Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, with tuition costs rising and the availability of financial aid declining, many parents in our country are finding it harder and harder to afford the cost of college education for their sons and daughters. However, these families know the importance of having a college degree in today's economy. We really cannot underestimate the importance.

Therefore, large numbers are relying on student loans to help meet tuition costs. While these loans can be a great resource to make college accessible to more students, they can also cause great financial hardships for the borrower when they graduate and the payments are due.

The administration has supported making paying for these loans even more difficult by enacting their raid on student aid and cutting $12 billion from the higher education budget. Because of these drastic and devastating cuts, interest rates on student and parent loans for college will increase significantly July 1.

To avoid this dramatic increase in interest rates, I encourage all Federal student loan borrowers to visit www.loanconsolidation.ed.gov to consolidate their loans before July 1.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Knollenberg, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for their good work on this bill in the midst of an extremely tight budget environment. Both gentlemen have had to make some very unpopular decisions.

However, as I stated last year, eliminating the funding for brownfield redevelopment programs should be reconsidered. As a result, I rise today in strong support of the Miller-Johnson amendment to H.R. 5576.

Similar to last year, the gentleman from California and I offered this amendment today because we both feel that it is time for this body to get really serious about eliminating the Nation's estimated 500,000 brownfields.

The amendment increases the Department of Housing and Urban Development Brownfields Redevelopment Program account by $15 million.

In its present form, H.R. 5576 provides no funding for a program that has helped to transform communities, large and small, throughout the country.

The amendment calls for a corresponding offset through a reduction of $15 million within the Business Systems Modernization Account in the Treasury title. Currently, the Business Systems Modernization Account is $45 million above the administration's request, and $15.3 million above last year's request.

While I respect the committee's view that HUD funding is no longer essential or appropriate due to the EPA's expanded authority and increased appropriations, this is certainly a view that I do not share.

First of all, I believe it is important to note that there are clear distinctions between EPA's Brownfields Program relative to HUD's.

Although both are equally important, EPA's program focuses primarily on cleanup, whereas the focus of HUD's program is on redevelopment of brownfield sites once cleanup is complete.

It is true that the authority of the EPA has been expanded. However, the consistent and chronic underfunding of the Brownfields Program by the President and the Congress leave much to be desired in terms of corresponding appropriations.

In fact, appropriations for brownfields assessment and cleanup peaked.

Appropriations for brownfields assessment cleanup peaked at $97.7 million in fiscal year 2002 and is only $89 million in this year's interior and environment appropriations bill.

Last week before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, where I serve as ranking member, an EPA assistant administrator testified that for fiscal year 2006 EPA received nearly 700 proposals for Brownfield Grants. Unfortunately, EPA funded less than 45 percent of these.

Mr. Chairman, our communities are very deserving of these strong HUD- administered brownfields programs. If you watch the game tonight, look at the American Center. Oh, you won't see that one. It will be in Miami tonight. But that was a brownfield in Dallas.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a final plea for this program. Even if there might be a few people less in these Departments, it does not compare with what a small investment does to get rid of brownfields anywhere they are, because once this property is put back on the tax rolls, it generates more than ever than what is put into it.

And I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Knollenberg because he has been helpful. But I would make a plea that this is a lot larger than what was requested, and that is the reason why we chose to take it from there.

We all have to tighten our belts. We all have to give up a little more than what we had. But I can assure you that allowing property to not be on a tax roll will go a lot longer way when you put the money there, just a small amount of money, than doing without two or three staff people.

I just imagine that any Department in this Nation can function with just a

few less staff than what they have now and do the same job. If we cannot, then we are not doing as well as the private industry because they have cut half of their staff and are still doing the same job. That is called higher productivity, and maybe that is what we need in some of these Departments is higher productivity, while half of the people at home and the other half are doing the full job. But this will offer jobs. It puts property back onto the tax rolls by allowing it to be redeveloped, and I do not know a single city or rural area that could not use a little brownfield encouragement through their funds.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Page Class of 2006 and in particular the page from the 30th District of Texas, Linwood Fields. You have served the United States House of Representatives with honor and dignity, and should be proud of your accomplishments.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, ``An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.'' It is my hope that during your time here you were able to expand your perspectives on the world, and will continue to utilize this knowledge in the years ahead.

I am particularly proud of Linwood Fields. He has honorably represented his family, my office, and the Dallas community. He successfully served this House through his outstanding work and extraordinary spirit. I know that this is merely the first step of a very bright future. I am confident that Linwood will go onto to become a fine and successful man, and I look forward to seeing his accomplishments in the years to come.

I commend Linwood and the Page Class of 2006 for their outstanding service. Myself and my colleagues are grateful for all you have done.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share my thoughts on H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006.

Similar to the 1996 telecommunications law that deregulated the phone and cable industries, I have examined this bill with the interests of my constituents in mind and a deep respect for the advancement of technological innovation.

As a result of this I have decided to vote in favor of H.R. 5252 as the bill provides the best we here in the House of Representatives could wish for with regard to the increased distribution of affordable cable services and a continued support of increased telecommunications innovation.

As with any complex bill, I do not agree with every aspect of the measure; however, I do feel that the measure provides the tools necessary to facilitate increased video choice for my district. Streamlining the video franchise process will help accelerate competition in the video market.

Constituents within my congressional district are crying out for increased competition and affordable cable rates and it is impossible for me to disregard their concerns by voting

against this, bill. According to the Federal Communications Commission, roughly 1.5 percent of markets have head-to-head competition for cable services.

Increased competition amongst cable providers will provide my constituents with consumer choice that is currently lacking. Consumers win when telecom carriers and cable operators compete head to head.

A multitude of service providers, each committed to indiscriminately serving my constituents regardless of income levels holds great promise for lower prices, better service and increased programming content and diverse ownership opportunities for minority and women-owned businesses.

Lastly, much has been said regarding the issue of net neutrality, the notion that broadband service providers should operate their networks in a nondiscriminatory manner.

While I agree wholeheartedly with this notion, I also feel that the government should not act too prematurely in intervening with the growth and innovation of the internet. The net neutrality bill presented before us tonight would impose a non-discriminate requirement on the internet backbone.

For years, the internet has blossomed, thanks in large part due the hands-off approach the federal government has taken. Currently I am satisfied with the language captured in H.R. 5252.

The bill gives the FCC strong authority to protect web access and internet applications by allowing the FCC to enforce its broadband principles that ensure consumers are entitled to: (1) Access the lawful internet content of their choice; (2) Run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) Connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) Competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

While I do not feel that additional action above and beyond the bill's current language at this time, I do support revisiting the issue in the event discriminatory conduct amongst internet service providers in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Let me thank the chairman of the committee, also a Texan. I have an amendment before us today that is really unambiguous and straightforward in its intent.

The amendment increases the maximum forfeiture penalty in the antidiscrimination section from $500,000 to $750,000 if the FCC determines that a cable operator has denied access to its services to a group of potential services because of that group's income.

It is my respectful view that an increase of 50 percent to this bill's current penalty amount is a small price for a corporation that discriminates in the delivery of video or broadband services against communities that are crying out for increased competition and affordable cable prices.

Many of the constituents that I represent are heavy cable users and heavy telephone users. The gas prices are very high. Tickets to entertainment are very high, and so cable is generally their entertainment and the telephone keeps them in touch with companies. So it is a large use many times of the lower-income communities in my congressional district and throughout America that should not be relegated to second-class citizens with regard to their ability to enjoy the fruits of cable competition that this bill touts.

I am not thrilled that the Federal Communications Commission will be delving into discrimination matters that could impact an entire class of individuals. However, it is my belief that if the FCC is to be charged with enforcing antidiscrimination laws and levying correspondent fines, the agency, one, should be sensitive as possible to complaints filed by a local franchising authority that believes a cable operator with a national franchise has violated the antidiscrimination section of this bill; and, two, respond forcefully with a meaningful forfeiture penalty that preserves the integrity of the ultimate public interest goal of universal service, particularly to individuals that stand to benefit significantly from increased competition.

Mr. Chairman, as I close, I would like to reiterate that a 50 percent increase in this bill's current penalty amount is a small price for the battle between the millionaires and billionaires, and so I do not know why I did not put $1 million here; but whether the action is motivated intentionally or the direct result of shortsightedness, cable providers should not be left off the hook for failing to bring competition to communities that need it the most.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jeremy Bonner, an extraordinary young man whose dedication and achievements are to be commended. Jeremy Bonner recently graduated from A. Maceo Smith High School after 14 years of perfect attendance. This means that from the age of three, Jeremy never missed a day of school.

In a time when drop-out rates and truancy are on the rise, this is truly an exceptional achievement. The efforts and devotion of Jeremy Bonner and his mother, Joan Bonner, are to be celebrated.

In addition to his perfect attendance, I was pleased to learn of Jeremy's plans to join the military and pursue a career in public service. Both the military and America are fortunate to have the commitment of such a fine young man.

The recognition Jeremy is receiving is imminently well-deserved, and I know this is merely the first step of many bright years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of stem cell research.

Last May, the House of Representatives narrowly passed H.R. 810, supporting federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

My vote, recorded in support of this bill, reflects my strong views on the potential for stem cell research to benefit society.

Stem cells can mature into nearly any type of cell, including nerve cells to repair damaged spines or heart cells to pump blood through the body.

The therapeutic possibilities of stem cells are endless.

It is my hope that the other body will work with us to support stem cell research.

Somewhere out there is a little girl who suffered a spinal injury and is unable to walk.

Therapy utilizing stem cells is her only hope.

How much longer will she and millions of others have to wait?

Madam Speaker, we have talked about the culture of corruption here, and it is very interesting that the way I see the culture of corruption is what we do right here on this floor.

Today's seniors are paying the price for a prescription drug plan that does not have their best interests in mind. Rather, it is a plan that was created to actually help the special interests. Why couldn't we have a plan in Medicare? Why? Because that is not what the insurance companies want in the law.

They helped to write the bill, and now the persons who worked with them are representing them. So since the time of the law passing, three of the main Republican negotiators are making very large sums of money.

Madam Speaker, the American people don't like what they see here. They see a Republican majority that is too close to the special interests, and they want Washington to work for the people and work for you again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

America's natural resources are diminishing daily. Places like Fossil Rim Wildlife Center just outside of Dallas, with its 1800 acres of unspoiled natural beauty and endangered Texas Prairie Chickens, need the support and protection of Congress.

Defending our natural resources is our responsibility as Federal representatives. All Americans benefit from unspoiled lands, clear skies, and wild places to enjoy.

Drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not the answer to our oil crisis. That strategy is not forward-thinking and won't sustain our energy needs for very long.

What we need instead are greater investments in energy efficiency and alternative fuels.

Mr. Speaker, I have consistently opposed ANWR drilling and I will oppose ANWR drilling again this time around.

Mr. Chairman I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Indiana for their leadership on this important piece of water resources legislation in the midst of an extremely tight budget environment.

I support the fiscal year 2007 Energy and Water Development appropriation measure.

This measure includes funding for a number of flood control projects administered by the Corps of Engineers that are desperately needed within my congressional district: the Nokomis Road Bridge Erosion Project, the Upper Trinity River Feasibility Study, and most importantly the Dallas Floodway Extension.

I appreciate the subcommittee's consideration of my requests and your past support for vital flood control projects in my congressional district.

My constituents in the region are highly concerned about the possibility of severe flooding of the Trinity River, an event that could result in countless loss of lives and almost immeasurable property damage.

The Dallas Floodway Extension, DFE, is the linchpin of the city's flood control efforts. Each year the Office of Management Budget finds within its good graces to zero out funding, but the project is of critical importance to my constituents.

This legislation includes $5 million for the construction of the Dallas Floodway Extension.

This funding will go towards the construction of a chain of flood conveyance wetlands and a system of protective levees that will enhance the security of Dallas' central business district and area neighborhoods. The project will also reclaim 792 acres of land that are currently in the 100-year flood plain.

Although I am disappointed that this amount falls far below the Corps' expressed capability of $28 million, it is my hope that the project funding may be revisited during the House-Senate Conference.

As the country's recent flooding events have highlighted, we can not continue to shortchange this Nation's water resources infrastructure.

Adequate investment in our nation's infrastructure will protect lives and property, bolster economic growth, and further enhance the quality of life for all our constituents.

While I recognize the difficult constraints the committee worked under in developing this legislation, and appreciate the funding included, I also know it is imperative to the public health and safety of the people of Dallas that this project proceed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the bipartisan effort that went into the drafting of this legislation, commend that effort as a model for the way in which this Chamber ought to routinely work, and urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5427.

Madam Speaker, as someone with a great interest in Israel, Middle Eastern affairs, and world peace, I believe that we should remain cognizant of the importance of open communication, peaceful dialogue, and positive debate. I have a sincere affection and respect for both people and I pray for a peaceful resolution of deep seeded differences. We are living in historic times, and we have an opportunity to play a significant part in the Arab- Israeli peace process.

This legislation rightly calls upon Hamas to renounce terrorism, and recognize Israel as an independent, sovereign, Jewish and democratic state. I too recognize the need for a secure Israel and the need for a peaceful resolution for the Israel and Palestinian people. For many, peace is a long awaited dream and I am certain that with time, they will eventually realize this dream. I also advocate for cessation of aid to a Hamas led government of Palestinian Authority since they have refused to renounce violence and terrorism as part of their military tactics. I am certain a government that refuses to curtail their terrorist ideals can run the gamut on outrageous and purposefully unrealistic demands.

I am concerned that some of the provisions of H.R. 4681 directly undermine the goal of securing peace.

I question the prudence in ostracizing Hamas from the international community and forbidding contact with the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Legislative Council when some of its members do not belong to Hamas or any foreign terrorist organization. Many of these members have in fact renounced terrorism, recognized Israel and negotiated the prior agreements. I am concerned that these tactics will only hurt relationships with moderate Palestinian leaders whose support and cooperation are vital to ensuring peace.

I am not resigned to the notion that impoverishing a country and hence a people falls within the scope of our duties in ensuring a peaceful resolution. These people are already suffering tremendous poverty and unemployment increases.

We must find a way to punish the evil doers without victimizing their innocent neighbors. I am certain that this legislation surpasses the formation of a militaristic strategy and enters the venue of instilling punitive economic and diplomatic sanctions against the Palestinian people. We cannot restrict U.S. humanitarian aid and potentially eliminate entire U.S. aid projects, such as vital infrastructure and small business development. We cannot threaten to withhold a portion of U.S. dues to the United Nations because it allows bodies to advocate for Palestinian human rights. I am concerned about the innocent people who will suffer the consequences in denouncing the provisions of the U.S. free trade agreement with the West Bank and Gaza.

I know that refusing visas to members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, including those who belong to political parties that the United States does not classify as ``foreign terrorist organizations,'' will deter ensuring a peaceful resolution. I am concerned that negating visas to members of the PLO diplomats at the United Nations and threatening to close the PLO's office in Washington will close the channels of communication.

Madam Speaker, I have long been an advocate for peace and I pray for a peaceful resolution of the Arab and Israeli people. It is in that spirit, and with that faith, that I will continue to work with the administration to ensure the United States remains firm in its commitment to the security of Israel and to those principles necessary to guarantee the success of the Arab-Israeli peace process.

The wording of this Resolution changed to include much of the negative language after I signed on as a co-sponsor.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the leaders of this amendment, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Leach, Mr. Dingell, to protect water quality.

This amendment reverses the harmful policy of EPA and the Corps of Engineers that empowers regulators to allow the pollution of waters and destruction of wetlands but eliminates the authority of local regulators to protect waters from such pollution and destruction.

Since January, 2003, EPA and the Corps have restricted the ability of their own personnel to implement regulations that have been in use since 1986. These regulations are valid, understood in the regulated community, and are the method we use to protect some 20 percent of the Nation's waters. The Nation's ponds, streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands can be no healthier than the headwaters and runoff that feed them.

Since EPA guidance was put in place in 2003, regulators have allowed the pollution and destruction of these critical waters, imperiling the health of the entire aquatic system.

This amendment is not about stopping the direct pollution of our great rivers such as the Mississippi or the Trinity River, which flows through my home city of Dallas. It is about protecting the waters that feed into these systems and that serve as the origins of these great rivers. When we fail to protect smaller bodies of water, we lose the flood control, water supply, water filtering, and habitat benefits that these waters provide.

Waters that may appear isolated on the surface tend to be interconnected with the ground and surface waters elsewhere. We cannot simply ignore the connections among and the values of all of the Nation's waters.

I support this bipartisan amendment and urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, instead of offering a plan to bring us out of debt, the Republican budget actually makes the deficit worse. This is fiscal irresponsibility, and that means that we will continue to borrow billions of dollars from other nations.

Today we owe Japan $682 billion; China, $249 billion; the Caribbean nations, $115 billion; Korea, $66 billion; and OPEC, that is right, the oil-producing nations we rely on so heavily to fuel our vehicles, we owe $67 billion.

Washington Republicans have been so fiscally irresponsible that President Bush has now borrowed more money from other nations than all other 42 predecessors combined. And they are not done. They plan to borrow more because they stuck another debt limit increase in the budget.

Mr. Speaker, this does not sound like a record anyone would be proud of. No wonder that so many Republicans are skittish about supporting it.

The Democratic plan balances the budget in 5 years and restores pay- as-you-go that worked so well in the 1990s.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, most especially Mr. Scott, for their unwavering support for the development of the CBC alternative budget that encompasses progressive and visionary funding motivated by principle and compassion.

The CBC alternative understands that our Nation's transportation system is the backbone of our economy and our way of life, either of which we cannot afford to shortchange. The CBC budget increases funding for public transportation, Amtrak, the FAA's airport improvement program, and other vital infrastructure programs crucial to ensure a stable economy.

The CBC alternative supports greater competitiveness in science and technology. As a senior member of the Science Committee, I feel it is important to invest in our children's future. Federal entitlements such as NASA and the National Science Foundation need funding to inspire today's youth so that we can have a future in research.

I ask, Mr. Chairman, that Members of this body listen to their conscience. We are in a position to prevent funding atrocities to infiltrate and demise progress. The Nation's budget cannot be based on one party's sole agenda. We cannot allow societal factors to divide us in irresponsible spending or unconscionable tax breaks to define us.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Scott for their leadership and unwavering support for the development of this alternative budget. I also would like to thank all the members of the CBC and their staff for their help in completing this very important task. I appreciate and applaud their efforts on issues important to all of us.

The CBC alternative budget prioritizes the .importance of social justice by advocating for the forgotten poor and more specifically addressing the needs of African Americans and other neglected minorities. The CBC alternative budget is filled with progressive and visionary funding and is motivated by principle and compassion.

It is a budget that voices the concerns and needs of the poor, the children and the elderly that have been so easily set aside by this administration.

The shortsightedness of the Republican budget mirrors that of its drafters. The Republican budget `` borrows from future generations to pay for today's unconscionable tax cuts and irresponsible deficit spending. It offers a $372 billion deficit in 2006 and $348 billion in 2007, and $1.1 trillion worth of deficits over five years.

The Republican budget proposal ignores the needs of Texans and all hard working Americans and places the burden of the offset on their shoulders. It reduces taxes for the wealthiest Americans and slams the door on economic opportunity for working families. It reduces veterans' health care by $6 billion, education by $45.3 billion, public health by $18.1 billion, and environmental protection by $25.0 billion. They also include $6.8 billion in reconciliation cuts to mandatory programs.

The CBC alternative understands that our Nation's transportation system is the backbone of our economy and a way of life, either of which, we cannot afford to shortchange. The CBC budget increases funding for public transportation, Amtrak, the FAA's Airport Improvement Program, and other vital infrastructure programs crucial to ensure a stable economy.

The CBC alternative supports greater competitiveness in science and technology. As a senior Member of the House Science Committee, I feel it is important to invest in our children's futures. Federal entities such as NASA and the National Science Foundation need funding to inspire today's students and produce tomorrow's researchers. The science budget funds our scientific and engineering workforce, supports teacher enrichment programs, and helps inspire future generations of researchers. Our Nation's future depends more and more on the quality of our innovative ideas. The fruits of these investments meet vital national needs and improve the quality of life for all Americans.

The CBC alternative budget also provides funding for the minority health initiative, health insurance for the uninsured, child nutrition programs, job creation programs under the SBA, the extension of unemployment insurance benefits and eliminating the disabled veteran's tax. It provides $80 billion over the next five years for education and job training programs and provides over $20 billion more for health care programs than the Republican budget. It also provides $6 billion more on community and regional development which encompasses job creation programs under SBA, community and regional development programs, nutritional programs, Hope VI and Section 8 Housing Programs, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, and housing for the disabled and the elderly.

I ask, Mr. Chairman, that Members of this body listen to their conscience. We are in a position to prevent funding atrocities to infiltrate and demise progress. This Nation's budget cannot be based on one party's sole agenda. We cannot allow societal factors to divide us and irresponsible spending or unconscionable tax cuts to define us.

Mr. Speaker, the pharmaceutical industry influenced the passage of a Medicare prescription drug plan last year. It is not great, it is just all we got. The deadline is May 15 for seniors to enroll in this program.

If seniors are not enrolled in 5 days, they will face a financial penalty each month for the rest of their lives. Since it took effect at the beginning of this year, the logical problems of implementing this plan have proved enormous. Seniors across the Nation have complained about the confusing number of plans to choose from and the change in prescription benefits each offers.

Research has shown that many of those who contact the Federal Government for help receive incorrect information or no information at all. It is no surprise then that millions of seniors have yet to select a drug plan.

Now with only 5 days to select the right plan or face a steep penalty, these seniors find themselves under pressure to make the best decision for their health and their pocketbook.

Mr. Speaker, serious health decisions require time and information. Our seniors deserve more.

Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to the May 15 deadline for seniors to enroll in the Medicare part D prescription drug plan. The fact is, seniors who are eligible for Medicare part D who do not sign up by May 15 will face a higher monthly premium if they enroll at a later time. This puts a lot of pressure on the seniors.

I had a town hall meeting and lots of seniors came. Most of them knew nothing about how to do it or did not understand it.

But, seniors, as hard as we have tried, we cannot extend this deadline beyond May 15. There are nearly 48,000 residents aged 65 and older in Dallas, Texas. Not that many came to the town hall, but quite a few. I am concerned that they are not getting the message.

Missing May 15 may have expensive consequences. We would like to have a bit more compassion. America's health is about more than just numbers on an insurance company's roll book.