Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, with the passage of this landmark legislation, the United States has taken an immense step towards recognizing both the severity of the global HIV/AIDS epidemic, and our own humanitarian interest in treating and preventing the spread of this disease.

The HIV/AIDS crisis is just the tip of the iceberg for health in developing nations. The task of building communities that are safe, healthy and economically secure at home and abroad cannot be achieved when a disabling portion of our global population is sick, orphaned or dying. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is affecting all races, all ages and all nations and we must all work together to solve this serious public health crisis.

We have more at stake these days than just dealing with the AIDS epidemic, important as it is. I hope that the thoughtful approach taken by the administration and Congress on this measure will be a template for moving forward in other critical areas we must address, such as homeland security, our stalled economy, and other perilous issues in the international arena.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time and his courtesy in allowing me to speak on this important issue.

I think we are all impressed with the gravity of the myriad of issues that deal with national defense and security. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things that I would speak on, but there is one in particular that concerns me. I had an opportunity to hear, Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee reference some of the rationale for short- circuiting the environmental protections that we have come to rely on that deal with our Department of Defense and under this bill would actually be extended to other armies of the Federal Government.

There was reference made to Camp Pendleton. You saw the map and then

you saw overlays that made it appear as though 57 percent of 125,000 acres were unavailable for training activities.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we ought to, I know there is no time to debate it, there is no time to fully be engaged in amendments that would allow the give and take that this body and the American public and the military deserve, but let me just suggest that between now and when we finally deal with the passage of this legislation, maybe we can clear up this one little item.

I have here a map that shows, according to information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Marine Corps itself, how much has been set aside for critical habit. It is 840 acres, and I have them outlined here. According to, again, the judge in place here in Fish and Wildlife, it would not interfere with amphibious landings, 840 acres, not 57 percent, when you went through and you used the process with Fish and Wildlife, with the Department of Defense, with the Marine Corps, which actually happened.

Now, I find, Mr. Chairman, that using short-circuited activity like this, exaggerating the problems, is not helping us at all.

The real threats to military readiness are here on this map; and they are encroachment from Oceanside, from Vista, from Fallbrook, from San Clemente. Does this bill have anything in it that deals with military encroachment like recently-passed legislation in the California legislature? No, it is silent. It just wants to gut environmental protections. We have a nuclear power plant that is located right here, Interstate 5, and we have areas that are a popular California State Park.

These are issues that affect military readiness. This bill ignores them. It would just simply gut environmental protection.

My experience, Mr. Chairman, is that when we give our fighting men and women the right resources and the right orders, they can accomplish anything. And we should be directing that they protect the environment, they clean up after themselves, and they solve problems, not eliminating simple commonsense environmental protections that, after all, not only protect everybody in this area, but they ultimately protect the fighting men and women, their families, and the overall Earth that we inhabit.

Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress with the goal to promote more livable communities, that the Federal Government should be a better partner with the State and local governments, with private sector to make our families safe, healthy and economically secure. My colleagues can imagine my dismay when this week we are given a proposal in the Defense reauthorization bill that is the antithesis of this nature of partnership to promote livable communities.

It would exempt the military, not just the military actually, but all Federal agencies from certain aspects of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The bill includes a proposal that eliminates critical habitat designation altogether on all lands owned or controlled by the military.

The bill includes a rider to exempt the Department of Defense at Fort Huachuca in Arizona from any responsibility for off-base ground water pumping that threatens the existence of the San Pedro River.

Mr. Speaker, this outrageous provision that was included in the reauthorization comes less than a month after the Secretary of the Army gave the fort an environmental award for solving it, and now Congress is going to undo this in the reauthorization.

The United States is the wealthiest and most powerful Nation in the world. Our Armed Forces are the most able, the best equipped, the finest fighting force, and they are people that can get the job done. We ought to be able to figure out how to address real problems with the environment without compromising the survival of what we are fighting to protect.

The legislation is unnecessary on so many different levels. First of all, there is already a waiver provision that has been in these laws for years. If there is a military necessity to waive environmental regulations, there is a provision that is available. There has never been an instance of military necessity where a waiver has been requested and not granted, never, not once.

It also misses a real threat to military readiness, what the military and those who are studying the issue term ``encroachment.'' The same sprawl and unplanned growth that threatens farm and forest lands, pollutes our air and water, and congests our roadways is a real threat to the ability to train and maintain the world's mightiest fighting force. Across the country, from Fort Stewart, Georgia, to Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, development is threatening the Armed Forces' ability to fly planes, maneuver and conduct other readiness activities.

The State of California has recognized this and has worked out legislation with the Department of Defense to deal with the long-term operations of military installations to provide the military, environmental organizations, and local planning agencies the tools to work together to fight problems of sprawl and unplanned growth. This is ignored by the legislation before us.

It is also wrong on a fundamental level. It is missing the opportunity to use the Department of Defense to set the highest standards because we know, given adequate resources and the right orders, they can achieve any mission, and we should use this opportunity.

Finally, there is a fundamental arrogance and hypocrisy that the Federal Government's rules and regulations are necessary to protect the environment and will impose among small business, will impose among local government that we will not hold ourselves to that standard. That hypocrisy runs against the grain. It is obnoxious to people in the real world. It ought to be abhorrent to the people in this chamber. We ought to have the Federal Government lead by example.

In order to win the battle to protect the world's environment, we ought to provide some leadership, and a critical part of leadership in this country has always been the military. To send them a signal that environmental stewardship does not matter and they do not have to play by the rules is the wrong signal for them and the rest of America, and it is certainly the wrong

direction for our efforts to protect endangered species and the health of our oceans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I caught a note common to both my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), that this is too important to play politics.

There is much divergence on opinion in terms of forest health. There are those in the environmental community that would point out that heavily logged areas actually are those that have suffered most in firefighting.

But there are many areas of agreement. The Democratic substitute captures those areas of agreement. It would focus funding and fire protection activity where it is needed most, in the sensitive interface surrounding communities. It would require that 85 percent of the funding be spent in and around those same communities and water supplies. It keeps the activities out of the controversial areas, like the roadless areas and old-growth forests. It shortens the appeals process but does not shut out the public or tamper with judicial review. Most importantly, it starts rebuilding trust between the many parties that are constantly at odds regarding policies regarding public land.

I understand why some of our friends in the rural communities, some of our environmental friends, get extremely cranky about this. We need to start rebuilding a sense of confidence and trust that we can work together to solve problems. This Democratic substitute would do so.

It would, unlike the underlying bill, actually put authorized money, $4.5 billion, that could be spent to help these timber-dependent communities revitalize their local economies, putting people to work to make communities safer.

In the long run, unless we are willing to take a broader view of what goes on in the flame zone where the drought areas are and those that have development encroaching in the forestlands, unless and until we change our view about how we manage and protect them, we are going to be faced with this problem time and time again.

But as dangerous as forest fires are, I would suggest as far as this institution, an inability of our being able to come together to work cooperatively to build the trust out in the broader community is equally as dangerous, equally as troubling.

I am going to vote against the rule and hope that we can change the nature of it so that people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I on this side of the aisle can debate our legitimate differences, offer up proposals, but allow the whole House to work its will.

Mr. Speaker, the House is about to consider the defense authorization bill that, sadly, is seriously flawed. It would exempt not only the military but all Federal agencies from certain aspects of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Instead of addressing real threats to readiness, the administration and Congress is taking on an easier target, the dolphins. Using defense as cover, the Republicans propose to make changes to environmental laws in ways which have nothing to do with defense readiness, suggesting that was not their goal in the first place.

The bill would take out one of the key provisions of the ESA by requiring that only critical habitat that is deemed necessary shall be designated. Without a definition of necessary, this invites abuse and applies to all Federal lands, not just the Department of Defense.

The bill also includes the Department of Defense proposal eliminating critical habitat designation altogether on lands owned or controlled by the military.

The bill contains a rider to exempt the Department of Defense at Fort Huachuca in Arizona from any responsibility for off-base groundwater pumping that threatens the existence of the San Pedro River. This rider was not requested by the Department of Defense, nor does it address military training or preparedness, and it has created a firestorm in the State of Arizona.

The authorization bill weakens the Marine Mammal Protection Act, weakening the current definition of harassment of marine mammals. It applies to all ocean users, not just the Department of Defense.

Finally, it allows the Department to exempt itself from the Marine Mammal Protection Act for anything necessary for national defense. It excludes any meaningful involvement of the wildlife agencies, the States, Congress and the public in review of these exemptions.

Our military activities are the largest source of pollution in the country. We are the wealthiest and most powerful and most polluting country in the world. We ought to be able to figure out how to better address this problem without compromising the environmental survival of what we are fighting to protect. Given the right direction and adequate resources, our military can achieve tremendous results.

The exemptions we are debating this week are wrong on so many different levels.

First of all, the legislation is unnecessary. There is already a waiver provision in place in the law for years. There has never been a case where for military necessity a waiver has not been granted. Never, not one. Not one example has been produced before the committees that are examining this.

Additionally, it misses the real threat to military readiness, what is termed encroachment. This is the same sprawl and unplanned growth that threatens our farms and forestlands, pollutes our air and water, and congests our roadways, and this is a real threat to our ability to train and maintain the world's mightiest fighting force.

Across the country, from Ft. Stewart, Georgia, to Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, development is threatening the armed forces' ability to fly planes, maneuver and conduct other readiness activities. This has led the State of California to pass their Senate bill 1468 which recognizes the long-term operations of military installations must involve a partnership between the State, local agencies and the Federal Government.

It provides the military, environmental organizations and local planning agencies the tools to work together to fight common enemies of military readiness like suburban sprawl. But this proposal is completely absent from the legislation coming before us.

The defense authorization bill is also wrong on a very fundamental level. It is missing an opportunity to use the Department of Defense to set the highest standards. Again, given adequate resources and the right orders, our Department of Defense can achieve any mission. We are missing that opportunity.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental arrogance and hypocrisy that somehow the Federal Government's rules and regulations are necessary to protect the environment. We will impose them on small business or local government but not on us ourselves. It is the wrong signal and the wrong direction to protect endangered species and the health of our planet.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments about some increased complexity and efforts that may be required. I find it ironic that as we look at some of the complexity we have now for the protection of those who need it the least, we do not get too upset about it; but when we are talking about ordinary working men and women, a little bit of complexity, a little bit of regulation I think is not only in order, but I represent thousands of people in my community who would welcome it today.

Enron purchased a locally owned electric utility in my community called Portland General Electric, a straightforward organization that had been working providing service in our community for generations.

In a few short years, because of the manipulation, the lack of complexity, the lack of oversight, these people had their lives turned upside down. Men and women who had been investing for years took the representations of what you can only regard as corporate bandits at face value and ended up losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, pushing back their retirement for years.

We found the manipulation of Texas-based Enron wash through the West. It has raised utility rates dramatically in our community, putting people out of work and some companies out of business.

I welcome the Miller substitute that would make sure that everybody plays by the same rules; that everybody has perhaps a little bit of complexity, but a whole lot of security. It will protect older employees with a choice on pension conversion, and it will provide more freedom and better information about how their money is managed.

Mr. Speaker, if this had been in place 5 years ago, there would be thousands of Oregonians that could retire today in dignity, not having their lives turned upside down.

I urge support of the Miller substitute.

Mr. Speaker, while the headlines deal with the United States' struggle against terrorism and securing the peace in Iraq after the war, there is another less heralded battle, that is, for the world's environment, literally saving the planet.

When it comes to pure military might, the United States is unsurpassed. No one is even close. On the battle to save the planet, the prognosis is not quite so positive. Sea levels are rising, glaciers are retreating, pollution around the world is on the rise, energy consumption by both the United States and the developing world is increasing, large swaths of forests continued to be devoured, the world's fisheries depleted, and coral reefs dying.

In the United States, on the environmental front, when not missing in action, is certainly not as aggressive in leadership as other developed countries in Europe and Japan. The world's greatest polluter and energy consumer is not accepting our responsibility in our capacity as the world's wealthiest and most powerful Nation.

Ironically, part of the solution is to be found with our Defense Department. The greatest source of pollution in the United States is associated with our military and the testing and development of weapons. The most serious and dangerous, of course, is the nuclear waste in various parts of the country. We have it in our Pacific Northwest. But there are sites large and small in every State of the Union, literally tens of millions of acres.

The United States has made a tremendous investment in training the finest fighting force in the world. We have made a huge financial outlay. A small portion of that outlay could be devoted to cleaning up after ourselves and protecting the environment.

Sadly, the House will soon be debating a proposal that is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Resources are looking at legislation that would completely exempt the Department of Defense from following environmental rules and regulations. It is wrong on so many different levels.

First of all, there is no need for the legislation. There has never been an example where a waiver that is able, under current law, to be authorized has ever been denied. There has never been an instance of military necessity for training where a waiver has not been granted; not once.

The consequences of military activity occur in many unexpected ways: perchlorate pollution in lettuce in the Imperial Valley, polluted drinking water on Martha's Vineyard. Three times since I have been in Congress we have had to pull firefighters out of the woods because unexploded ordnance has been exploding around them. Exempting, exempting the military from commonsense environmental regulations that apply to the rest of America would put more of our service people at risk, put their families at risk, put their neighbors at risk of bad air, bad water, dangerous practices.

It also misses the real threat to military readiness: the notion of land use encroachment. The same sprawl and unplanned growth that threatens farm and forest land, pollutes our air and water, and congests our roadways is a real threat to our ability to train and maintain the world's mightiest fighting force. Failure to plan and manage these impacts is a serious, ongoing problem that is ignored by the pending legislation.

It is also wrong on the most fundamental level. It is missing an opportunity to use the Department of Defense to set the highest standards. My experience with our military personnel is that given the right resources, the right orders, they can achieve any mission. If part of their order is to protect the environment, to clean up from past mistakes, to set standards of environmental stewardship, they will hit a homerun every time. It would have a transformational effect for the world dealing with tragic debris, environmental carnage of past actions.

There is also a fundamental arrogance and hypocrisy that the Federal Government's rules and regulations are necessary to protect the environment. It will impose them on a small business or local government, but not on the

United States Government. Indeed, there are those who would try to work to take this misguided military exemption to try and extend it to all Federal activities. That would be a tragedy. It would not only underscore fundamental hypocrisy; it would put more pressure on small business and local governments and individuals because the Federal Government refuses to do its part.

In order to win the battle to protect the environment, America must provide leadership. A critical part of that leadership has always been our military. To send them a signal that environmental stewardship does not matter and that they do not have to play by the same rules the rest of us do is the wrong signal for them; it is the wrong signal for the rest of America; and it is certainly the wrong direction for our efforts against global warming, air and water pollution.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope the House will have the presence of mind to reject this wrong-headed approach.

Mr. Speaker, in Oregon the economic pain of unemployment and state budget deficits is not an abstraction. The nation's highest unemployment rate of 7.6 percent is compounded by failure of the federal government to meet its commitments for hometown security, healthcare and education. Not only is the rate of unemployment high, many are experiencing long-term unemployment. Nationally, nearly 2 million workers have been out of work for at least 6 months, the highest level in 20 years.

Oregonians are clear about their priorities:

(a) Education--We must fully fund IDEA and the President's own signature education bill.

(b) Healthcare--Oregon's budget crisis is forcing reductions, cuts and closures to critical programs for our seniors, disadvantaged, and poor. We must fund these basic services.

(c) Spending on Crumbling Bridges--Infrastructure investments put people to work tomorrow, improve economic efficiency and better our communities. Replacing Oregon's bridges will cost over $4 billion and would provide 190,000 jobs and $25 billion in economic activity.

(d) Hometown Security--My constituents are concerned about security from terrorism and health threats such as SARS. We should invest in projects and programs that will make our communities safer and healthier.

(e) Unemployment Benefits--We need to extend the unemployment benefits due to expire.

We should reject the Enron-style accounting used in this tax bill, which distorts the true costs and intent of the tax cut package. The Republican estimate of ``only'' $550 billion was accomplished by putting in unrealistic ``sunsets'' to various tax provisions. The tax cuts they have every intention of making permanent will increase deficits by over $1.1 trillion if in place over the next 10 years.

Current budget realities, a wavering economy, and international conflicts have resulted in tumultuous and complicated times. However, a simple course of fiscal responsibility and domestic security can be achieved by taking common sense actions:

No tax cuts before we meet our obligations;

Be honest about the actual costs of tax cuts and spending;

Meet federal obligations to programs that are staggering state and local budgets;

Help those who need it the most, not the least;

Don't mortgage the future by playing fast and loose with the truth today and the economy tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, numbers that were released today show that Oregon continues to record the highest jobless rate in the Nation at 7.6 percent. Since this administration took office, my State has lost 28,600 jobs, and over 2.5 million private sector jobs have been lost nationwide.

Rather than addressing directly this grave problem by focusing on investments and programs that could put people back to work today; for example, simply repairing bridges that are falling apart all across America, the proposal is to tamper with valuable worker retraining programs that are actually making a positive difference.

I agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) that there was some outstanding work that was done in 1998 under the leadership of the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Michigan. I think there were important changes, but this legislation is an unfortunate attempt to not just rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, but pull them out from underneath some victims.

The most optimistic outcome is that it will cause a disruption in some services that people need. It fails to address the pressing needs of disadvantaged and unemployed workers around the Nation, fails to provide enhanced funding, and fails to strengthen the State and local publicly provided unemployment services. The changes in this bill do little to improve the situation for hard-hit working families in the current economic downturn in my community.

Not only are we bringing forward legislation that at best is disruptive, they are preventing opportunities by Democrats to help our constituents. The House rule that brought the bill forward denied us an opportunity to vote on an amendment to extend unemployment insurance benefits by 26 weeks for newly unemployed workers.

My constituents tell me this legislation could not come at a worse time. We are taking money potentially from programs that work and are well-managed, and handing them back in a block grant form, to a certain extent, to governors in States that are operating in a crisis mode, and the money could end up anywhere.

At a cumulative budget shortfall of over $70 billion, our States are facing the worst financial crisis since World War II. It is time for us to keep our funding commitments for programs that work instead of reshuffling programs, making it harder to keep our promises.

I have no objection to the Vitter amendment. I did want to have an opportunity to clarify my concerns, and hope that we as a Congress before we adjourn this spring are able to come forward with something that will make a difference helping the economy in areas for people that need it.

Mr. Speaker, this evening in Portland, Oregon, Tony Hopson is going to be recognized as our First Citizen, special recognition for a special gentleman who has developed an innovative program for young people that for 20 years has not only helped Portland's youth and stabilized our neighborhoods; it has provided significant impact in terms of being a critical foundation for the revitalization of critical areas of northeast Portland. Not only has his program touched the lives of thousands of young people; it has been a signal about how communities can come together and solve problems, bringing out the best in everyone. The success goes beyond our children and our neighborhoods. All who have had the privilege of working with him and his team have been influenced for the better.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that our community is recognizing Mr. Hopson as our First Citizen, important recognition for an outstanding leader and an innovative program.

Madam Speaker, we of the Public Broadcasting Caucus are pleased to share with our colleagues this evening some very good news from the world of public broadcasting. The Overseas Press Club has presented NPR with the 2002 Lowell Thomas Award for the series ``The Mideast: A Century of Conflict.'' This groundbreaking seven-part series, which aired on NPR's Morning Edition last fall, tells the history of the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Veteran NPR News correspondent Mike Shuster researched, reported, and chronicled this in-depth series on the key moments in the history of the struggle between the two peoples. It covered the early Zionist movement during the turn of the 20th Century and traced the intensifying conflict between Jews and Palestinians during the years of the British mandate, leading up to David Ben-Gurion's announcement of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

The Mideast: A Century of Conflict,'' also explored the events that led up to the Six-Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the first Intifada, and the Oslo Peace Process. It concluded with investigations on the reason why the Oslo Peace Process collapsed and how and why the second Intifada started.

Kevin Klose, NPR's president and CEO, put it best when he said, ``This series tells the history of the confrontation using radio to bring the views of leading historians of the region to air, documenting the deep and conflicting roots of today's Middle East. The series touches on the beliefs and emotions that motivate both sides.''

Madam Speaker, it was no surprise when the Peabody Awards were recently announced for excellence in television and radio; public broadcasting was honored with one-third of those over-30 awards. This is part of why one in seven adults listens to public radio by tuning into more than 700 stations which carry NPR programming. Each week, over 20 million Americans listen to NPR, an audience that exceeds the top 35 U.S. daily newspapers combined.

When we consider this figure, along with 100 million people who watch public television each week, we see the

profound reach of public broadcasting stations. They connect people with their local community, their Nation, and their world in a way that no other outlet can or does.

The caliber of public broadcasting is unmatched by any other programming. Public radio and public television provide valuable commercial-free educational, informational, and cultural programming for communities all across America.

But it is not just an addition; it is not just an add-on and a frill. Many communities rely on public broadcasting stations as their only source of news and information. Some even use the public broadcasting system for day-to-day or emergency communications, such as AMBER Alerts and severe weather detection. As we work to improve our hometown security, Federal funding for these services is increasingly important.

Sadly, the future is cloudy. Nationally, while 41 States have public broadcasting operations, the source of the State support, which averages $7 million a year, is in jeopardy. Given the current times of economic slowdown and State budget crises, many stations are facing severe financial cuts.

I am sad to say in my home State of Oregon, which faces one of the Nation's worst budget deficits, our State is considering eliminating funding for Oregon Public Broadcasting altogether. Even though only 6 percent of that $33 million budget for the last 2 years comes from State funding, slightly more than $2 million, right now the loss of any of that funding is compounded by the recession and the squeeze on corporate and individual donors.

Oregon is not alone in its public broadcasting cuts. Minnesota's Governor has recommended a 25 to 35 percent reduction in its public broadcasting budget. But there are some States that are standing firm. I was pleased to note that Nebraska, for example, reaffirmed its commitment to public broadcasting. Despite a 14 percent shortfall in its biannual budget, it will maintain its yearly State funding of approximately $8 million.

Madam Speaker, we are all in this together: the Federal and State governments, our listeners, viewers and private sector donors. This is all the more reason for us to keep our commitment to public broadcasting. If we do not, many of the award-winning programs, like the one I just mentioned, ``The Mideast: A Century of Conflict,'' will be at risk. All of us need to do our part, whether elected officials or individual listeners, to support this critical national resource.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what transpired in the Committee on International Relations this last couple of months in moving this legislation forward. It was reported out of committee by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, and it shows what we can do when we come together in a bipartisan fashion. I commend the administration for its support of a creative solution for the HIV-AIDS epidemic that Members from both parties can support.

It has been referenced that some of our colleagues have interpreted ABC as ``anything but condoms,'' and we are going to talk about that on the floor as various amendments come forward; but I think it is critical that we take a step back and not put a political agenda ahead of a program with proven success.

I hope that my colleagues can withhold their desire to impose their standards on hundreds of millions of people that live in different countries with different cultures, in wildly different communities. There is too much at risk for global health, which certainly includes our own in this country. Addressing the AIDS epidemic, tuberculosis, and malaria not only benefits the health of those individuals, it is going to stabilize communities and regions that are devastating. And, yes, it is going to help us at home as we work to alleviate global issues of health, safety and security.

The SARS epidemic provides the most recent, graphic, current example of the need to address epidemics at a global level before they affect us here in America. I hope we can reflect not just on the hard work of the administration, our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), active leaders like the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), but reflect on how when the legislative process works when we put the imperative of problem solving ahead of political concerns.

We have more at stake these days than just dealing with the AIDS epidemic. I hope that this will be a template not just moving forward in this critical area, important as it is, but this is the way that we can solve homeland security issues, economic issues, and the great issues on the international arena as well.

Mr. Speaker, I commend our friends who were there, and I urge adoption of the rule and moving forward with approval of this and then going home this weekend thinking about what we have accomplished, how we have done it and where we can take it from here.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in allowing me to speak on this bill.

Twenty years ago, Congress made a law and a commitment. The law was to extend equal education opportunity for all children. The commitment was to provide 40 percent funding to meet this goal. We have no reason to put off fulfilling this commitment for yet another decade. Nearly every State is facing serious financial difficulty, few as serious as my State of Oregon. We need

help as never before. Yet we are told full funding is not realistic at this point. Yet we have the President and leadership of his party proposing a half trillion dollars in additional tax cuts for those who need help the least. Whatever dubious economic benefits claimed are clearly minuscule compared with investing in our communities and meeting the commitments to our schools and our children.

The authors of today's bill should be thanked for their commitment to move in the right direction and for some genuine improvements like dealing with some burdensome paperwork, which has been discussed here on the floor. But without providing full funding, the bill ought to be rejected until we do what we know is right and what is clearly within our power. I for one would be embarrassed to go home to a State that is stressed like many of my colleagues, giving cover for those who would avoid meeting this long-standing commitment for another decade. My community and my colleagues' deserve better. By all means, embrace the positive elements in this bill; but let us not pass it until we make sure we have fulfilled our commitment.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 11, 2003, I was absent due to participation in a previously scheduled conference.

On rollcall votes numbered 142, 143, and 144, I would have voted ``yea.''

I would have voted to support an amendment by Representative Kind to strike Title II of the Energy Bill (#142). Title II would not only increase oil and gas drilling on sensitive public lands without ensuring environmental protections, but it would also provide royalty relief to these industries. The American public and Federal Treasury need these royalty payments in order to fully fund the Conservation Trust Fund, which pays for many of our nation's parks, refuges, wildlife protections, open space, and contributes to the preservation of our historic and cultural resources.

I would have also voted to support Representative Rahall's amendment to strike Division C, Title III of the Energy Bill (#143). I oppose these provisions that provide benefits to certain coal companies at the detriment of competition within the coal industry, taxpayers, and the environment.

Finally, I would have voted in support of Representative Dingell's motion to recommit the Energy Bill (#144). I support Mr. Dingell's efforts to substitute a hydroelectric energy title that would have offered increased protections for fish and wildlife.

On rollcall vote numbered 145, I would have voted ``nay.'' The statement that I submitted for the Record during the debate on the Energy Bill provides an explanation of why I voted against final passage of H.R. 6.

Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that we are voting on this resolution today when not one of the working people or business leaders visiting my office recently has asked me to support this budget or its tax cuts. Rather, they want the Federal Government to pass a budget that will help jump start the economy and improve our communities in Oregon and across the country by investing in transportation infrastructure, environmental cleanup, ``hometown'' security, education, and health care.

The concerns I voiced last month regarding the budget resolution remain valid and unaddressed in this conference report. It sets the stage for the largest budget deficit in our history and without even taking into consideration our significant financial commitment to rebuild and stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. As our economy remains stagnant, this budget provides little help for our states, which are struggling to balance their budgets among decreasing revenues, higher Medicaid costs, and colossal homeland security demands.

Our Nation's cities are paying an estimated $70 million per week on additional homeland security as a result of the war and high terrorism threat alerts. Instead of helping our communities with these costs, the proposed elimination of the dividend tax would reduce Oregon's 2003 revenue by $91 billion, contributing to Oregon's current budget gap of $1.3 billion. I oppose this budget which sacrifices these fundamental priorities and long-term fiscal stability.