the last decade. This growth is a reflection of the increased transit investment provided by the federal, state and local levels. In my community, transit truly is making a difference in the quality of life for our citizens.

NAPTA also points to the strong success of such existing programs as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Enhancements, and Transportation and Community and System Pilot Preservation Program (TCSP).

Communities nationwide are experiencing the flexibility and freedom of having more public transportation choices. For every federal dollar invested in public transportation as many as $6 are returned in congestion reduction, safety benefits and access to economic opportunity. At the same time, 47,500 jobs are created for each $1 billion invested. Increasing guaranteed federal funding in public transportation can bring these benefits to people across the country.

Mr. Chairman, hometown security should be our number one priority to ensure the American public is safe from terrorism--both domestic and foreign.

The federal government has made significant commitments, but unfortunately these have been more show than substance. The most recent example is the budget for the homeland security appropriations. I know from my own experience that there are vast unmet needs in every community around the country, and Oregon is on exception. The federal government should be helping communities to pay for the costly precautions that local governments must take to respond to high level security alerts, the effects of which ripple through crippled local budgets. We have yet to make local governments whole from the federal government imposed shut down of airports following September 11th. There are vast and clear needs for the Coast Guard which this budget virtually ignores.

We are lavishing hundreds of billions in tax relief for those who need it the least when we are investing billions of dollars in questionable military expenditures, like theater missile defense or Star Wars. It inexcusable that we do not do a better job of listening to and meeting the needs of our local communities around the country. I, in good conscience, find it very hard to vote for this appropriation and hope that we will send the message that Congress should step up and make its action match its rhetoric and the need.

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the Republican leadership taking a non-controversial, bipartisan bill and adding provisions to turn it into a divisive and bitter battle. The underlying bill contains technical changes and provisions that would make it easier for taxpayers to manage the tax system. We all support these changes and this bill would pass unanimously without the games the leadership insists on playing.

Unfortunately, the games they are playing pose terrible threats to many working men and women across the country. In this instance, Republican leadership has included a provision that strikes important health insurance standards protecting workers laid-off as a result of trade-related competition.

Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, enacted just last year, provides for a tax credit for 65 percent of the cost of health coverage for eligible individuals and qualified family members and establishes protections designed to ensure coverage for all participants. H.R. 1528 undermines the consumer protection provisions provided in the current TAA law and would essentially allow insurers to avoid covering workers 55 and older, who are the majority of TAA participants.

The timing of this could not be worse considering the President was only recently granted Trade Promotion Authority by Congress and we are moving quickly on free trade agreements with several countries and regions around the world.

Overall, these free trade agreements will benefit our economy, but there will be sectors that will lose out to foreign competition. Knowing this, Trade Adjustment Assistance programs and benefits have been set up to help those negatively impact by free trade.

I am appalled at the Republican leadership's ability to take a productive, bipartisan bill that benefits taxpayers across the country, which the underlying bill does, and risk it all by including a provision that hurts American workers.

Mr. Speaker, in the Oregon legislature some years ago, I actually led, as Chair of a tax committee, a reform of the estate tax. I thought I understood some of the principles; but after listening to the rhetoric regarding this issue, looking at the facts since I have been a Member of Congress, I thought maybe I would go back and check to see if there was something I was missing.

I invited a number of tax professionals in my community, CPAs, tax attorneys, financial planners, to come down and talk to me about how the effect of this proposal actually works. It was fascinating, giving these people a grant of immunity, and I urge any of my colleagues to do the same with tax professionals in their community.

They said, number one, under existing law anybody who could not shield at least $5 million of an estate was really guilty of malpractice.

Number two, they said it was not the estate tax that broke up small business. It was idiot sons, and they said in their experience when they watch great inherited wealth after three generations, it looks like it becomes a genetic defect. It was fascinating what they told me, people who in the main were Republicans who work in this every day.

They pointed out that huge wealth, which would be tax free under the Republican proposal today, huge wealth often was not even taxed once. One does not become a billionaire based on their W-2s.

It is capital appreciation. And the clever approach of eliminating the inheritance tax, eliminating dividends from taxation means that you will be able to manipulate it, while people with great means will not be paying any tax at all if they do not want to.

If my colleagues truly wanted to help protect the family farm and small business, they would join together with the vast bipartisan consensus in this Chamber to index the inheritance tax to be able to deal with the Pomeroy amendment, which actually would help the mother of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), not the proposal that he is going to vote for.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that we approve the Pomeroy amendment.

Mr. Speaker, people who care about the environment were heartened 2 weeks ago when the administration declared that it would uphold the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. But alas, the other shoe dropped.

Last week, the administration proposed exempting Alaska's national forests from the roadless rule, reopening them to logging and roadbuilding. Even more troubling, the administration will also turn over significant authority over our Federal forests to the States, allowing governors to provide for exemptions.

Allowing States to exempt themselves from our national environmental laws is not a healthy precedent. States have a mixed record when it comes to environmental stewardship. They are too often overwhelmed by understandable local interest from snowmobiles to timber to water. We need a strong presence. These are, after all, our national forests.

Rather than the administration's vigorous enforcement of environmental laws, this is another example of a settlement to further erode, rather than strengthen and uphold. There are about 50 pending timber sales in roadless areas in Alaska currently protected under the roadless rule that are ready to go forward when the Tongass exemption is finalized.

Despite the assurances that 95 percent of the Alaska's forests will be protected, the remaining 5 percent allows hundreds of thousands of acres which are among the most valuable for both the timber companies and the environment. This roadless conservation rule was developed during the last 3 years of the Clinton administration. It was finalized after the most extensive public outreach process in history. Six hundred public hearings and more than 1.6 million official comments overwhelmingly in support of this initiative.

The rule protects 58\1/2\ million acres of pristine national forests in 39 States. In my State alone, in Oregon, 2 million acres would have been protected.

The independent editorial boards around the country have zeroed in. In The New York Times, it pointed out that this is part of a continued assault on environmental protections. From day one, the Bush administration has sought to unravel the intricate tapestry of rules and regulations that have shielded the national forests from excessive logging and other commercial activities.

In the last 6 months alone, the administration has finalized or proposed new rules that would short-circuit environmental reviews, restrict public participation in land-use decisions, and weaken safeguards for endangered species.

The administration's latest target is the roadless rule. The San Franciso Chronicle pointed out the administration's pattern of disingenuousness. The Bush administration's doublespeak about the environment reached a new level of shamelessness this week when

it announced it was retaining the roadless rule and then an announcement that it would prohibit logging on 95 percent of Alaska's national forest. Let none be fooled. What the Bush administration did was carve out huge exceptions and loopholes through a thoroughly vetted and well-balanced, popularly-supported plan to protect the ever shrinking swath of untrampled national forests.

In the Boston Globe last week, National forests are called that because they belong to the Nation as a whole, not the governors, and certainly not to the administration in Washington, who has put a former timber lobbyist in charge of them.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune, the administration's version of the roadless rule for the National forests to be published later this month, is portrayed by its authors as a fine tuning of what was arguably the Clinton administration's most important wilderness initiative. Right. It strains credibility for Clinton's successors having relentlessly assailed the rule, to claim that they are now prepared to accept it with minor modifications. Indeed, there is nothing minor about the modifications the Interior Department outlined. Fine tuning with such changes is akin to edging a lawn with a chain saw. Edging a lawn with a chain saw. Not fine tuning.

Mr. Speaker, the American people and their forests deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, people who care about the environment were heartened 2 weeks ago when the administration declared they would uphold the roadless area conservation rule. But alas, the other shoe dropped. Last week the administration announced it would be proposing new regulations to exempt Alaska's national forests from the rule, reopening them to logging and road-building. More troubling, the administration will also turn over significant authority over Federal forests to States, allowing governors to apply for exemptions.

As pointed out by the Boston Globe on June 15, the national forests are called that because they belong to the Nation as a whole, not to governors, and certainly not to an administration in Washington that has put a former timber lobbyist in charge of them. Now the Bush administration is doing its best to turn over large sections of the forest to timber companies in spite of a Clinton administration rule that would have protected them. The result is the largest, most extensive rulemaking in United States history is now being undertaken, and it is a tragedy.