Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, under the rules, is it the Congressional Budget Office that determines whether or not an item is an unfunded mandate or not?

And in this instance, has the CBO not determined that there is an unfunded mandate that could be upwards of 500 million to 1.5 billion on cities and towns over the next 5 years?

Mr. Speaker, is there anything left with the Contract With America? Is that an appropriate parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.

In a post-GATT, post-NAFTA global world, global economy, you need an ongoing plan as to who is going to gain access to telecommunications technology, Information Age technology.

Well, the Republicans have constructed a defeatist policy. Knowing that 50 percent of the children in America will be minorities by the year 2020 in our country, they have refused Congresswoman Solis, Congresswoman Watson, representing the Hispanic and the Black Caucus, to come out here to make an amendment that would require the telephone companies to build out on the poor side of town, because we know they are going to the wealthy side of town, and they want this decision to be made at the Federal Government level.

Every mayor in the past has made this decision because they negotiate the contract with the cable company, but the Republicans say we are not even going to have a debate on that issue on the House floor.

On net neutrality, 20 minutes, 10 minutes for either side. Net neutrality, an issue which is going to fundamentally change the nature of the Internet forever. On the naming of post offices, the Republicans give 40 minutes of debate. On changing the Internet for the rest of eternity, 20 minutes, evenly divided.

It is so disrespectful of the importance of these issues that it almost defies description, but it is a reflection of the telephone company agenda, and the Republicans have decided to take that agenda 100 percent.

Now, what did the telephone companies have to do with inventing the Internet? Nothing. The browser? Nothing. The World Wide Web? Nothing. What have they had to do with the Internet from the beginning of time? Nothing.

But what the Republican Party has done is side in this bill, in a gag rule that does not allow us to debate the important issues, with the telephone company against every entrepreneurial company in America, the future Sergey Brins, the future Marc Andreessen of Netscape and Google. They are going to have to pay a broadband tax to the telephone company to gain access. It will be their highway. That is what they say.

Well, that runs fundamentally contrary to the agenda which we need to have for the future of America as the entrepreneurial telecommunications Information Age giant in a modern world. This is our strength, and it also completely ignores the role that these 50 percent of minority children are going to have in terms of access to it.

No requirement to build out into the poor parts of town. Now, what kind of plan is that for America? It is a defeatist attitude, and the Republicans have just basically put in this bill the tech agenda for America in a rearview mirror. It is a sad commentary.

Now, Congresswoman Solis wants to have an amendment out here so we would debate red-lining to make sure the telephone companies just do not go to the good parts of town. They are going to my part of town. They are going to anybody's part of town that has money in their pocket over $100,000 a year. Sure, that is great. Members of Congress, they are going to be fine. But what about the people in the neighborhoods that people drive around? Are they going to get access to it? Not under their bill, and by the way, not a debate to be had on the House floor.

It is so disrespectful. It is so defeatist. It is so lacking in vision as to what our country needs for entrepreneurs and for minority children, and I beg the Members to vote ``no'' on this rule, to open it up. Forty minutes on the naming of a post office, 20 minutes on the future of the Internet. Vote ``no'' on this Republican rule.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This is a historic bill. Without question, the Republican majority is not respecting the importance of the issue.

Tonight, we will have a debate on net neutrality that will last 20 minutes, 10 minutes on either side. That is, without question, a disgrace. We debate week after week out here on the House floor, namings of post offices that each get 40 minutes. Here we are talking about an engine of economic growth which has transformed our economy and the global economy over the last 15 years. And it has done so with provisions which guaranteed nondiscrimination to the smallest players being able to enter with their ideas and communicate across our country and across the globe.

What the Republicans are doing tonight is they are refusing to have a debate on who is going to be benefited

from it. That is, will the telephone companies be responsible for building-out across all communities? Their bill says you don't have to, and they won't allow us an amendment out here on the floor so that we can have that debate.

Will there be redlining? We believe there should not be. The Republicans refuse to allow Hilda Solis's amendment out here on the floor so we can have a full debate on it.

Will there be a bill that passes tonight which is defeatist in terms of entrepreneurs and equal access, democratization of access to opportunity because of access to this new technology in every part of the community? Or will it be a bill that has a future orientation, looking ahead over the next century as to who Americans are going to be, what the nature of our economy is going to be in terms of these entrepreneurs playing this change agent role? Or will we have this bill that has been put together behind closed doors with the most powerful three or four companies in America, the telephone companies who had nothing to do with the construction of the Internet?

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute at this time.

Mr. Chairman, let me explain one of the real problems with this bill. In testimony before the Commerce Committee on this legislation, I asked the head of the national cable industry what they would do once this bill passed, and the answer was quite revealing. They said that after this bill passes, since the telephone companies are going to go into the wealthy side of town in order to deploy their new broadband systems, that under the legislation they no longer had any responsibility to serve the whole community. They had no responsibility to continue to upgrade on the other side of the town, which the cable industry is already serving, because every mayor always extracted that from every cable company as they came into town.

So we are going to wind up with a perverse situation where the cable industry on the poor side of town is able

to raise rates because the telephone companies won't promise to go there and actually compete against the cable company. And the Republicans oppose even having a debate on the House floor in order to accomplish that, and so we wind up with a situation where the wealthy people are going to have two competitors and have lower rates, and the poor people are going to have only one company that is saying they are going to raise rates because there will be no competition. It is a perverse result for cable subscribers in America.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, so again we hear the argument that this is going to lower cable rates. And it will lower cable rates, I don't deny that, on the good side of town, which is where they are going with their Harvard Business School 3-by-5 card, ``go to the wealthy side of town and offer them a package of broadband services to compete against the cable companies.'' Rates are going down.

But the problem is on the other side of town, once this bill passes, once the telephone company comes into town, the cable company is no longer bound by the agreement that it made with the city. So the cable industry, and they testified to this in the committee, they can then raise rates on the parts of town that the telephone company is not going to go to and provide cable service.

So you are going to wind up with this incredible situation where we, that is, Congressmen in our parts of town, we are going to have lower cable rates. But people on the other side of town, and you don't have to be a summa cum laude, you from Harvard Business School, to understand this, the people on the other side of town are not going to get this service, because obviously the Republicans are protecting AT&T and Verizon by prohibiting us having this discussion here on the floor.

They won't even let the discussion take place, because they know that is what is going to happen, that the other side of town isn't going to get this service, because AT&T doesn't want us to have to mandate that if they are going into the town, they just can't cherry-pick the good parts of town. They are going to have to do everybody. And if they don't do everybody, what do you think is going to happen when there is no competition? Rates are going up in that part of town, because that part of the town will be a monopoly.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

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

Mr. Chairman, here is the really perverse part of this. The telephone company is going to come into town, and they are going to start offering lower rates on the good part of town, as they are delivering the service.

The people on the other side of town, the poorer part of town, are going to say, hey, do we get the lower rates too in town? Because under the cable-negotiated agreement with the city, everyone got the same rate in town.

Well, the telephone company will not offer that same lower rate to the other part of the town, only to the people on the good part of town, which is where they are going. So we said to the majority, the Republicans, well, let's make sure everyone in town gets that lower rate, because now we know what the rate should be for that community, because they are offering it to the good side of town.

The Republicans say, oh, no, we are not going to give the lower rate to the poor side of town where the telephone company is not going to, because they are not going there. And the cable industry says, fine, we are going to raise rates on that side of town because the telephone company is telling us we are not going there.

So we are going to have again this crazy situation where they are going to the homes, and we are going to wind up with this perverse result where they are going to the good side of town, they are going to the good communities. They are going to have lower cable rates because they are going to have competition. And the telephone companies have told us over and over and over again they are not going to the other side of town.

They are not going to the poorer communities, and we object to any amendment by Democrats on the floor that will make us do the poor part of town, that will make us go to the other side of town. We are going to fight it and we are going to ask the Republicans to not even allow for a debate on the House floor that will help the people on the poor side of town get the lower rates.

That is what this bill at its heart is all about tonight, the ability of the telephone companies to cherry-pick the wealthiest families in America to have competing cable service.

Could I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a failure. It fails the challenge to ensure that this broadband technology will be deployed in every neighborhood in America. The Bell Companies oppose it, and the Republicans are not going to allow us to even have that debate here on the House floor.

Why is it important? Because in a post-GATT, post-NAFTA world, we have to make sure that every family and every child in every family has access to this high tech skillset which can only come from access to this broadband technology. The telephone companies do not want the responsibility to build out into the poor side of the town, the Republicans have not built that responsibility into the bill, and they have prohibited the Democrats from making that amendment. And their bill also fails the Internet. It fails the nondiscriminatory history of the Internet which has required, which has made possible for entrepreneurs and individuals on a nondiscriminatory basis, to use the Internet.

We want to have a debate on net neutrality. All the Republicans are willing to give to the proponents of the Net neutrality, the central constitutional protection built into the Internet for the last 20 years, is 10 minutes. That is a disgrace. The whole way we are making this bill is really a tribute to the Republican control of Congress and their lack of willingness to have full and open debate on the most important post-GATT, post-NAFTA issues we could debate, the access to a 21st century skillset and the ability for entrepreneurs to use the information superhighway to create the new jobs. I urge a ``no'' vote on final passage on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I might add that I am not in opposition to the manager's amendment except to the extent to which the manager's amendment does not include language on nondiscrimination. Language which would ensure that all parts of a community receive the lower cable rates, not just the good parts of town where the telephone companies are going to deploy.

There is no provision in here that deals in a meaningful way with net neutrality to ensure that the Internet as we know it is preserved, protected for the future, that entrepreneurs know that they can have access to it without having to pay a discriminatory entry fee, that the telephone companies cannot tip these entrepreneurs upside down and shake money out of their pockets. That is the problem that I have with the manager's amendment. It is not that I object to what is in it. It is really what is not in it, what should have been included, what would have led to this bill being characterized as a bill which was balanced.

By the way, the bill which we had agreed upon on a handshake deal, Democrats and Republicans, was a balanced bill. It did include protections for the Internet. It did include protections for rate payers. But all of that, obviously, was objected to by the Bell companies.

Let me just make this point once again. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the creation of the Internet. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the development of the World Wide Web. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the browser in its development. In fact, AT&T was asked if they wanted to build the Internet, the packet switch network in 1966. They turned the contract down when the government went to them. And so a company named BB&N, Bolt, Betranick and Newman got the contract. It was a very small company, not AT&T.

They have had nothing to do with the development of the Internet, but now at this late date, they want to come in and to create these bottleneck control points that allow them to extract Internet taxes, Internet fees from companies and individuals who have been using the Internet for a generation.

It is this absence of nondiscriminatory language in the manager's amendment and in the bill to which I object, and I think as time goes on and, obviously, the majority has been unwilling to have this debate in the full light of day. We will be finishing this some time around midnight. And the key amendments, of course, were not even put in order for us to debate, with the exception of net neutrality which we will have 10 minutes to the proponents of net neutrality to make their case. You can barely explain the concept in 10 minutes, much less have a full debate on what the implications of it are. But that is all part of the plan by the telephone companies and the Republican majority not to have a full debate on it.

But the consequences for our country are going to be dramatic in the long run. It has taken a long time to get to this point where America has been the leader in the Internet. And tonight monopolies have arrived, finally, belatedly, as they have come to understand this technology. But a little bit of history is important to understand.

They never purchased their first foot of fiber optic until the government broke up AT&T in 1984. They never deployed their first broadband technology until 1997 after we passed the Telecommunications Act. It has always taken the government to ensure that AT&T, these telephone companies, do, in fact, innovate, such as the word can be used, when you are describing a telephone company.

The real storyline over the last 20 years has been hundreds of thousands of smaller companies using the Internet, innovating on the Internet, creating jobs and revolutionizing not only our own country's ability to communicate and create jobs, but the rest of the world's as well.

So I do not object to the manager's amendment for what is in it but rather for what is not in it. And, unfortunately, the same thing can be said for amendments which are not going to be debated here tonight because of the Republican recalcitrance, their unwillingness to have a full blown debate on perhaps the central growth issue that we will have before the Congress on this session.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for raising this very important issue, and really, since the beginning of my career on the Telecommunications Subcommittee, working with Mickey Leland from your district, adding in language that ensured a larger percentage of minority participation in legislation, it is without question a high goal.

What I think we all want to be sure of here is that in communities it does not take resources away from municipalities that might have gone to those very same communities, but I think we can work together in order to accomplish that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the full commerce committee, the gentleman from the State of Michigan, Mr. Dingell.

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

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

I yield myself the balance of the time.

This debate is a travesty. We are allowed 10 minutes to explain this fundamental change in the whole history of the Internet. It is pretty much a joke.

If two consumers go into a car dealership and one wants to buy a Ferrari and another decides to buy a Ford Taurus, that is their choice. The Ferrari is expensive and has all sorts of bells and whistles. But once those two customers drive the Ferrari and the Taurus off the lot, the car dealership shouldn't be allowed to tell them where they can and cannot drive. We don't have certain roads or destinations just for Ferraris or just for Taurus drivers, and the auto dealership certainly shouldn't be permitted to put up new toll booths to extract fees on those highways. That limits freedom. That is what the Republicans and the Bell companies are doing tonight.

If you like the way the Internet is today, vote for the Markey amendment. If you don't want new broadband taxes, fees imposed upon the Internet, vote for the Markey amendment. If you agree with the National Religious Broadcasters, with the Gun Owners Association, Common Cause, the Christian Coalition, and the ACLU, you vote for the Markey amendment tonight. Because if you don't, there is going to be a fundamental change in the whole history of the Internet. You can't put together a coalition like that unless something fundamental is happening in America. It goes to voices, all of these organizations who feel it is going to be limited, and choices, the choices that consumers are going to have and the choices that entrepreneurs are going to have in getting onto this information highway without having to pay special fee or tax to the telephone companies or cable companies. Vote ``aye'' for the Markey amendment. Preserve network neutrality, preserve the Internet as we know it today. There is nothing wrong with it, and you won't hear a word from the Republicans or from the telephone companies making a case that there is anything wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with grateful appreciation if unanimous consent could be granted by you and by the other Members of this House that I have my name withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 2048.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia and I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Let me begin by saying that I have been in Congress for 30 years now and served on the Energy Committee for 30 years, and this is absolutely the worst energy bill I have seen since the refinery bill the House defeated just over 1 month ago. In fact, it is the same exact bill risen from the grave like some horror movie monstrosity to haunt this House and our country once again.

This bill also comes to us, just 10 months ago, as I said, when President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law. That bill contained a refinery siting provision. Those provisions were praised at the time by the Republican leadership and the President who claimed that it promotes greater refinery capacity, so more gasoline will be on the market, and it increases gasoline supply by putting an end to the proliferation of boutique fuels. That is 10 months ago, on the greatest energy bill that America had seen in a decade.

But now less than a year after the House passed and the President signed the Republican energy bill into law, as people are screaming at the pumps, as they are being tipped upside down and money is being shaken out of their pockets, as the American people realize that the Republican Party has allowed OPEC and the oil industry to take advantage of every single consumer across the country, this House is now poised to repeal the refinery siting law.

The Speaker, the Republican Speaker praised last summer and replaced it with a brand-new refinery siting scheme. The House Republicans have come up with just another new way of helping the oil and gas industry. Apparently, they do not like the bill they enacted last year; they want a new one. The problem is that the new snake oil that is being peddled in this bill is no more effective than the old snake oil it

replaces or the snake oil the Republicans were peddling on the House floor 2 years ago or 3 years ago or 4 years ago.

This bill will not reduce gas prices at the pump, it will not curb spiraling gasoline or home heating oil gas prices. All it does is throw more regulatory subsidies, taxpayer subsidies, at wealthy energy producers who do not need any more government handouts.

Here is what the Bass refinery bill would do: Direct the President to designate no fewer than three closed military bases to be turned over to the oil companies for use as an oil refinery.

Mr. Speaker, this is one terrible bill. I urge the Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Rule and to the underlying bill.

Let me begin by saying that I've been in Congress for 30 years now, and this is absolutely the worst energy bill I've seen since the bill the House defeated just over one month ago!

In fact, it is the same exact bill--risen from the grave like some horror movie monstrosity to haunt this House yet again.

The Rule we are considering for this bill is an absolute insult to this House and to the Members. It is a complete and total gag Rule. It makes absolutely no amendments in order. It allows only one hour of debate on the bill. It waives all points of order against the bill.

The Rules Committee Republicans voted down Democratic motions to report this bill with an open rule.

The Rules Committee Republicans voted down a Democratic Motion to make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) to strike provisions from the bill that would require the designation of no less than 3 closed military bases for use as refineries.

The Rules Committee Republicans voted down a Democratic Motion to make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) to establish a Strategic Refinery Reserve to help cushion the shock of extreme supply disruptions with a federal refinery that would have surge capacity to produce refined products when needed.

Why are the Republicans afraid of having a debate and a vote on these Democratic amendments?

Are they afraid of giving the Members an opportunity to approve a measure that might actually do something to reduce gas prices, and ensure that the rights of local communities are not trampled upon in order to advance the interests of the oil industry? We should be able to have that debate and vote on these amendments today.

We shouldn't be forced to put our amendments into a recommittal motion at the end of the bill in which we will only have 10 minutes of total debate time.

Once again, the Republican Majority that controls this Congress is abusing its power and trampling upon the rights of the Minority.

This bill has never been the subject of any legislative hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was introduced by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), on May 2nd of this year and then brought immediately to the House floor on the Suspension Calendar one day later.

Now, the Suspension Calendar is normally used for non-controversial bills that have approved on a bipartisan basis. Most of the time, we use the Suspension Calendar to bring up bills to name post offices, pass commemorations, or enact Sense of Congress resolutions. It is entirely inappropriate to use the Suspension process for a bill as contentious as the Bass bill, because that process bars any amendments and sharply limits floor debate.

Thankfully, the Bass bill failed when brought up as a Suspension. It deserves to fail again here on the Floor today.

There still have never been any legislative hearings on this bill.

There still has been no Subcommittee or Committee process.

The Democratic Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee have been walled out.

This is a bad bill. It deserves to be defeated.

I urge the Members to reject this Rule, to reject this unfair process, and to reject the Bass Refinery bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, spoofing is when a caller masks or changes the caller ID information of their call in a way that disguises the true origination number of the caller. In many instances, a call recipient may be subject to pretexting through spoofing, which can lead to fraud, personal ID theft, harassment or otherwise with the safety of the call recipient in danger. On the other hand, lest we think that spoofing always has nefarious aims, we must recognize that there may be circumstances when a person's safety may be put in danger if the true and accurate call origination information is disclosed as well.

What we seek in caller ID policy is balance, and I believe the legislation before us today, after changes were made in committee consideration, more adequately strikes the historic balance we have sought to achieve for consumer privacy and security.

For instance, Members of Congress often have direct lines in their office, but in order to ensure that such lines do not become generally public and, therefore, remain useful to us, it may be necessary to keep such direct numbers confidential and have the outgoing caller ID information indicate a different number at which our offices can be reached for return calls. That gives the recipient a legitimate phone number to call back, but keeps confidential lines private.

There are many doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers and other professionals who would similarly like to keep direct, confidential lines private in this way who have no direct intention of misleading anyone. In addition, there may be instances, for example, when a woman at a shelter seeks to reach her children, when spoofing is important to safeguard someone's safety. Moreover, informants to law enforcement tip lines or whistleblowers have additional reasons for why their calling information should remain private. We should not outlaw any of these practices, and I think the legislation now incorporates the notion that the intent of the caller is vitally important in gauging whether spoofing unfairly violates privacy and security.

With that, I commend the chairman for the changes he was willing to make in the committee deliberations of the bill, and I congratulate him and I congratulate Mr. Engel from New York for his splendid work on this legislation. Mr. Dingell and I have enjoyed working on this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Upton for this legislation and commend as well Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell for the cooperative bipartisan way this bill has been has been handled.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, S. 193, is similar to legislation that previously passed the House. It was approved by the Senate unanimously a few weeks ago. This bill, simply put, raises the cap on possible fines that the FCC can levy for violations of its broadcast indecency rules from $32,500 per broadcast licensee to $325,000.

I would like to emphasize that this legislation does not make indecent broadcast illegal, nor does the bill define what is or is not indecent material. Indecent content aired over broadcast TV and radio is already illegal between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. What speech constitutes indecent material will be left to the FCC and the courts to determine.

Again, this legislation simply updates the statute with respect to the amount of money that the FCC can levy as a fine for violations of its rules, and establishes procedures for considering broadcast license awards, renewal, or revocation when repeated violations are found.

I think this legislation has obvious broad support on both sides of the aisle because it merely increases the amount of fines available to the FCC to enforce its existing rules. I intend to support it, and again commend Chairman Upton, Chairman Barton, and Ranking Member John Dingell, and our other colleagues on this bill as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we have an historic time in our country. It is a time that requires the United States, this Congress, the President, to respond to an energy crisis. Skyrocketing gasoline prices, a real sense that we are importing too much oil from overseas and a real need for us to come together in a comprehensive way for our country to respond.

We should be debating out here on the House floor today how we radically increase the amount of renewable fuels in our country that is consumed. We have to have a debate out here on the House floor about how we improve all of the vehicles which we drive in terms of their energy efficiency, all of the appliances which we use in our country in order to make them more efficient so we do not have to import so much oil. Instead, the response from the majority is to just bring out this bill, once again, which will not produce the first barrel of oil for at least 10 years in a pristine wildlife refuge in Alaska.

It is a failure not to have this debate be broader, be more comprehensive at this time, so that we can, in fact, 10 years from now, 10 years from now, have energy independence from the Middle East.

This bill will not even produce the first barrel of oil for 10 years. It is a red herring. It is a disservice to the American public. There were no hearings on this bill before it came out. They have changed the language that has always come out on to the House floor dealing with the arctic refuge with no hearings. It is something that should be rejected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a historic debate. We have OPEC and the oil industry tipping consumers upside-down at the pump every single day. Rather than having a debate out here on the House floor on the amount of alternative renewable fuels we use which would dramatically increase by millions of barrels a day; rather than debating out here on the floor how we would increase the fuel efficiency standards over the next 10 years of all of the vehicles we drive in the United States, which would push out additional millions of barrels of oil a day, so that, 10 years from today, there would be no imported oil from the OPEC countries, no imported oil from the Persian Gulf; instead, we are debating a bill which won't produce the first barrel of oil for 10 years, and it will come from a pristine wildlife refuge.

That just shows you how bankrupt the Republican energy strategy is. It is almost Memorial Day weekend. Millions of drivers are getting ready to go to the pump to get ready for their long drives only to pay $3.20, $3.40 a gallon. The answer from the Republican party is, we will help you 10 years from now from a gas station we create in the pristine wildlife refuge in Alaska to send oil down to California to put into SUVs to get 15 miles a gallon. That is not the answer to this crisis.

We have a choice, make our country more addicted to oil or chart a new direction. We need cleaner air and water rather than more pollution. We need abundant, renewable energy and more efficient vehicles to drive in our country. We put 70 percent of all the oil we consume into gasoline tanks.

Instead, we are here talking about something that will not happen for 10 years. The American people want to know, when will the Congress stand up for them and make sure that the oil industry and OPEC stops sticking them up at the pump? Because our country has been paralyzed for 6 years by this Congress and by the Republican White House, which unfortunately is still too controlled by the oil industry vote to ensure that we protect this Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from being exploited.

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

Madam Speaker, this recommittal motion goes right to the heart of what the Congress voted last week. Last week the Congress said that if oil companies that had received leases in the 1990s and in the early part of this century that are not paying any royalties on the oil which they drill out of public lands that would help to reduce the deficit, to pay for Medicare, to pay for Medicaid; if they are not going to pay royalties at $60 a barrel, $70 a barrel, $80 a barrel, $90 a barrel or $100 a barrel on oil which is drilled on public lands that they already have leases on, that those companies should not be able to drill on public lands in an Arctic wildlife refuge and receive the benefit of drilling on public lands.

Either they renegotiate their old royalty agreements with the Federal Government that allow them to escape paying to the Federal Treasury, or they will not get the benefit of drilling on public lands, especially if it is a wildlife refuge.

So that is what this is all about. And President Bush said in April there is no need for royalty relief at $55 a barrel oil. We are talking about $60, $70, $80, $90 a barrel. This recommittal motion ensures that the American taxpayer will be protected.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have something which is called the Metropolitan Medical Response System. This is the system that has been set up in 125 major communities across the United States, every major metropolitan area, in order to coordinate the response of the police, the fire and the emergency medical personnel in the event that there is a terrorist attack; a hurricane; tornado; an earthquake; or, as we have learned over the last 6 or 8 months, an avian flu disaster which hits a community. Last year, there was $30 million which was appropriated. To the credit of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota, after the White House recommended zero for this program, the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota have restored the $30 million. But in the Homeland Security Committee, on which I serve, by a unanimous vote just a month ago, our committee voted to double the number to $60 million.

Now, why did we do that? Well, in addition to that number's being endorsed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs, all of these medical personnel across the country who say that the funding is woefully inadequate, you have just about every local police and fire department who are saying that they are going to be overwhelmed if one of these disasters hits their community.

So just to recap the last 12 months, since the $30 million was established as the number, we have already had Hurricane Katrina, which has exposed the inadequacies of the coordination of local police and fire and medical personnel. We have had the avian flu, which has arisen as a threat to the public health and safety of every community in our country. And there is no community at this point which is bragging that they are prepared to deal with this catastrophe if it hits their hometown.

So what we have done is identify a couple of programs, including the MAXHR program, which every union in America is opposed to because it is just going to redesign the whole way in which people are hired, and instead substituted money which will actually go to these local police and fire and medical personnel so that we can have the planning which is put in place.

We all know that when a catastrophe occurs in a community, nobody calls the Department of Homeland Security. They call the local police department, they call the local fire department, they call the local hospital. They are crying out to us saying they don't have the resources. That is why the Homeland Security Committee upped the number from $30 million to $60 million just last month.

Every one of these people, we saw it New York City, we saw it down here, these people are heroes. But heroes need help. They need the resources. They need the planning to be put in place. That is why the fire chiefs, that is why these local unions are all crying out, please, give us the help. We will take the risk. We will go into the flaming buildings. We will try to stop the flood. We will put our own health on the line in the event of an avian flu hitting a community. But give us the planning, give us the capacity now to put in place the response mechanism.

That is what this amendment does. And all it does is respond to what all these experts have told us the number has to be. $30 million is clearly inadequate, given what we have learned since last year with avian flu and what happened in New Orleans and across the whole gulf coast.

I urge an ``aye'' vote in order to ensure that this funding is made available to these local heroes.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I am not asking for this amendment to be considered en bloc. I would ask for the gentleman from Kentucky to explain further his point of order so that it can be better understood by the Chair and by the proponent of the amendment.

I would yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

No, I await the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, could you tell me where in the amendment there is a proposed change in the budget authority?

Mr. Chairman, if I may continue to make a parliamentary inquiry, we have a CBO score that says that there is actually a reduction in outlays of $20 million. I am asking my staff to present to the Chair, before he concludes his ruling, the actual documentation from CBO that reflects that finding, which I think would as a result mean that the amendment was in compliance.

Mr. Chairman, I think we are each aware at this point there is a certain amount of terminological inexactitude in the numbers that both sides are using right now; and, as a result, I defer to the ruling of the Chair. But I will announce that I will try to come back with a redrafted proposal in this area.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I hope everyone who has been watching this debate appreciates this free, online parliamentary lesson that we are conducting out here on the floor. My amendment has been redrafted in a way, working with the Parliamentarians, which I think is now completely in conformance with the rules of the House.

But what I have decided to do during the time that we have been actually working on the parliamentary questions is to change the amendment by reducing the amount that I am going to ask to be transferred over to the metropolitan medical response systems in the country. That decision rested upon kind of a suggestion that I take the money that we really need out of the Max HR program, this program which the unions of America are in opposition to, the National Treasury Employees Union, the American Federation of Government Employees. We have the Fire Chiefs of the United States who have endorsed my amendment.

Just to restate for those who were not listening earlier, the point of this is that we have learned a lot since this time last year when we were appropriating the last time; $30 million was inserted. And I want to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota.

Again, the White House recommended no money. But we all know the critical role which the local police, the local fire, the local medical personnel are going to play in the event that, God forbid, there is ever a catastrophic event in a community.

We have also learned from this time last year of the inadequacy of local preparedness. Hurricane Katrina showed us how locally unprepared we are in our community. The Avian flu has only appeared as a major pandemic threat to our country since this time last year. We did not have that as part of our discussion.

What have we heard from the local level? We have heard that there is no capacity for just about any community in America to respond to the level of catastrophe that a terrorist attack, nuclear, biological or chemical; a hurricane of a magnitude of a three or higher; or an avian flu type of pandemic would present to a community.

So here in this amendment, what I am doing is increasing by $14.7 million the funding that will go out to these 125 largest of all metropolitan areas in the United States, so that at the State level and local level they can coordinate with the Federal Government and their police, fire and medical resources, so that there is a strategy to respond in the event of one of those catastrophes.

The money, again, will be coming out of the Max HR program. It is one that has already been tapped in this process. It is one that deals with the program which has come under assault from the unions of our country as being an assault upon their workplace.

So to the Members, I urge them to support this amendment. It will provide for those local heroes the help that they are going to need, the reinforcements that they are going to need in the event, and we know that no one community has an inevitable catastrophe, but we know that across the country, in any one year, it is inevitable that someone will be hit. This is a way of giving us that extra insurance policy so that the planning can be in place.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Markey amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the gentleman not objecting at this time.

What I did was, to be honest with you, I truncated my statement when I rose this second time, that is, on this second iteration of the amendment, and I realize that many people an hour ago probably were not listening. So when the gentleman from Kentucky said that $30 million was in the budget, that was true and it remains true, and I do not contest that except in my earlier statement I made clear that, one, I praised him for putting in $30 million because the Bush administration wanted zero, but second, the $30 million number is the same number that was in last year's budget before Katrina, before the avian flu threat became clear, before all the lessons that this country has learned unfortunately through real life experience.

That is why I believe that we have to increase this budget by this near $15 million. That is what the fire chiefs are asking us for. That is what the unions are asking us for. In other words, the local police, the local fire, the employees in the hospitals all across the country, they are all saying: We are not prepared. Our emergency rooms will be overrun. We do not have the capacity to respond to a nuclear or chemical or biological event. We will be paralyzed in the first one hour. We need better metropolitan planning so that no one hospital, no one neighborhood is devastated.

So I am asking for the increase because of what we have learned over the last year, what we are seeing ourselves as Americans, horrified last Labor Day weekend, saw these people looking up, looking for help, and realizing there was no metropolitan medical response plan. We have learned in audits of plans across the whole country that there is still not in existence plans of a way that would adequately deal with this issue.

So, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for not objecting, and I urge the Members to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, since 2001, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, under the leadership of Jan Scruggs, has been working towards the dedication of an underground visitors' center on the Memorial grounds. The proposal for the center was carefully planned to assure that America's youth learn the values of citizenship and duty to their nation. This process has been long and arduous for the Fund, but throughout it all their efforts have been supported by various legislative and public initiatives. Their efforts were officially validated when Congress passed a bill that authorized the construction of the site in November of 2003. The language of the legislation stated that the ``final approval shall not be withheld.''

Nevertheless, the progress and completion of the site continues to be held up, awaiting the pending approval of the National Capitol Planning Commission (NCPC). While the NCPC oversees planning and construction of any new structure within the Washington, D.C. city limits, in this case it appears to be impeding the construction of a facility authorized and sanctioned by Congress and under the law.

In December, the NCPC stalled the progress of the site by removing the Visitors Center from its December 1 monthly meeting agenda. Additionally, advocates for the Center, who were supposed to testify to the NCPC in July 2005, were told that they would have to wait to make their presentation until August 2006. Over and over again, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, under the leadership of Jan Scruggs, has complied with all the deadlines and requests of the NCPC and other governing organizations throughout the approval process. Yet, for some reason ground has yet to be broken on the construction of the site.

While the approval of the site awaits action from the NCPC, a series of actions have been taken on the proposal's behalf. In December 2005 the Resources Committee and National Parks Subcommittee began an inquiry of the actions of the National Capitol Planning Commission due to delays engineered on an effort approved by Congress in 2003. In February Congressman Pombo, chairman of the Resources Committee, requested that all internal documents from the NCPC, including emails and attorney client materials for review. After a careful review of the facts, Congressman Pombo informed the NCPC Chairman on March 2, 2006 that the NCPC appeared to be intentionally ignoring the will of the Congress with unnecessary internal delays. In response, Congressmen Pombo and Rahall, introduced H.R. 4882 to end the delays on this important project. I cosponsored the bill, which came out of committee with great support and was brought to the House floor. On March 28, 2006 the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 4882. A companion bill, S. 2419 was later introduced in the Senate by Senators Kerry, Stevens and Hagel, and is currently awaiting legislative action.

I urge the NCPC to proceed expeditiously in accordance with the express wishes of Congress so that America's youth will soon have the opportunity to learn about citizenship and duty to our country at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors' Center.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership receiving an additional $40 million in this budget over what it received last year. It received $80 million worth of taxpayers' dollars last year, and here we are seeing a 50 percent increase in the taxpayers' contribution to something that should be paid for by the private sector.

This is now one of the wealthiest, most successful, most profitable industries in the United States, the domestic nuclear energy industry. If there is any industry, apart from the oil and gas industry, that has no business being out here on the floor asking for handouts from the taxpayer at this time, then you have to put the nuclear industry at the top of the list.

And what is the essence of this Global Nuclear Energy Partnership? Well, sad to say, it is that we will cut deals with countries like Bulgaria, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Korea, on and on, where our private sector companies will be building nuclear power plants in those countries and returning the nuclear waste to the United States for reprocessing in our country. So on the one hand, the Congress is saying, well, we don't want any more immigrants from any of these countries, but send us your nuclear waste if an American company has been able to build nuclear power plants there and make a profit from it.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it should not be the business of the House, of the people who represent hardworking taxpayers, to be handing over all this money to very wealthy industries. They are doing quite well, thank you. This is, once again, an example of an industry now 50 years old; this industry is like someone who is 50 years old still living at home with mom and dad and expecting mom and dad to continue to subsidize them; to give them a hand out.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The problem with this program is that the Department of Energy is only guessing about how much it is ultimately going to cost. Their range is from $3 billion to $6 billion just for a demonstration project, because it doesn't know the answers to the ultimate questions about cost, about feasibility, about the nuclear proliferation consequences. It doesn't know the answers to any of these questions.

But if, again, the nuclear industry wants to get back out on the road and start selling nuclear power plants around the globe, they should do it. Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so fast listening to this debate that he would qualify for a subsidy under this bill as a new electrical generating source. That is how bad this is.

This is a total violation of free market principles. There are no answers at all that you are providing, except that you want to stick your hand into the pockets of the American taxpayers, and it is just wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

You know, the problem with this whole debate is that, within the same bill, there is funding for Yucca Mountain in order to store all of the spent fuel that the nuclear industry has created here domestically. Yet they are coming in here saying, well, we need another solution to the same problem. We also need the taxpayers to subsidize ultimately $3 billion, $6 billion, which is just a demonstration project, and ultimately, $20 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion or $50 billion for reprocessing technology; two paid-for-by-the-taxpayer solutions to the same problem, even though Yucca Mountain is supposed to solve the problem.

Why is that? Because this program does what President Bush wants to do, which is to offer cradle-to-grave services for countries around the world. American companies will build nuclear power plants around the world, and then they will ship the nuclear waste to the United States. And by the way, this waste, when it is reprocessed, is the worst of all materials because it can be used for nuclear weapons but it is not too dangerous for terrorists to handle as a dirty bomb at the same time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this is a crazy budget. It really is. It authorizes $50 million to help the oil companies to drill in deep water even though they reported $113 billion in profits. It allows for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That is where they are going to be heading tomorrow on the House floor.

And this shows you the hypocrisy coefficient on energy policy. Last year, they trumpeted on the House floor and the President with a flourish signed the bill that put in $100 million for State energy plans for conservation at the State level, $100 million.

Then, in January, the President sends up his budget, $49.5 million.

And today, out on the House floor, the true agenda of the Republican Party once again reveals itself: zero. Zero for conservation. Nothing. Meaning that the $100 million last August that the President signed, the $49.5 million that he asked this year, all dismissed while we are going to tip the taxpayer upside down and subsidize the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industries.

But the American taxpayer knows we have to learn to work smarter, not harder; how to conserve, how to use technologies that will reduce our consumption. We only have 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world. We import 70 percent of the oil we consume. That is why we need the DeLauro amendment in order to make sure that we put conservation number one, to back out this imported oil from around the world.

Vote ``aye'' on the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, believe it or not, in this budget there is $50 million to help the oil industry figure out how to do ultra-deep drilling for oil.

Now, the Republicans here in Congress do this despite the fact that President Bush says this on the program, ``I will tell you, with $55-a- barrel oil, we do not need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.''

It is now $70 a barrel. The President has asked us to take out the money. It is ultimately a $500 million 10-year project. The only ultra- deep drilling that is going on here is in the pockets of American taxpayers by oil companies which have reported $110 billion worth of profit in the last year.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read to the Members who are paying attention what President Bush has said to us this year, just a couple of months ago. Here is what he says. He says, ``In the 2007 budget, we recommend repealing provisions of the Energy Policy Act for a new mandatory $50 million per year oil and gas R&D program funded with Federal revenues from oil and gas leases which would be similar to the discretionary programs proposed for termination. Industry has the incentives and the resources to do such research and development on its own.''

That is from President Bush and Dick Cheney to us on the floor.

We do not need this $500 million program. Mom and pop companies do not go out into deep water. The companies that are going out there are ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Conoco, Marathon. We do not have to subsidize these oil companies. They are already tipping the American consumer upside down and shaking money out of their pockets at the pump every single day.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, you know, I am like a referee at an intramural Republican fight here. And so I am just trying to ref it so that you can understand what is going on.

The President and the Vice President have asked for this huge subsidy to huge oil companies to be taken out. He is kind of being a free marketeer here. Well, the Republican leadership here is saying, no, we want to give another half a billion dollars to companies that are now charging $3 a gallon for gasoline, made $114 billion last year and, in the President's own words, do not need this subsidy.

So it is free marketeers versus subsidizers, but it is an intramural slaughter inside the Republican Party. And which of the companies are going to be the beneficiaries in this partnership to secure energy for America? The names are Chevron, Halliburton, BP, Marathon Oil, Kerr- McGee and others.

And this is Dick Cheney and George Bush saying take the money out. But yet they continue to commit to these subsidies from the taxpayer even as the companies report huge profits.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am so sorry that President Bush cannot be here on the House floor, but under separation of power, he just cannot be here.

I would just like to reference for the Republicans on this side what the President has said on this issue. ``I will tell you, with $55-a- barrel oil, we do not need incentives for oil and gas companies to explore.''

That is President Bush talking to the Republicans in Congress.

You do not have to tell me that. I already believed that. But he is on my side of the debate now.

So the point that we are making is quite clear that, yes, the money comes from the oil companies, but the money comes from oil companies because they have to pay the public for the leases on public land. So the public gets the money.

But then what this bill does is then it takes the money back out of the taxpayers' pockets and it hands it back over to the oil companies who have already been in the other pocket of the consumer, tipping them upside down and taking it out of $3 a gallon.

So this is basically the bonus for one oil executive for a couple of years. I mean, that is where they can get the money from if this is such a valuable project.

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

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this amendment is nothing more nor less than an attempt to be fair to the American taxpayer. They are howling at the pumps. They feel like they are getting stuck up at the gas stations. They are paying too much. They are being ripped off.

And this just adds insult to energy by having the oil companies then come to Congress and saying, now you do the research for us. You pay us to go out and drill for more oil. We will then charge you $3.50, $4 a gallon for it. It just makes no sense.

President Bush and Dick Cheney want this amendment to pass. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-Markey amendment. This amendment does absolutely nothing to any existing contract. The oil companies signed a deal at $25 a barrel, royalty relief complete. It goes to $50 a barrel, they still don't have to pay royalties; $75 a barrel, they still don't have to pay royalties; $100 a barrel, still no royalties. And we are not going to take that contract away.

All we are saying is that if you are going to play Uncle Sam as Uncle Sucker, then we are not going to allow you to have any new contracts, because the American consumer is being shaken upside down and having money shaken out of their pockets. Subsidizing the oil industry at $70 a barrel to drill for oil is like subsidizing fish to swim. You don't have to do it.

President Bush said on April 19, I will tell you with $55 a barrel oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore, Bush said in a speech to newspaper editors. There are plenty of incentives.

But here is the GOP, not the Grand Old Party, but Gas and Oil Party. That is what they have turned into.

And by the way, last night they cut public health programs by $16 billion. They cut veterans programs by $8 billion. And where could the money have come from? Well, another $10 billion from royalties. If Kerr McGee wins their case, another $60 billion.

If you kicked the Republican budget in the heart, you would break your toe. Keep the money, they say, in the hands of the oil companies. Let them rake off all this money from the taxpayer. Cut the programs in public health, in education, and for veterans, even as their own president is saying they don't need these royalties.

So, ladies and gentlemen, we say keep those contracts, but you are not getting any new contracts with our government if you are going to keep these windfall profits. That is why you should vote for the Hinchey-Markey amendment to send a message to the oil companies in our country.

Mr. Chairman, if you kicked the Republican budget in the heart, you would break your toe.

These guys tonight are going to vote to cut $162 billion out of programs for the poor and the sick and the aged in our country in order to accommodate a $228 billion tax break for the wealthy.

Now, it would not be so bad if you did not follow the details. They are going to cut $18 billion out of public health programs for people across our country. They are going to cut the Centers for Disease Control. They are going to cut the research at the National Institutes of Health, which is looking for the cures for Alzheimer's, for Parkinson's, for juvenile diabetes. They are going to cut those programs. They are going to cut $6 billion in veterans health care. They are going to cut money for homeland security all to accommodate a $228 billion tax break almost exclusively for the wealthy in our country.

If you kicked the Republican budget in the heart, you would break your toe.