Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring attention tonight to an issue that both the House and the Senate have been debating. Low-income Americans are struggling to pay for heating bills this winter. Thankfully, this winter has not been as cold as expected, and heating bills have not increased as greatly as feared.

Less noticed, however, is that our low-income Americans also struggle to pay cooling bills. When the 90- and 100-

degree heat rolls around this year, the situation is going to become very critical very quickly. Air conditioners run on electricity, and a lot of electricity comes from natural gas. Natural gas prices have more than tripled in the last 3 years, from $3 to $4 per thousand cubic feet to $10 to $15.

These costs are really hitting home as State public utility commissions, PUCs, are increasing fuel charges on electric bills. The need for relief is going to be intense this summer, but the Federal Government's Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, also called LIHEAP, is going to do next to nothing to help. For example, over 60,000 Houston area families got their power cut off in the summer of 2001 and only 14,443 people received 2001 cooling assistance statewide in Texas.

How can that be? The problem is that the LIHEAP formula is completely biased toward heating costs and ignores cooling costs. Many people believe that LIHEAP is a cold weather State program only. In the Northeast, the Midwest coalition lobbies for it and my Northeast and Midwest colleagues talk most about the program.

The media tends to cover LIHEAP funding issues only during the winter months. The shocking facts are that 3 percent of LIHEAP funding goes toward cooling homes in the summer, and 74 percent goes toward heating homes in the winter. Incredibly, LIHEAP spends three times more on administrative costs than it spends saving lives from heatstroke.

States like Texas, Florida and California that have large low-income populations vulnerable to hot weather get almost no funding. Low-income people in New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania receive eight or nine times as much LIHEAP per low-income resident.

In Texas, we have 3.7 million people who are eligible for LIHEAP due to income, but only 4.5 percent receive any assistance. The State of Texas canceled its Low Income Energy Assistance Program as electric bills were on their way up, and our constituents have nowhere to turn.

The cold weather bias is unacceptable, because hot weather kills just as many or more people than cold. According to the National Weather Service, which uses media reports and local government information, from 1985 to 2000 there were 2,596 fatalities caused by heat, an average of 235 per year, and 462 fatalities caused by cold, an average of only 24 a year.

It is scandalous that LIHEAP provides 3 percent of the funding for cooling, and hot weather kills 19 times more people than cold weather. However, a peer-reviewed study at the University of Delaware shows that over 1,000 people die from heat in the 15 biggest cities alone in the average summer, well over either government estimate. So neither National Weather Service nor the CDC data tells the full picture.

Reported causes of death are unreliable. The American Meteorological Society found several peer-reviewed academic studies showing that heart attack and stroke rates increased during hot weather. These heat- related deaths are often attributed to those other causes like heart disease and stroke and are not recorded as heat-related deaths.

The society's study found cold snaps do not cause death rates to go up versus average winter death rates, but extreme heat causes death rates to go up dramatically in the summer. As a result, the LIHEAP program is clearly completely divorced from reality. Heat kills more, but LIHEAP ignores cooling assistance.

The LIHEAP program is so biased because the funding formula is outdated. LIHEAP is based on an obsolete formula that is only still around because of the political support. The tragedy is that this political calculation is contributing to hundreds of preventible deaths annually.

Here are a few of the factors that go into the current LIHEAP formula: A ratio of State and national low income households in 1979; residential energy expenditures in 1979; a State's annual average number of heating days between 1931 and 1980; the number of a State's households at or below 125 percent of Federal poverty in 1980; a State's increase in home heating expenditures in 1980; the increase in total home residential heating expenditures between 1977 and 1980; and also 75 percent of each State's 1981 crude oil windfall profits tax formula.

This is a formula that is just ridiculous, and we need to update it. As we can see, this information is over 25 years old and completely irrelevant to modern reality. The fact that the primary LIHEAP formula still uses data from the date of the disco is unbelievable. There is absolutely no excuse for the program to allocate life-saving money based on such a formula.

While supporters of the current formula defend it by pointing to the $2 billion trigger, it is a red herring. Our Northeast and Midwest friends and colleagues insist the rising tide lifts all boats. Once the funding gets above $2 billion a year, a new formula directs it, but Congress has seldom voted over $2 billion.

It is true that there is a trigger and this obsolete formula goes away for appropriations over $2 billion. However, Congress rarely goes over that $2 billion dollar trigger, and when they do, they use accounting tricks to avoid the modern, fair formula.

For example, members in the other body are trying to move $1 billion in LIHEAP funding from the reconciliation bill from fiscal year 2007 to 2006. That would mean a total appropriation of $3 billion, including what Congress has already done, which should help for cooling.

However, the reconciliation bill put $750 million of that extra $1 billion into a ``contingency'' account that uses no formula and the White House can do whatever it wants with it. History tells us that Southern states and cooling needs will see very little, if any, of that money.

Unsurprisingly Southern members have placed a hold on the bill.

The only solution is changing the LIHEAP formula.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee nearly accomplished a fairer formula during the energy bill debate, where my amendment would have lowered the ``trigger'' to $1 billion to make a difference.

Northeastern and Midwestern members protested and offered a compromise to increase the authorization to $5 billion, which many of accepted at the time as a good faith offer.

However, the budget reconciliation bill revealed the true motive to deny funding for cooling assistance and to deny much needed LIHEAP funding for Southern, mid-American, and Western states.

Along with my colleagues Chip Pickering, Mike Ross, Charlie Gonzalez, Michael Burgess, and many others, we will continue to push for justice in the LIHEAP formula.

We can no longer allow Congress to use a 25 year old formula to ignore hundreds of preventable deaths every year--it is unconscionable and outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, as we begin this Second Session of the 109th Congress, I'd like to salute a constituent of mine, Barbara Bowes of Houston, Texas, who served as Jack Fields' district coordinator for the entire 16 years that Jack represented Texas' 8th Congressional District.

Barbara served her community not only as Jack's district coordinator but worked in our Houston district office. More important, she is a personal friend and someone I have come to admire over the last several decades.

Throughout the years she served Jack and me on behalf of the men and women of the North Channel area of Houston, Texas, I admired Barbara for her commitment to public service. When Jack represented the North Channel area in Congress in the early 1980s, and I represented the same area in the Texas State Senate, Barbara was the ``go to'' person in Jack's district office--the one we all contacted for requests, appointments and information. As Jack's district coordinator, Barbara was the best at what she did--keeping the Congressman and his staff on schedule and serving his constituents, often satisfying impossible requests.

But Barbara did far more as Jack's district coordinator.

Barbara served as a ``mother'' for the 8th Congressional District of Texas. She served as a ``mother'' to Jack's congressional staffs both in Houston and Washington, DC--offering support and good humor to everyone who served him. I don't think Barbara would object if I suggested that much of that good humor was somewhat ribald or slightly earthy.

Barbara continues to wage a courageous battle against melanoma, and in characteristic fashion, often uses humor to comfort everyone from her doctors to her family. Jack and I continue to marvel at her strength and endurance--as do her many friends, her family members and the staff at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Over the last 25 years, Barbara has provided all of us with a shining example of public service and a lesson in how service should be delivered. She never sought recognition for her work, but she earned the admiration of all who were privileged to work alongside her and those she helped through the years. I would ask that you and all of my colleagues remember Barbara in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, if not a Texas native, Barbara certainly is a Texas original--a Long Island native who found her home in Houston, Texas, and who served her community and her fellow citizens with dedication and distinction. Texans have always welcomed such men and women to our state and offered them our love and respect. Texas and our Nation are better as a result of Barbara's service, and I appreciate this opportunity to recognize this unique Texas woman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for this conference report and for the underlying conference report.

This bill will make our nation's military stronger, by providing funding for the equipment, salaries, and materials we need to prosecute the War on Terror around the world and the War in Iraq.

On behalf of my constituents, particularly those in our armed services, I have committed to never cutting off support while they are serving in a war zone.

Congress authorized the President to act, based on numerous assurances about the nature of the threat from Saddam. Much of that information turned out to be wrong, and as a result, the responsibility for the war now rests with the Administration's civilian leadership.

Congress' role should be to provide the necessary support and conduct vigorous oversight of our activities.

This appropriations bill also provides beneficial hurricane relief and improves our national energy security by providing access to ANWR for oil and gas exploration and production.

I want to thank the appropriators for hearing the concern of Texas, which has been hit indirectly by Hurricane Katrina and directly by Hurricane Rita. We have 150,000 evacuees in Houston, but funding and red-tape are still major burdens.

On the topic of ANWR, our nation's energy crisis this year proved we need a more robust supply of petroleum, because hurricanes can disrupt vital production in the Gulf of Mexico.

I encourage supporters of oil and gas exploration and production in ANWR to support the rule and support this conference report because this is a historic opportunity to finally achieve what many Congresses could not achieve.

This legislation may not be the ideal vehicle, and I would have preferred to do this on the energy bill.

However, a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate support opening ANWR, but procedural moves in the other body have stood in the way of our energy security.

As a result we need this procedural maneuver to get ANWR done, to provide energy and jobs for America.

I have visited the North Slope on several occasions and I can personally attest to the strong environmental protections.

Unfortunately, ANWR has become a symbolic issue for environmentalists, blown far out of proportion to the actual affects of oil and gas production on this coastal plain.

History will likely prove their dire predictions of environmental problems to be incorrect.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support the rule and support the underlying conference report for Fiscal Year 2006 DOD Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my Texas colleague's amendment, but against the bill with reservations. There are many aspects of this bill that I support. I believe we should improve security along the border. Every nation in the world should control their borders and know who is crossing their borders. That is why I co-sponsored the Border Security Act last Congress with our former colleague Jim Turner.

I believe we should prevent immigration officials from having to catch and release detainees because there are not enough detention beds and holding facilities. That is why I co-sponsored legislation with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) that would give us the number of beds we need.

However, I cannot support this bill in its current form.

Under this bill, approximately 11 million people in this country would become aggravated felons. If you think we have catch and release problems now, wait until we have an additional 11 million felons that have to be detained under this legislation. There are not enough prisons to handle these numbers. I cannot imagine our country loading box cars with the estimated 10 to 12 million people who do not have documents showing they are legal. This brings visions of deportation and Nazi Germany and Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Currently, 40 percent of immigration detainees are held in Department of Homeland Security facilities; 60 percent of these detainees are in local jails under contract with the Federal Government. The Federal Government needs to take responsibility for holding all of these detainees, much less the concern we have about an additional 11 million.

It is estimated by making all these people felons there are approximately 3 million U.S. citizen children that would be impacted by having their parents or guardians detained or deported. This is something we need to review closely and make sure we are not making life harder for children that are U.S. citizens who happen to be born to undocumented parents.

Finally, this bill closes the door to the courthouse for many immigrants. Without judicial review, we cannot be certain that our laws are being enforced appropriately. I believe in increasing protection along our borders, realistically addressing the current undocumented population; but I also oppose a new guest worker program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support for this legislation, of which I am a cosponsor. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have participated in several hearings and mark-ups on methamphetamine legislation.

One of the many unsafe effects of this drug is the environmental harm caused by producing it and disposing of the byproducts. Given that the products necessary to produce meth can be purchased at a drug store, and it can be produced in small quantities, many users make the drug in their basement, garage or kitchen, despite the health and safety risks.

Cooking meth indoors allows toxic fumes to escape into the house and be trapped in furniture and walls, causing additional health concerns for those producing it--and especially for the family and children who live in these homes. The production of meth puts family members and children in harm's way, as there is a possibility of inhaling fumes, absorbing chemicals or accidentally ingesting the toxic materials used to manufacture this drug.

Depending on the process used, each pound of meth produced results in about six additional pounds of waste which will likely end up in our sewer systems, in streams or rivers, or on the ground. Given that some of the key ingredients can be acetone, hydrochloric acid, ether and ammonia, disposing of this byproduct improperly can lead to additional health risks and environmental damage.

I am pleased the House is taking up this legislation to address the negative environmental impacts of methamphetamines, and problems posed by clean-up and remediation by directing the EPA to develop assessment standards and remediation guidelines. H.R. 798 also directs studies to be conducted on the residual effects of methamphetamine production, and supports the development of methamphetamine detection testing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleague to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my full support for H.R. 4508, commending the Coast Guard for its outstanding response to Hurricane Katrina.

On August, 2005 we saw one of the worst natural disasters in our nation's history ravage the gulf coast along Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. While many of our government agencies were unprepared to deal with such a disaster, the Coast Guard responded immediately and courageously.

The Coast Guard was responsible for saving over 33,000 lives--six times the number of lives the Coast Guard saved in 2004--after Katrina hit, coordinating pollution response with the Environmental Protection Agency, the state of Louisiana and local industries, and managing the mega-shelters in my hometown of Houston, Texas, where tens of thousands of the evacuees found relief following the storm. They have also been at the center of efforts to restore commerce to areas affected by Katrina by clearing shipping channels, replacing aids to navigation, and securing uprooted oil rigs.

Coast Guard Lieutenant Joe Leonard and the units in Houston did a remarkable job in managing these shelters that received thousands of people in the days and weeks following Katrina. Many of these people were left with nothing, but these shelters provided them food, water, and a place to stay until FEMA and other government agencies could find more suitable housing.

Mr. Speaker, I would again like to commend the Coast Guard for their remarkable job responding to Hurricane Katrina, and would urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4508.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our ranking member and good friend, John Conyers, for allowing us to speak tonight and putting together this hour-long Special Order for John Dingell.

John Dingell has taught as much as any Member of this House about what it means to represent your district, and, more importantly, what it means to represent the Nation as a whole and to protect the integrity of this House.

John Dingell has devoted his life to the House of Representatives, the people's House, where his patriotism, intelligence, and trust have been put to the test every 2 years for 50 years; and every other November John has passed that test with flying colors. While the newspapers have recently featured stories of elected officials at all levels who abandon the public's trust and instead look out for themselves or other powerful interests, John has created an unbelievable and unbeatable record of accomplishment fighting for the American consumers for half a century.

He accomplished much of this during his terms as subcommittee and committee Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which I am honored to serve with him on; but he also continued his strong record of accomplishment as the ranking member. That is the toughest test of effectiveness, being able to get things done when you do not have all the cards.

I am glad that John is still filled with vigor and vitality, and I encourage all Members to seek his advice and wisdom. He is a great resource for all Members, Republican and Democrat.

The mark that John has made on Congress and this House in particular will be enduring. For example, there is no Member that has been more effective at protecting the jurisdiction of this Congress under the U.S. Constitution. John practically invented the modern practice of congressional oversight of the executive branch, which, I may add, we have not been doing for the last few sessions. In addition, he exposed more waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal Government probably than any person in history.

John's partner in his work is his wife, Debbie, or as he refers to her, as his beautiful wife Debbie; and they are a great team. My wife and I enjoy their friendship, and I have enjoyed serving with John on the Energy and Commerce Committee. But even more fun is when we had the chance to go hunting the few times we could, whether it be quail in Texas or duck on the Eastern Shore or pheasant in northern Maryland. He is a true sportsman in every sense of the word, not only in the field, but as a Member of Congress and his leadership, again, carrying on the tradition that his father did in being an outdoorsman and sportsman.

America owes him a debt of gratitude for his many years, and even more years of service to this Congress and to this country.

I thank, again, my colleague from Michigan for allowing me to speak tonight.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution offers support for our closest ally, Israel, and calls upon member states of the United Nations to stop supporting resolutions that unfairly criticize Israel.

Israel is the only member-state in the UN that is prevented from belonging to the regional grouping which it geographically belongs in and is, therefore, prevented from participating in much of the ordinary work of the UN. Israel cannot vote for or be elected to many of the UN's central organizations. Just as troubling as being denied full membership, however, is the disproportionate number of resolutions passed in the UN that unfairly criticize Israel.

Anti-Israel resolutions are often adopted in agencies, and on issues which have no relevance to the work or mandate of these organizations. Additionally, the Commission on Human Rights routinely adopts a grossly disproportionate number of resolutions concerning Israel. Of all condemnations of this agency, 26 percent refer to Israel alone, while states such as Syria and Libya are rarely criticized.

Another egregious example of bias against Israel is the fact that the UN has repeatedly held Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly on Israeli construction in Jerusalem. The Emergency Special Session was originally conceived in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War, however in the last two decades, these special meetings have only been held regarding Israel. Emergency Special Sessions were not convened over the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or with regard to the other major world conflicts.

Since joining the United Nations on May 11, 1949, Israel has been singled out time and again for disproportionate criticism, underrepresented on important committees, denied full membership in regional groupings and constantly attacked by a bloc of Arab states and their supporters.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this resolution to once again reaffirm our support for Israel, and to urge members of the UN to stop supporting resolutions that unfairly criticize Israel and prevent Israel from fully participating in the UN.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution honoring the life and legacy of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

It has been 10 years, November 4, 1995, since Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a gunman in central Tel Aviv after attending a rally, however, Mr. Rabin's service to the Israeli people and work to promote peace with Israel's neighbors is still present today.

At the age of 19 Mr. Rabin joined the Israeli Army where he served for 27 years, culminating his military career as I.D.F. Chief of Staff. After retiring from I.D.F. service on January 1, 1968, he was appointed Israeli Ambassador to the United States.

Mr. Rabin returned to Jerusalem in early 1973, and became active in the Israel Labor Party. In the December 1973 elections, he was elected to the Knesset, and when Golda Meir formed her government in April 1974, he was appointed Minister of Labor. This government resigned shortly afterwards, and on June 2, 1974, the Knesset voted confidence in a new government headed by Yitzhak Rabin. As Prime Minister, Mr. Rabin placed a special emphasis on improving the economy, solving social problems, and strengthening the I.D.F.

Following the Labor Party's defeat in the May 1977 elections, Mr. Rabin served as a member of Knesset in the opposition, until the formation of the National Unity Government in September 1984. He then served as Minister of Defense in the National Unity Government from September 1984 to March 1990.

From March 15, 1990, to June 23, 1992, Mr. Rabin served again in the Knesset in the opposition. Before the 1992 elections, the Israel Labor Party held its first nationwide primaries. Mr. Rabin was elected chairman of the party in February 1992, and in the June 1992 national elections he was elected Prime Minister.

On September 13, 1993, Mr. Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles in Washington, DC, outlining the proposed interim self-government arrangements. The ``GazaJericho First'' agreement, signed in Cairo on May 4, 1994, addressed the implementation of the first stage of the Declaration of Principles. Following the progress in the negotiations with the Palestinians, Mr. Rabin received the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

I had the opportunity to meet Prime Minister Rabin and value his memory. Mr. Rabin was an extraordinary man, and not enough can be said about his commitment to the Israeli people, his country, and regional peace. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 535 to honor the legacy and life work of Mr. Rabin.

Mr. Speaker, Jack Murtha is a decorated Vietnam war veteran. He is a United

States Marine, retired colonel. This debate is not about the Iraq war, it is about silencing the opinion of a respected veteran marine and Member of Congress.

I supported the Iraq war resolution and voted for every defense appropriation for that effort, and I am voting against this resolution. But we know with each casualty from Iraq that something is wrong. Our men and women in uniform are fighting heroically, and I honor them and their families for their sacrifice.

It is civilian leadership and this administration and the Department of Defense that did not prepare to fight this war with either material or enough troops. I may not totally agree with my colleague from Pennsylvania, but I know him as a respected, decorated war veteran and a Member of Congress, and he has earned that right to be able to give his opinion without having a resolution attack him or have the Members attack him personally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

This legislation provides essential funding for the Houston Ship Channel, $26 million to finish the deepening and widening project and conduct environmental restoration work.

Also, I want to particularly express my appreciation for the Subcommittee's increase for Operations and Maintenance funding to $11 million for Houston-Galveston.

It is penny-wise and pound foolish to under-fund maintenance, because that reduces the benefits that we get from all of our construction dollars.

If we are going to dredge a channel to 45 feet to allow for modern ships to reach a port, we obviously have to keep that channel at 45 feet and remove silting and other blockages.

This bill also provides important funding for flood control projects in the Houston area--$375,000 for construction of the Hunting Bayou Federal flood control project and $75,000 to finish up the General Reevaluation Review study for Greens Bayou.

Hurricane Katrina showed the Nation the value of flood control projects. Both the Hunting Bayou and the Greens Bayou projects will save Federal money. By protecting homes from flooding, we reduce the amount of future disaster assistance and flood insurance claims.

My constituents who would benefit from these projects do not own expensive beach houses close to the shoreline, they own homes in a densely populated urban area over 50 miles from Galveston Bay.

However, Houston does not have a lot of elevated areas and we are at risk from hurricanes and tropical storms, and as a result flood control projects make good economic sense.

Unfortunately the Bush Administration repeatedly zeroes out funding in their budgets for flood control projects in Houston, for reasons I still cannot understand.

Our projects are authorized by Congress, have strong cost-benefit rations, are supported by the community, and are managed by the professional experts at the Harris County Flood Control District. Hunting Bayou had over 8,000 residences flood in 2001 from Tropical Storm Allison and Greens Bayou had over 28,000 homes flood in the same storm.

As a result, I want to thank the Subcommittee Chairman, David Hobson, the Ranking Member, Pete Visclosky, and especially my Texas colleague Chet Edwards for salvaging funding for all our projects--the Houston Ship Channel, Hunting Bayou, and Greens Bayou.

As final note, I want to add that the Houston Ship Channel has received serious damage from Hurricane Rita, roughly $30 million. Parts of the channel have silted up with material to 35 feet, which is a serious safety and economic problem.

If the large oil tankers cannot get to the refineries on the Houston Ship Channel, that will

not help gasoline prices to go down in this country.

Our refinery capacity has got a lot of notice lately in Congress, and this is something we can do in the short term to help that--repair hurricane damage at oil importing ports like the Port of Houston.

The Houston delegation--myself, John Culberson, Tom DeLay, Al Green, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Kevin Brady, Michael McCaul, Ted Poe, and our Texas colleague on the Appropriations Committee Chet Edwards all recently sent a letter to the Committee and Subcommittee requesting this $30 million in emergency damage repair funding for the next Supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill to fund the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, as well as NASA and the National Science Foundation.

In crafting this legislation, our appropriators faced the difficult task of adequately funding many national priorities. On balance, they did a remarkable job and have produced a bill worthy of our support.

This bill increases funding for many important Justice Department programs and included a 9 percent increase for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a 6 percent increase for both the U.S. Marshals Service and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

For sure, there are programs that we would all like to see funded at higher levels. I am particularly disappointed to see reduced funding for local law enforcement, Community Oriented Policing Services and juvenile justice programs; however, I am pleased that appropriators did not accept the Administration's request to lump all of these programs into one broad Justice Assistance line. I also applaud the conference committee for increasing funds for Byrne grants and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, both of which I have long supported.

This is the first year that NASA has been funded in this legislation, which provided $16.5 billion--or a 2 percent increase--for NASA. I appreciate the committee's support of NASA's efforts to develop a crew exploration vehicle that will eventually replace the Space Shuttle. With Johnson Space Center in our community, we are certainly grateful that the committee rejected the Administration's efforts to cut funding for NASA's Aeronautics Research program.

While the bill provides a slight decrease in funding for the Commerce Department, I am pleased to see significant funding increases for the Economic Development Administration and NOAA, as compared to House- passed funding levels.

One program of particular interest to me and our community in Houston is NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Program. This program exists to protect important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, or historical values and are threatened by development or conversion.

In Houston, we are involved in an effort to preserve the Buffalo Bayou, which is the historic waterway on which the Allen Brothers founded Houston in 1836. NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Program has allowed us to partner with the Trust for Public Land to conserve critical tracts of land along the Buffalo Bayou in order to further our conservation efforts.

For the past two years, Congress has supported our land acquisition funding requests to help revitalize the Buffalo Bayou in a manner that balances the need to conserve the Bayou's wetlands and waterways with the recreational and business development needed to transform the Buffalo Bayou into an active and vibrant urban waterfront center.

To date, congressionally-appropriated funds have played a significant role in the development of Buffalo Bend Nature Park, which was recently dedicated and has provided residents of my district with increased greenspace and recreational opportunities.

In this bill, Congress appropriated $750,000 for the acquisition of two tracts of land, funding that will further the goals of the Buffalo Bayou master plan. Land along the Buffalo Bayou will be purchased to expand Hidalgo Park, which sits in a historically Hispanic community that has traditionally lacked park land. Through this acquisition, Hidalgo Park will be linked to Buffalo Bend Nature Park, enhancing residents' recreational and environmental experience along the bayou.

The funding will also allow the City of Houston to purchase land along Brays Bayou, beginning at the confluence of Brays Bayou and Buffalo Bayou and stretching to Mason Park, less than a mile away. This area is a prime location for a greenbelt park, the development of which would further the City's plan for parks connected by and along the city's bayous.

I would like to thank appropriators in both the House and the Senate for recognizing the value of these projects and positive impact they will make on the quality of life for my constituents. With that, Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for House Resolution 38 and to strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution as well.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is a group of 30 member countries--including the United States--sharing a commitment to democratic government and the market economy.

Its work covers economic and social issues from macroeconomics, to trade, education, development and science and innovation.

Israel has been attempting to join the OECD since 2000, when it met the organization's industrial and per-capita product criteria.

Not only could OECD membership enhance Israel's status in the global market and within international financial institutions but also other OECD countries could potentially benefit in the science and high-tech sectors due to Israel's economic and advanced technological standing.

Israel also shares the commitment to democratic governance and free market principles that are the foundation of the OECD.

As a result, in December 2004, Israel was invited, on an ad hoc basis, to participate as an observer in discussions of the trade committee of the OECD and has participated in numerous other OECD activities, however it has not been granted full membership.

House Resolution 38 expresses that the United States supports full membership for Israel in the OECD based on its commitment to democracy, the market economy, and OECD's principles and mission.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support Israel's membership in the OECD, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak out against the budget reconciliation bill, which we will consider soon. The bill contains a number of harmful provisions, but my primary opposition to this legislation stems from its $11.9 billion in cuts to the Medicaid program. This reconciliation process has been flawed from day one.

The Energy and Commerce Committee was given an arbitrary budget number and was forced to mold the policy to achieve that number. Without doubt, there are certainly ways that we can improve the Medicaid program, but sound public policy, not budget targets, must be the driving force behind any Medicaid reform.

This quest to meet budget targets superseded Congress's responsibility to ensure that the Medicaid program continues to provide comprehensive and quality health care to our Nation's most vulnerable. Unfortunately, the bill the House will consider takes away that assurance and further frays the safety net that Medicaid beneficiaries depend on.

While the Senate's bill largely shielded the beneficiaries from any cuts to Medicaid, the House bill places a bull's-eye squarely on the backs of Medicaid beneficiaries and aims Medicaid cuts directly at them. In fact, $8.8 billion of these cuts in this bill are achieved through cost-sharing and benefit reductions for beneficiaries. The increased cost-sharing allowed for in the bill exposes Medicaid beneficiaries to new premium requirements and copays that many beneficiaries simply cannot afford. The reason you are on Medicaid is because you are poor.

What is more, Medicaid beneficiaries already pay a higher percentage of out-of-pocket health care costs than higher-income individuals who can better afford out-of-pocket costs. In 2002, higher-income adults with private insurance paid 0.7 percent of their income on the out-of- pocket medical expenses. Yet during the same year low-income, nondisabled adults on Medicaid spent more than three times as much, 2.4 percent of their income on out-of-pocket expenses.

Low-income disabled adults on Medicaid fared even worse, forced to spend 5.6 percent of their income on out-of-pocket medical expenses. Unfortunately, the growth of out-of-pocket health care spending is more than double that of the income for Medicaid adults, with income growing at 4.6 percent annually, out-of-pocket increases increasing by 9.4 percent annually.

This bill is only going to make worse a problem we already know is occurring. Faced with increased out-of-pocket costs, Medicaid beneficiaries are less likely to seek health care, which is exactly the result that proponents of this bill are looking for. The problem is, health care conditions worsened for these folks, and they will only seek care when their health problems reach emergency portions and the cost of care is exponentially greater.

While we do not want to encourage overutilization, we also do not want to cut off our nose to spite our face by discouraging preventive care. To make matters worse, the bill takes an extremely heavy-handed approach to the enforcement of those with cost-sharing measures. The bill will allow health care providers to refuse to treat sick Medicaid patients if they do not have the copay on hand.

The State can also drop Medicaid beneficiaries altogether if they cannot afford the premium for the Medicaid. A recent study of cost- sharing on Medicaid beneficiaries in Oregon foreshadows what will happen under these circumstances. Less than a year after Oregon implemented premium increases through a waiver process, its Medicaid population decreased by one-half.

Make no mistake about it, the Medicaid program is the health insurer of last resort. Without health insurance through Medicaid, it is safe to say that these folks in Oregon joined the growing ranks of the uninsured, a trend we will likely see continued if we enact this bill to allow every State in the Nation to follow Oregon's lead.

Not only does the bill make Medicaid beneficiaries pay more for health care; it also reduces the health care benefits they receive under Medicaid.

The bill allows States to reduce benefits as long as the Medicaid package mirrors private coverage or SCHIP coverage.

The flaw in that policy lies in the fact that the Medicaid program was always intended to provide benefits that low-income individuals could not afford to purchase through private coverage, such as an array of benefits needed by disabled individuals.

This reduction in benefits flies in the face of the goal shared by Democrats and Republicans alike to remove the institutional bias inherent in the Medicaid program by providing the necessary tools to keep disabled individuals in the community.

Without these benefits, low-income disabled individuals will have no option other than to enter a nursing home setting.

This bill also eliminates a benefit that has long served as the cornerstone of the Medicaid program's approach toward children's health.

If Medicaid costs are truly growing at an unsustainable rate, there is no way increased costs can be attributed to children.

Health care for pregnant women and children is arguably the most cost-beneficial aspect of the Medicaid program, with pregnant women or children accounting for nearly 70 percent of all Medicaid enrollees, but only 30 percent of the program's costs.

The bill's elimination of the Early, Periodic, Screening, Detection and Treatment program for children above the poverty level means that childhood illnesses will not be detected as early, and more low-income children will lack the good health that puts them on the path of learning and productivity.

According to the March of Dimes, the situation would be even more dire for children with significant physical and developmental conditions.

In a recent analysis of Medicaid coverage in all 50 States, the March of Dimes found that each State would significantly restrict coverage for services needed by children with physical and developmental disabilities, States that were exempt from the mandates of the Early, Periodic, Screening, Detection and Treatment program.

Unfortunately, this bill puts the wheels in motion for States to deny necessary health care benefits to disabled children.

Madam Speaker, the light has been shined on this process. This is not a process to reduce the deficit. This is a process to finance additional tax cuts.

There is no way to deny this fact when the same budget that protects $34.7 billion in decreased mandatory spending allows for $70 billion in tax cuts that will decrease revenues used to fund government programs.

It is inconceivable Congress would balance this budget on the backs of low-income Americans, but to finance tax cuts on the backs of America's most vulnerable, that is downright shameful.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 4128 and glad to rise in support of it.

The Private Property Rights Protection Act prohibits States and localities from using eminent domain powers for economic development purposes if the State or local governing jurisdiction received Federal economic development funds during the same year.

In the past, governments were only able to acquire property from private owners if the property was going to be used for real public use, highways, roads, schools, parks, or to eliminate that property from endangering the public. These transactions have typically not occurred when the government buys a property by the power of eminent domain from a private owner and then sells the property to a different private owner under the premise that the property would benefit the community with increased economic development.

We all support economic development, but if a community wants to do that, they need to go to that individual landowner and say, this what we want, we want to buy your property, and this is what we are going to do with it. We should not take it under the cloud of eminent domain.

The fifth amendment to the Constitution states that ``private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.'' This did not seem to matter when the Kelo decision was made.

The Kelo ruling has essentially stripped the public of the constitutional right to own that property if someone thought they had a better use for it than they did. I think that is what bothers so many people on a bipartisan basis, rural, urban. The fact that a small business or home can be taken away from a private citizen simply to increase tax revenues is disturbing and shows a blatant disregard I think for the constitutional rights of our citizens.

In Texas, our State legislature has already taken steps to correct the decision, at least under State law, by passing legislation that would prohibit the local government or private entity from taking private property through eminent domain for private benefit or economic development purposes, and we should do the same, at least as much as we can do under our Federal laws.

So this bill does give us that opportunity to defend our fundamental constitutional rights of our constituents.