Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee also for working with my colleagues.

I ask unanimous consent to vacate the requests for recorded votes on the five amendments on which proceedings were postponed, to the end that each of them stand adopted by the voice vote thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It is fitting that we are talking about the line item veto when we are doing the estate tax. President Clinton left you guys an estate of $5 trillion, and like irresponsible relatives, you went off and blew it. And now you are saying to the country, like so often serial killers leave notes for the police, as the Son of Sam did, saying, ``Help me before I kill again,'' you are saying, ``Help me before I spend again.''

You control all the mechanisms of spending. You control the House. You control the Senate. You control the Presidency. And you need help before you spend again. What is this, Comedy Central? What is it you are doing here? ``Help me, I can't stop spending. Give me a line item veto, and maybe the President will veto 1 million here or 10 million there or 5 million there.''

We have an $8 trillion debt. You inherited a $5 trillion surplus. The money you are going to give to the richest families later today in this country, the richest 7,000 families, you are going to borrow from Social Security.

Mr. Crenshaw says you are now being fiscally responsible because you have a rainy day fund. You are the only family in America that went out and borrowed money to put into a rainy day fund because you do not have any money. The American people do not have any money in this government. All they have is debt. And you want a bill to help you to keep from spending again. What you need is a 12-step program on spending.

It is called intestinal fortitude. It is called having a spine. It is called having some guts to do what is necessary. But the first thing you did was get rid of the discipline and pay-as-you-go. So now you are stuck.

But more importantly, the Nation is stuck, and so we see this little plea, on the morning that we are going to give away almost $1 trillion to the richest people in the Nation, you have a plea here that maybe the President will stop the bridge to nowhere. How about Congress stopping the bridge to nowhere? How about doing what you were elected to do?

You don't need a line item veto. This isn't about statutes. This isn't about vetoes. This is about what the Congress is to do. You walked in here fresh, newly elected, and you got handed $5 trillion. And now you can't stop yourself. You can't stop yourself.

You can stop yourself from giving the people an increase in the minimum wage that hasn't increased since 1997. You can't give those people 70 cents more an hour. But you give it away to the richest estates, and then you can plead that but for the line item veto, we would somehow get to a balanced budget.

Every dollar you are going to spend today, tomorrow, and every dollar you spent yesterday and the day before came out of the Social Security Trust Fund. I am sure that America, while you are putting away a rainy day fund on borrowed money, I am sure America is delighted that you are putting away the estate tax on their Social Security earnings, on their trust fund. You are taking their trust fund that belongs to all Americans called the Social Security Trust Fund and you are raiding it for the trust fund of the heirs of the richest estates in America. What a wonderful example today. What a wonderful example for young people to learn about our obligations to future generations.

This is a theater of the absurd. You have run the country into the ditch financially. You got a $1 trillion war going that you can't figure out how to stop. You have stolen most of the money from Social Security Trust Fund. Every year we have a deficit. We have a $8 trillion debt. And you want to talk about the line item veto.

You know, the government is spending money like a drunken sailor, and Ronald Reagan said, well, at least the sailor was spending his own money.

You are spending the public's money at a rapid, illegal, unconscionable, immoral rate, and you ought to stop, but the line item veto won't do it.

Lots of things have changed since 1997, but the value of the minimum wage isn't one of them. Because of Congress' failure to act on behalf of the lowest paid workers in America, the minimum wage is still just $5.15 per hour. $5.15 per hour. Think about that. At $5.15 per hour, you would have to work all day just to fill a tank of gas at today's gas prices.

At $5.15 per hour, you would have to work for at least 30 minutes just to afford a single gallon of milk.

Democrats have a simple and reasonable proposal: We want to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next two years. Doing so would directly benefit 6.6 million American workers. The vast majority of those workers are adults. Hundreds of thousands of them are parents with children under the age of 18.

We have all heard the well-worn economic arguments against raising the minimum wage, and we all know they simply aren't true. The truth is that raising the minimum wage won't hurt the economy, and can even help it.

But forget about economics. That's not what this issue is about. This issue is about doing what's right. And it is just wrong that, in the wealthiest and most advanced country in the history of the world, millions of adults work full-time, all year, and yet still earn an income that leaves them deep in poverty.

It is just wrong for the Republican leaders of this Congress to refuse to allow even a vote on raising the minimum wage. But what makes all of this far worse is that today, once again, as it has done so many times during the past several years, the leaders of this House are going to push tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country .

You know, starting in 2009, only the largest and wealthiest 7,500 estates nationwide will pay the estate tax. The Republican plan to gut the tax on these 7,500 estates will add three quarters of a trillion dollars to the federal budget deficit over the next decade. That's trillion with a T.

Lee Raymond, the former CEO of Exxon Mobil, stands to save as much as $160 million if this estate tax repeal goes through. This is the same Lee Raymond who left his job with a $400 million retirement package.

Why is the Republican leadership so worried about people like Lee Raymond? Why is the Republican leadership constantly looking for new ways to help the absolute richest people in the country? When is the leadership of this House going to do something for the lowest-paid families in America?

If you are born with a silver spoon in your mouth and you stand to inherit millions or even billions of dollars that you did not work to earn, then this Congress wants to serve you. But if you get up every day and go to work to earn a living, then don't expect any help from this Congress. The message all of this sends could not be clearer. The Republicans value wealth, not work.

If you hold up your end of the bargain and contribute to your community and our economy by working hard every day, then you should not have to live in poverty. It is well past time for this Congress to treat America's working families with the respect and dignity they have earned.

The choice to provide hundreds of billions more in tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy is shameful. It's even more shameful to do it while steadfastly refusing to raise the minimum wage.

So I have 25 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I would say to those who are going to speak to be aware of that so others get a chance to speak.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues for joining me in this Special Order to try to bring to the attention of this Nation the unwillingness of the Republican Congress to raise the minimum wage for these workers that my colleagues have described.

We are talking about the dignity of millions of workers. We are talking about millions of workers who must rely on the Congress of the United States to give them a raise, and this Congress has refused to do so and has refused to do so for the past 9 years.

These are people who work very hard. They get up and go to work every day, just like we tell them we want them to do. We don't want them to get on public assistance. We want them to take responsibility, and they do. They work at some of the most difficult jobs in the Nation, and they do it every day, and at the end of the year they simply end up poor. They end up poor not because they are not tough people, not because they are not diligent, not because they are competent; they end up poor because they simply do not get paid enough, and this Congress is unwilling to lend a hand to them.

When we refuse to pay these workers, we refuse them the dignity of that work and the recognition that we all understand. This country could not survive without their effort. They cook our food. They take care of our families and clean our offices. They do so many things for us without asking the question, and we come to expect it. It is just that way when we show up in the morning, it is just that way when we go home because of their hard work.

I dare say most Members of Congress couldn't toil at these jobs for a day, a week, or a month. And yet these people do it all year long. And they are now working for a wage that has its lowest value in 50 years. That is what we tell them that they are worth, that they are not entitled to that increase. And yet, do we see in just one week's time the Congress voted to give itself a COLA, turned around and we thought vote to raise the minimum wage in the Labor-HHS bill after 9 years, finally voting to raise the wage.

But the Republican leadership interceded. When the amendment was offered today, this Republican Congress changed their vote and voted against the minimum wage. And the majority leader, Mr. Boehner of the Republican Party, is quoted as saying he is against it. It is not going to happen. It is not coming to the floor and he hasn't voted for minimum wage in 25 years of his public service, a boast of pride. I think it is a boast of shame.

It is a shame this Congress doesn't understand its obligation to these workers who are in such desperate need. These are people who are trying to hold their family together. Again we ask them to take care of their children to keep them safe, to provide for the care for these children. Do you know how difficult it is to put a family together on $10,000 a year? At a time, as Ms. Schakowsky says, what is it that isn't going up? You have to pay the utility bills. You have to pay increased prices. These people have to work all week to fill the gas tank. All week. $5.15 an hour. How do you do this? How do you do this? You have got to fill the gas tank; you have got to drive the car. You have got to take care of your kids. You have got to buy groceries. You can't afford the rent.

How is it they do this? How do they do it? One day is for gas; one day is for food. It doesn't work out. It simply doesn't work out. So what happens to these people? They become dependent on the taxpayer. Because the employers won't pay them the wages, the taxpayers come in and subsidize the jobs. They subsidize the jobs in terms of housing, in terms of free and reduced-price lunches, in terms of health care.

So the employer simply decides that he won't pay this wage. We don't know whether or not he can afford to. That is the claim. But they end up just handing them off to the taxpayers. And even that voice of an industry that was doing the same thing at a different level, Wal-Mart, now has come out and asked for an increase in the minimum wage. Why? Because they realize that people who are shopping and earning at the minimum wage simply don't have enough to buy the necessities of life. Even at Wal-Mart with everyday low prices, as they advertise, people cannot do this.

So that power, that bastion of capitalistic spirit is saying, if the Nation doesn't do something for these workers, growth is going to go down in the retail industry. You know what it means? You know what Wal- Mart understands? They understand that this increase of the minimum wage would mean about $4,300 to these families, to these individuals, that that is real purchasing power and that is what the communities that Mr. Tierney cited and Ms. Schakowsky cited. What we see is jobs were created in those communities. Retail sales are actually up in those communities because people have money to spend. They can go to the grocery store. They can go and buy their kids clothes. They can buy them things for school.

None of that is possible at the minimum wage. None of that is possible at the minimum wage. And that is why this Congress has got to understand the human dimensions of this. If the Republicans are so callous that they can't understand how hard these people work and how they toil, and they cannot figure out that these people are worth more than $5.15 an hour, something is terribly wrong.

I heard one of the spokesmen for the Club For Growth today said there shouldn't be any minimum wage. Just let the marketplace set the price. Just let the marketplace set the price. And former Secretary Rice said, oh, you mean like it does for executive salaries? And the answer was absolutely,

just like it does for executive salaries. Are those the same executives that were backdating the stock options? They didn't let the marketplace set their compensation. They backdated the stock options so they were guaranteed a profit in those stock options. No, they didn't rely on the market. They manipulated the market. They manipulated the market.

And how is it that somehow they want to suggest that for people at the minimum wage that they are the ones that have to survive in the marketplace? The fact of the matter is the marketplace is exploiting these individuals by failing to pay them a decent wage so that they can raise their families.

And it has got to stop. And it has got to stop here because the times has come to do this, to make sure that after 9 years, after 9 years of no increases, after six times of increasing congressional salaries, somehow something is terribly wrong for these individuals, and we have got to change that. We have got to make sure that that can't happen.

The disparities are just unbelievable in terms of these people and the rest of the country. And we cannot believe that each of these children who are in these families are going to have the same kind of opportunity that other children have, and that is why we have got to raise the minimum wage.

This is an issue of moral dimensions. It is way beyond the pay for the hours worked, the pay for the week's work. It is about whether or not we really do, in fact, believe in the value of work, whether we really do believe in the human dignity of these individuals who toil at these jobs. That is what this minimum wage is about. And it is a tragedy, it is a tragedy that the Republican leadership is now vowing that it simply will not be able to be voted on.

This is a Congress. We have a bipartisan solution; clearly we have enough votes in the Congress to pass the minimum wage. But they are going to do everything they can from keeping that vote from taking place. So the democracy is not going to work its will. The House is not going to work its will. All of the jabbering that goes on about bipartisan government is not going to work its will because bipartisan government in the House of Representatives would vote to increase the minimum wage. But that apparently is not going to happen.

But we have got to continue to struggle on behalf of these families, on behalf of their children, on behalf of this Nation in terms of human dignity.

And I want to thank my colleagues for joining me in this Special Order to raise this issue with our colleagues and with people in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 37 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 21, 2006, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, there is no more pressing issue in our country today than bringing an end to the war in Iraq as quickly as possible.

I thank my colleagues on the other side who just completed their discussion of the war on terror. They remind us that it is a war in which we can never yield and about which we have no choice. They also remind us that Iraq has become a recruiting ground for those international terrorists; that Iraq has become a proving ground for those international terrorists; and that Iraq has become the motivation for many of those international terrorists, none of which existed before the President's choice to go to war, a war not of necessity, a war that was unjustified based upon falsified intelligence.

In fact, we see the new CIA Director said that intelligence that the administration used to make the case for war was wrong, inaccurate, and misleading. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.

The administration used fear to scare this country into war based upon those lies. He refused to properly prepare for the war and its aftermath, and now our soldiers, our families, and our Nation are paying an enormous price for this President's tragic blunder.

Two thousand five hundred Americans soldiers, we are informed today, have died in Iraq. 19,000 American soldiers have been wounded, many of them missing limbs and suffering other very serious debilitating injuries that will afflict them the rest of their lives. The war has cost almost a half a trillion dollars in taxpayer money, and America's international reputation and respect in the world has been severely damaged.

The President often says that he makes decisions about the future of Iraq based upon what the generals say; but when the time came to listen to the generals prior to Iraq, the President refused to listen to them. He refused to listen to them when they questioned the force structure that was available to us to go into Iraq at that time, but he went anyway. He refused to listen to them when questions were raised the day after we seized Baghdad.

What we now see is massive national chaos for which our soldiers were not trained, not given any instructions on how to deal with, and certainly did not have sufficient numbers to deal with. The President sent the troops into that war with that poor planning, that poor structure, and that poor understanding of what would take place afterwards.

The American public had to witness soldiers being forced to buy their own body armor, have their families buy it because we did not have a proper supply prior to going into that war. Many men and women were sent into battle with unarmored, old Humvees that were used for flood control in the California rivers before they showed up in Iraq, and those soldiers died because of that inadequate equipment and because of the roadside bombs that are the number one killer in Iraq.

We see the torture of detainees was approved at the highest levels in the Pentagon; and this, again, has led to an undermining of our position in the world, our moral position in the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism.

This is a policy blunder of historic proportions by this President, and it is very important that we understand that we are paying a huge price for these mistakes by this administration. Tragically, we stand here on the floor of this Congress today 3 years after the beginning of this war, but for 3 years questions were not raised in this Congress about that force structure, about that preparedness, about the detainee policy, about these actions that have so severely undermined us.

Yes, we saw the taking of Zarqawi, and what do we have there? We have the real use of smart intelligence on the war against terror. As you pointed out, they are not going to come after the 130,000 troops. They are not going to come after our strengths, but that is what people have been saying for a long time. That is what people have been writing about at the military schools, about the networking of terrorism and how you had to go after it. We went after it exactly the wrong way, in exactly the same way, as people who made these historic blunders throughout history, when confronting this kind of force.

Yes, we should provide the special ops; yes, we should provide the surveillance; yes, we should provide the intelligence and we should work together. In the case of Zarqawi, we saw, once the Jordanians were insulted enough by the attacks on their land, they put their intelligence sources to work, combined with ours, and Zarqawi was run down, and we provided the 500-pound bombs. We provided the special ops.

That is not what is happening day to day in the war in Iraq, and our troops are paying a horrible, horrible price for the lack of preparation, the lack of planning and the lack of prosecution of this effort and the initial mistake and lies by the President of the United States.

The President's policies in Iraq have severely undermined America's national security and made the world less safe.

In response to the clear failures in Iraq, the Republican Congress has acted like a rubberstamp for President Bush rather than the elected representatives of the people of America.

Republicans in Congress have hid their heads in the sand and refused to question the President, instead sheepishly pretending success is around the corner.

As a result, Iraq is engaged in a civil war that threatens to consume the country.

Congress has done nothing to stop the civil war in Iraq, nothing to hold the President accountable for the failures in Iraq, and nothing to put our troops on a safe and speedy path toward home, or to other parts of the world where they are needed to fight against terrorism.

The President and his allies in the Republican leadership in Congress have made up their minds.

They have a plan for Iraq. It is the same failed plan they started the war with. It is chaos with no end in sight.

There is no more that we can ask of America's troops. They have done everything they have been asked to do. It is time for them to serve their nation where they are needed most, and that is surely not in Iraq.

Now is not the time to stay the course of failure.

America needs a new direction in Iraq--a new direction that will make Americans safer.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, we rise in support of this legislation. We think that it is important that we do get a handle on those programs that the Federal Government currently supports in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Late last year, the Democratic Caucus introduced an innovation agenda, and that innovation agenda was designed to make sure that America would retain its competitiveness and America would be able to go forward into this century as a leader in math, science and engineering and a leader in innovation, a place that America has held for the last 50 years. We have held that position in the world because of an investment that was made by President Kennedy to go to the Moon and to return safely, and the infrastructure that was built up by that decision. President Kennedy understood it was more than just a moon shot. It was about building an infrastructure in math, science and engineering for this country for the future. And that decision led to the greatest public-private partnership in the history of the world and created an infrastructure today that we continue to live off of and that has driven this economy for that same period of time.

The question is whether or not we need to renew that investment. Clearly those people who are participating in this economy at the highest levels, on the cutting edge, those who are creating new start- ups, who have created some of the great companies of the

world in high technology, biotech and engineering, tell us that it is absolutely imperative that America make this effort.

They have made it also clear to us that the foundation of this is the American education system; that not only must we fully fund No Child Left Behind, as the American Electronics Association called for, but we have to make a new commitment to graduate studies, we have to make a new commitment to the teachers of math, science and engineering at all levels, and we have got to make a new commitment to research and development.

So this resolution is quite timely, because it is important that we understand not only why these programs are on the books, the purposes for which they are created, but do they still work in today's environment, should they be modified, should they be merged, should they be given new purposes.

We know that the National Science Foundation outside of the Department of Education has created some of the most effective programs for young people to become excited about the physical sciences and the life sciences and to understand the world around them, and have engaged students in a way that they are unlikely to be engaged with the traditional textbook approach to those sciences.

In my own State of California, we now see the University of California initiating a new program where those students of math, science and engineering will be able to concurrently achieve a teaching credential, so not only will they be fully skilled in the core subject matters of engineering and math and science, but they will also, if they decide to go into the teaching field, be fully qualified to teach those subject matters and create that excitement that we talk about so much, so that young people will truly see the value and the excitement of studying and entering careers that deeply involve math, science and engineering.

If we fail to do this, if we fail to do more than this resolution, if the national science programs continue to come under budget pressure, then the problem will be that we can lose that leadership in fields of innovation where America has been so terribly strong.

We now see strategic investments being made in the educational facilities, in the research facilities, all along the Asian Rim, by India, by China, by Indonesia, by Korea, in the field of telecommunications and the field of technology and the field of biosciences; and it is terribly important for our economy here at home, for the jobs of the future and for our leadership in the world and a matter of our national security, certainly, in the technology fields. The only way we are going to be able to do that, according to those people who are betting their companies, betting their shareholders' money, betting borrowed money and the venture capitalists staking their future on it, is to engage in a full and comprehensive program for competitiveness and innovation.

In the Democratic proposal, the challenge that we have laid down to this Congress, that challenge is to create a new generation of innovators, and this legislation speaks to this because it speaks to the education programs that will be available and the effectiveness of those programs for math, science and engineering.

We also speak to that by making sure that there are graduate fellowships, much as we did again in the effort to reach the Moon in the Kennedy administration where 28,000 fellowships were given. Those individuals finished their graduate studies early and became part of that great foundation of American ingenuity and competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I, too, want to support this resolution and draw attention to the needs that we have in the areas of science, engineering and math for the education establishments in this country. We dramatically need to improve the number of highly qualified teachers with core competencies in these fields; we dramatically need to increase the number of young people who are excited by this; and we dramatically need to increase the number of young people who want to choose this as a career, as a profession, as a place of excitement and innovation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on this legislation. Again, I want to thank Mr. Price and Mr. McKeon for bringing this bill to the floor, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as Members are aware, I have spoken out forcefully on the need for rapid Federal action to address mine safety. I have urged this Congress to legislate, to push us toward a new era in which the technology that has helped revitalize the productivity of the mining industry would also be used to save the lives and limbs of our miners.

Unfortunately, the bill sent from the Senate fails to make the reforms that go to the very heart of what happened in the Sago mine disaster. It fails in three significant ways. It does not guarantee that miners trapped underground will have enough air to survive an accident like Sago. It does not give miners prompt access to wireless communications and electronic tracking devices so they can communicate with their rescuers instead of having to bang on pipes and bang on rocks like miners did hundreds of years ago.

It does not guarantee that the emergency oxygen units like the ones that Randal McCloy, the only Sago survivor, told us in some cases were defective, and would be tested at random by the Federal Government to ensure that they work properly.

In other words, if another Sago mine disaster were to happen, this bill does not ensure that we would not have the same tragic deaths, because it does not address what killed the miners in the Sago mine disaster.

I want to remind Members that 11 of the 12 miners that died at Sago did not die from the initial explosion. They died because they did not have communication tools to lead them to safety; they died because they did not have an oxygen supply to last the 40 hours that they were trapped.

I cannot, in good conscience, support a bill if passed that would not prevent another Sago, when we understand the tragedy that took place there.

When it comes to the safety of miners, and thousands of miners and families across the Nation, the House can do better than take-it-or- leave-it legislation that fails to provide that margin of safety that these families are entitled to.

In the last 10 days, there have been two significant developments that demonstrate that we can and we must do better than the Senate bill. Last week, the Industry Labor Mine Technology Panel appointed by Governor Manchin of West Virginia composed of equal numbers of industry and miner representatives, concluded that there were significant enhancements to miner safety that could be achieved through wide application of existing technologies and techniques.

Then this industry labor report makes two recommendations that go to the heart of the matter: that emergency shelters and chambers shall provide a minimum of 48 hours of breathable air and in no later than 15 months mine operators will have to submit a communications and tracking plan for approval.

That is all that the amendments that I have offered suggest that we do, i.e., what is now accepted in the mining industry in the State of West Virginia. Now, someone explain this to me: the coal mine industry in West Virginia agrees with the West Virginia miners that there should be a guaranteed 48 hours of breathable air in a crisis, but the Congress of the United States refuses to provide that same promise to miners across the country.

The coal mining industry in West Virginia agrees that miners should have prompt access to wireless communications and electronic tracking devices, but the Congress of the United States refuses to provide that same promise to miners across this Nation.

And here is another development. A few weeks ago, the Illinois legislature sent far-reaching mine safety legislation to the Governor's desk. It passed 111-0. It passed the Senate 57-1.

The IL bill has two critical reforms, emergency mine chambers with 48 hours of air and rapid installation of wireless communications by the end of the year. The State of Illinois can promise no more Sago tragedies.

The coal mining industry in West Virginia can make that promise, but the U.S. House is being asked to ignore all of that evidence, all of those improvements, and rubber stamp a Senate bill with no opportunity to improve it.

That is wrong, and we should not stand for it. I have spent a great deal of time over the last few months listening to what those Sago families have to tell us. I have listened to their very specific and very reasonable recommendations.

I listened to Mrs. Debbie Hamner, who lost her husband, Junior, in the Sago tragedy. As many of you know, only one of the twelve miners who died in that tragedy was killed by the explosion. The rest died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Junior Hamner was one of those who died in that manner. And Mrs. Hamner asked why were they not equipped with enough oxygen. Why did we not require air supplies to be stored in the mine sections that they were working?

Why do Canadian miners have greater protections than the miners of West Virginia or miners elsewhere in the United States? That is what she wanted to know. And Debbie said, sadly the bill before us today does not even mandate a minimum air supply for miners trapped underground, let alone require a refuge stocked with air, food and water, so that miners would not have to do what they did in Sago when they were trapped, which was to construct a barrier and bang on rocks and hope for the very best.

Amber Helms, whose father, Terry, died at Sago, pointed out to us that the miners were still alive after the Sago explosion. The men tried to walk out. The mine foreman tried to walk toward them. But although they ended up only a few hundred yards apart, the foreman did not know where they were and was not able to tell them where they could find good air or a safe way that they could walk out.

It is ridiculous, Amber told us, that I can get a computer and I can make a full Web page in an hour, but they cannot find my dad, and they cannot track him. It turns out that Amber was right, that devices are available in the market right now to track the location of these miners. These devices are available, and they should be used and they should be used soon.

Last month, the sole survivor of the Sago mine accident, Mr. Randal McCloy, wrote a letter to the families of those who did not survive that mining disaster. Mr. McCloy stated that a number of the self- contained rescue units that were issued for their protection failed to operate.

The final amendment that I chose to offer to this legislation would make sure that we would have random inspections of those devices so those miners could have reliability if another tragedy should hit.

We understand that the needs are here, and that is why I am telling you that this legislation is not complete. We should not be taking it on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The House should have the opportunity to debate. Apparently we are not too busy today for we were going to do this at 6 o'clock and now we are doing this at 2 o'clock. We could have had an hours debate. We could have offered some amendments, voted them up or down, and we then could have moved on about our way.

But we have chosen instead to close out these concerns of these miners and these families. We have chosen to close out what we have now learned about the technology. We have chosen to close out the agreements that the mining industry and the miners have reached in some States but not in all States, and we have chosen, worst of all, not to mitigate and protect and provide a margin of safety to those miners, should we have a repeat of the Sago mine disaster.

We know Sago happened. We know why the miners were killed, and we know what we can do to prevent it. It is within our grasp. It is inexpensive and it is readily available. But in the Senate bill it is not required for another 3 years.

In the Senate bill, we do not specify a minimum of 48 hours of oxygen, as West Virginia has started to specify and as the State of Illinois has specified. So this is not about being way out on the cutting edge and trying to destroy a bill or kill a bill or any of the rest of that. This is about spending time with these families and seeing that grief and having to try and answer the questions that they ask, no longer on behalf of their husbands, their brothers, their uncles, no longer on their own behalf, but on behalf of the other mining families in their communities, and the other mining families in other States that are not addressing this situation.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would vote against the suspension of the rules under this act, and that we would be able to take this legislation up, offer these amendments, win, lose or draw. At least then we could have said that we made the last best effort to provide immediate security, immediate remedy to the failures that led to the loss of life in these mine disasters.

It is well documented, the problems and the impacts and the fatalities that were created by those shortcomings. The Senate bill simply does not address those.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues who spoke to this issue. All of them have worked very hard on behalf of mine safety, not just in the aftermath of these most recent tragedies but throughout their entire congressional careers. We share that in common.

This is not an adversarial relationship. This is a difference of opinion, and I think it is an important difference of opinion.

I think that when we went back and we went over these tragedies and saw what it was that killed these miners, we saw that we also had the capabilities to address the causes and to address them now, and not wait 3 years to do some of this.

We also understood that the quantities of oxygen required for trapped miners would be a minimum of 48 hours. It was after some 20 hours that Junior Hamner at Sago wrote a note (that was found from him) that said, I am in no pain now, but I don't know how long the air will last.

If we pass this legislation without these amendments, we do not know how long the air will last. There is no minimum standard in this bill and it should be made explicit on behalf of the miners. Other miners told us that the air-pack units were not working adequately. We need random spot checks to make sure that there is reliability in the air- packs.

We heard the stories of the trapped Sago miners struggling to communicate as they would have 100 years ago in the mines, by banging on pipes and banging rocks together. The fact of the matter is it is now within our grasp to address these problems and address them now.

Under this legislation, as it is currently written, if a Sago-type mine accident were to happen again, a month from now or 6 months from now, we do not provide the remedies that are necessary to save lives. Given what we learned from the Sago mine accident, I would hope that the Congress would do that.

This is not about speed. It's about getting it right. I have been here 30 years, and so very often I have been told if this amendment passes, that is the end of the process, and later that night, we pass the bill with the amendment. We all understand what the attempt here is, and I understand the desire of my colleagues who are so deeply impacted by these tragedies to get this legislation on the books. I would hope that my colleagues would pause for a moment because maybe when I first spoke of them, there was some controversy about these amendments. But the judgment that I have brought to this bill and the determination that I have brought to this bill, has now been ratified by the coal commission in West Virginia and by the State legislature in Illinois.

These are key components for the survivability of these kinds of accidents since the Sago miners were not killed by the initial explosion, rockfall or other incident that took place. And that's why I am so compelled to stand here. It's not easy.

I have gotten more interesting phone calls from the Senate from Members who are interested in the bill than I probably have in the last 5 years. These are men I have worked with my entire career: Senator Robert C. Byrd, Senator John D. Rockefeller, Senator Kennedy. They are friends. They are heroes of mine. But we have a disagreement here. It is fundamental. I believe it is important, and I would hope that we could be able to do this.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against this suspension of the rules so we would have a chance to address this in limited open debate, with up-or-down votes. I am not here to delay the bill at all, and I would hope that that would be the outcome of this debate.

Again, I think all of us, whether people agree with me or disagree with me, all of us share the desire to increase the margins of safety for those individuals who go into the mines and for their families who remain on the surface.

We have talked a great deal about energy. This is a key component of energy. We need these people to continue to go into the mines, and all of us desire to increase those margins of safety for them.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 30th anniversary of the Willows Theatre Company in Concord (Contra Costa County), California and the major, positive impact it has had--and continues to have--in the cultural life of the San Francisco Bay Area.

For three decades, the Willows has developed and produced dramas, comedies and musicals--more than 210 in all--drawn from contemporary American playwrights, composers and lyricists for a mix of world or area premieres and revivals of classic American shows. Six productions a year, for a total of 244 performances, attract thousands of loyal patrons each year. The current patron base has grown to more than 4,500 subscribers, with renewals at an enviable 87 percent. The company is training theater artists, and creating viable relationships with playwrights, designers, actors and students whose work will impact current and future audiences and artists.

Over the past 4 years alone, the Willows has earned 17 awards from the Bay Area Theatre Critics Circle. The Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County honored Richard Elliott, artistic director, in 2000 and Andrew Holtz, managing director, in 2004 with Arts Recognition Awards. In 2002, the San Francisco Business Arts Council presented its Cyril Award for Non-Profit Arts Excellence to the Willows.

Aside from its renowned artistic successes, the Willows also is an economic force in the community. With an annual budget approaching $2 million, the company maintains facilities, employs administrative support staff, and affords the first opportunity for professional employment for many developing theater artists. The company was the first theater in Contra Costa County to operate under a seasonal contract with Actors Equity Association, with as many as 200 or more professional and non-union Bay Area artists employed during a season.

In support of other non-profit arts organizations throughout the region, the Willows operates a Community Box Office service that has

returned more than $400,000 in earned income revenue to dozens of groups.

As part of its mission, the Willows engages youths in a variety of programs, including a conservatory, a round theater arts and student internship training program. In addition, it offers greatly reduced student ticket rates to encourage family and school attendance at live theater.

With a remarkable record of achievement in the past 30 years, the Willows is now focused on the future. Later this year, the company will expand its operations by opening a 220-seat cabaret-style theater in Martinez, the seat of government for Contra Costa County. Earlier this year, the company completed a 9,000 square-foot production facility in Waterfront Park in Martinez, in close proximity to the 1,000-seat John Muir Amphitheater. The facility was constructed to accommodate multiple performances of ``John Muir's Mountain Days,'' a musical, commissioned by the Willows, based on the life of the famed preservationist John Muir, whose residence in Martinez is a National Historic Site.

These activities are part of the John Muir Festival Center, an educational, cultural heritage and economic development project in which the Willows has taken a leadership role along with its partners-- the city of Martinez, the John Muir Association, the National Park Service, and the Martinez Historical Society.

On July 3, 2006, the Willows will celebrate its 30th anniversary with a gala that includes a dinner and a show in the John Muir Amphitheater featuring the Diablo Symphony and performers from past Willows Theatre productions.

I am proud to join in the celebration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.

We have, as many have said, been through this issue before, but we have never been here in this situation. The suggestion is by those individuals that somehow, if we just drill ANWR, that we will have lower gasoline prices in the United States. Maybe they do not know it, but they should know it, that there is only now one price of oil. It is the world price of oil. The last time we had lower prices in the United States, the oil companies drilling in ANWR sought to export that oil to Japan rather than sell it into the United States.

So these are not benevolent societies. These are profit-making organizations. And if the world price of oil is $70 a barrel, it will be $70 a barrel in ANWR. If it is $100 a barrel it will be $100 a barrel from ANWR. So the idea America is going to get this fix out of ANWR just isn't true. By the time ANWR comes on line, it may be 4 percent of imports. We should not ignore that, but the fact of the matter is, as so many people have pointed out, there is much more that we can do.

Many people have referred to the fact that the President stood here and told us we were addicted to oil. Well, the supporters of this legislation and the President of the United States are acting just like addicts. What they are doing is looking for one more quick fix. One more fix and then they will get religion tomorrow. One more fix and they will get well. One more fix and they will go into treatment.

What they are telling us is that they have postponed conservation, they have postponed new technologies, and they have postponed new sources of energy. This is the most oil-friendly administration in recent times, and we still find that we cannot meet the demands of this country. Because rather than deal with our demands, rather than deal with the technologies and the innovations that are available to us today, they have put all of their money on the oil companies. They put it there with royalty relief. They put it there with incentives. They have put it there with bonus bid systems and they have put it there with drilling in ANWR. It is a bankrupt policy.

What they are now doing in the 11th hour, while American consumers suffer from $3.00 and $3.50 gasoline, they are buying a lottery ticket. They are buying a lotto ticket called ANWR. And they are hoping to be able to redeem it. When it doesn't work, America will be deeper in debt and more dependent on foreign sources of oil than they are today. Because if they can get ANWR, they can once again postpone the commitments to conservation and technology.

They can scare you by suggesting Venezuela may cut off its oil. Well, let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, they may sell that oil to the Chinese, but it is going to be refined in my district. Because the Chinese can't refine that oil. We know that most oil changes hands from the time it leaves one shore to get to the other shore. It may change ownership three or four times, sometimes as much as a dozen times. And it changes destination. But the fact of the matter is, it is not very attractive oil that Mr. Chavez is trying to sell or put on to the market.

So we have to understand what this means. What this comes down to really is about a sense of the future and our values. This ANWR, and I have been there, I meet the test. I have been

there, I have explored it, I have slept overnight there, I have stayed out and camped out in this area, so let me talk about it. This is about a pristine area that you either make a decision to industrialize or you don't.

The 2,000-acre footprint is a hoax. There is another 69,000 acres under Indian jurisdiction. They can build airports and they can do whatever they want. That is the nature of our relationship with the Indian tribes. So the 2,000 acres is a hoax. It is a decision about the value of this place, this very special place, and whether or not you are going to industrialize it.

Then it comes down to whether or not you believe in the ingenuity and the creativity of America. When we put together our innovation agenda, we met with the CEOs of the most advanced companies in the world. And they said to us, put energy innovation on the table, and you will drive a new generation of technology, a new generation of economic activity, and new jobs in America.

What are they putting on the table? They are putting on the table the old tired policy that somehow America can drill its way out of this problem. No, it can't. There's nobody who believes that is the situation. But you chose to stick with the 1960s, a 1970s policy, a 1980s policy, a 1990s policy. We would like to think about this century and new innovation and new places to go, and the excitement of new technologies, where America once again sells to the world those cutting-edge technologies.

We should not abandon wind energy to the Scandinavians, to the Europeans, and to the Spanish. No, we should have those technologies. We should be making the investments in alternative sources of energy and alternative sources of fuel. That is not what this legislation is about. This is about the one last lottery ticket, the one last gamble that the American people lose with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to make sure that the taxpayers of this country and the owners of the Federal lands are not shortchanged if in fact ANWR will be opened in the future. Last week we discussed royalty relief, and we made the point that there are companies who have a royalty holiday. They do not pay royalties to the taxpayers of this country for the drilling on the lands that are owned by those taxpayers. In some cases, those companies may be able to escape almost all of the royalties on those lands.

We are simply saying to the Secretary of the Interior, if ANWR is opened, whether you are for it or against it, if ANWR is opened, those companies that continue to exploit the royalty holiday will not be allowed to bid for a lease in the ANWR, should it be leased. This is only fair to the taxpayers. An overwhelming bipartisan coalition voted for this last week on legislation. We seek to have that vote again to make sure.

We all know that oil is at $70 a barrel. We know oil company profits are at record all-time highs. Yet nobody can figure out how to give the taxpayer a break.

The oil companies are not going to lower the price of gas or pay for the research in the bill yesterday, and now they are telling us they won't give back the royalty holiday that they are not entitled to. They are going to continue to exploit this loophole in the law, and then they want to bid on new resources. We simply say, enough is enough. We want to protect the taxpayers.

This is not about whether ANWR is open or whether ANWR remains closed; this is about the ethics and this is about the judgment of this Congress in dealing with these oil companies that seek to not only have their cake and eat it too, but to move on and get new cake from the taxpayers of this country.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Madam Speaker, last week on the Hinchey amendment, where this issue was as straightforward as it is today, 67 Republicans joined 184 Democrats and overwhelmingly passed this amendment.

This amendment is a matter of simple fairness and equity, and it is to make sure that those people at these times of record profits who seek to exploit the loopholes in the law are not allowed to do that and get new leases from the taxpayers of this country in ANWR. That is simple fairness, it is simple equity, and the people of this country are entitled to it.

I would urge people to support the motion to recommit, and then the bill will go forward and people can decide on whether or not they want to drill in ANWR, I hope they don't, or, if they want to not do that, I hope they will make that decision. But that is independent of this fairness to the taxpayers, to the ratepayers, to the property owners in this country who own these lands that will be put out to bid, that we don't get fleeced twice by a couple of the oil companies that think they can have it both ways.

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

Mr. Chairman, last month the Department of Energy announced, with no notice or consultation with Congress, that it would stop its contractors from offering traditional pension plans to new employees and cut back on health benefits as well, starting next year.

Over the next several years, this radical new policy would torpedo the retirement benefits of over 100,000 employees working on the Nation's most cutting edge and vital research and energy projects.

This unilateral action by the Department of Energy is a mistake in many ways. It sends a message that the Federal Government no longer supports one of the country's bedrock retirement systems.

The Department will shuffle employees into 401(k) savings plans, a vehicle that puts at risk all of the employees. Let's be honest. The 401(k) plans were never designed to meet comprehensive retirement needs of employees. They are saving plans, not retirement plans.

But I want to commend Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for addressing this issue in this legislation. It would stop the Department of Energy from implementing this new policy and prohibit it from using the contracting process in any way from curtailing traditional pension plans and health benefits.

Groups throughout the retirement policy area have expressed concern with the Department of Energy policy, the AFL-CIO, the AARP, Mercer Human Resources Consulting and Pension Rights Center.

Major Energy Department laboratories and facilities are spread throughout the country. These contractors range from institutions like the University of California, Iowa State University, and major companies like Honeywell, Fluor, Johnson Controls and Westinghouse.

Thousands of workers at the Energy Department facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Hanford, Washington; Idaho Falls, Idaho; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Los Alamos, New Mexico have jobs with traditional pension plans and comprehensive benefits. We need this as we try to stay on the cutting edge of competitiveness on a worldwide competition to make sure that we can track the best that this country has to offer in terms of scientists, engineers, computer technicians and the rest.

I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for taking care of this in this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the January victory of Hamas in parliamentary elections in the Palestinian territories was a shock to observers worldwide and to the many of us in the United States and abroad who have repudiated violence between the Palestinians and the Jews and have repudiated attacks on the state of Israel.

The election was a shock to the peace efforts in the Middle East because its outcome resulted in the Palestinian government being controlled by a party that was legitimately elected by the voters of the Palestinian territories but that also is a party that sponsors terrorist acts against the Israeli-people and whose doctrine is based upon the notion that the existence of Israel is an affront to Islam.

For there to be any progress towards peace under a Hamas-led Palestinian government, Hamas must immediately acknowledge Israel's right to exist; uphold all previous agreements including the Roadmap for Peace; rid itself of all terrorist ties and dismantle its terrorist infrastructure; ensure the continuation of democratic institutions; and how fiscal transparency. If they do not, Hamas cannot expect the support and recognition of the United States and other governments.

However, any actions carried out by the U.S. Government against Hamas must address Hamas specifically and not the Palestinian people generally and must not undermine our goals in the Middle East. The bill being voted on today by the House would undermine the U.S. Government's ability to further the peace process and it would clearly hurt the Palestinian people. It could also lead to chaos in the Palestinian territories, which would be counter to both American and Israeli interests.

I am not alone in saying that denying all aid, except in the most isolated of instances, to the Palestinian people runs counter to both American and Israeli security interests. If we provoke a humanitarian crisis there, it may very well lead to the collapse of the Hamas government but not without potentially severe costs to both law abiding Palestinians and the peace process at the same time. And it could also erode civil order.

We do not and must not ever support terrorists in the Palestinian government. However, the United States must continue to support programs providing the Palestinian people's basic needs such as food, water and medicine; programs supporting democracy, human rights, freedom of the press and non-violence; as well as peaceful co-existence with Israel.

That is why I voted against H.R. 4681. The United States has already cut off direct aid to the Hamas government. This bill would not have brought additional penalties directly to Hamas. That objective has already been achieved. But it would penalize the Palestinian people and greatly limit the Administration's diplomatic options in pursuing peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

I hope that a conference committee with the Senate might produce legislation that addresses my concerns and the concerns of my other colleagues and of many well-regarded organizations and individuals who are deeply pro-Israel and who are great supporters of humanitarian efforts in the Middle East. I look forward to being able to support a revised bill that will send the proper message to Hamas that its violence toward Israel will never be supported and to the Palestinian people that the United States stands ready to work with them to resolve this most difficult and important conflict in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Improvement Act of 2006, introduced by my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind. I was one of the coauthors of the original Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act in 2000, and I am very pleased to see this new legislation make its way through the process again. This has been a highly successful program, and its reauthorization will help to continue this record of success.

The hundreds of species of birds that migrate through our Nation every year are facing urgent threats. Warblers, plovers, and kites were once common, but many species are now listed as endangered or are dwindling rapidly and will soon approach that point. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has greatly helped the effort to protect these creatures here and in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Like the other multinational species conservation programs including the Great Apes Conservation Act--whose reauthorization is still pending--the Migratory Bird program has done an excellent job of matching public funds with private donations. In fact, this program has brought in more than $60 million in private sector funds to protect and restore habitat, to study species declines, to provide technical assistance, and to encourage public-private and international partnerships.

Mr. Kind's legislation will enable the Interior Department to continue providing this much-needed funding to conservation efforts both in the United States and throughout the Americas. He has done an excellent job shepherding this bill through the House, and I am hopeful that the Act will soon be reauthorized.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

What is it about the marketplace that the Republicans don't understand? You signed a valid lease, although there is some argument about it. But you have a valid lease and now you want to lease the space next door. You leased a couple hundred thousand square feet, and you leased a thousand square feet, and now you want to lease next door. The economy has changed and now the land is available and so the landlord says to you, I think we will do is, we will do a wraparound lease. You want this?

This is done all the time. It is done all the time in the business world. Various assets at various prices are combined, and the landlord thinks about extracting what he can at that time when you come to renegotiate. This happens all the time in the real estate field, all the time in the minerals field.

All we are saying to the government is, these people have such a huge advantage because of the failure of the cap, we don't think they ought to get any additional leases. They can keep those leases without the caps and not lease, or they can negotiate those caps with the government to be like the rest of the oil companies and they can lease. This is a business transaction. It just happens to be a business transaction on behalf of the people of the United States of America who own these lands.

What is it about the marketplace that you think at $70 a barrel you need royalty relief? I think you are confusing this with the idea that the oil companies are somehow royalty and we must bow down to them. At $70 a barrel, the conservative chairman of my committee, the Resources Committee, said nobody deserves royalty relief. The President of the United States says at these prices nobody deserves royalty relief. And here you are on the floor of the House of Representatives arguing for people who get $70 a barrel.

I talked to the CEOs of these companies when this royalty relief came up, and most of them thought it was balderdash. Most of them thought it was about trying to rescue a couple of companies that made some real bad decisions in the gulf shelf when oil was a bad price. Fine, we agreed that under $34 a barrel you can have some royalty relief. Oil today, my friends, maybe you haven't been out of the Chamber here, it is $70 a barrel; and that is why we are asking the marketplace to work on behalf of the taxpayers of the country who are paying $3.50 for gasoline.

The gentleman's amendment should be unanimous in this House on behalf of people who are buying gas and commuting to work and are paying that price every day. Why do they now have to pay it through this tax break through this royalty relief?

You have a loan on your home. You have a second mortgage on your home and you want a new line of credit. It is a valid line of credit and it is a 4 percent loan. What does the bank tell you? We want you to pay it off, and the new rate is 7 percent or 6 percent.

People renegotiate these contracts all the time. You just refuse to negotiate them on behalf of the taxpayers. You renegotiate them all of the time on behalf of the oil companies. We do it all of the time.

This is what people do when they want to refinance their homes. The banker says, here are the new rules. You can stick with your loan and be happy as you are; but if you want another $50,000 out of your house, here are the points you have to pay. People understand this.

Why don't you let the marketplace work for once and why don't we run the government like a business, like so many of our constituents stand up and tell us to do. We now have an opportunity. We now have an opportunity, and you are refusing to take the opportunity on behalf of the taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, I was detained in committee on a markup during general debate, and I want to rise in support of the DeFazio amendment and against the underlying legislation.

I believe that the rationale for this legislation simply does not exist. There is no evidence that existing authorities are inadequate.

The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management already have many existing authorities for timber salvage, including the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

For situations involving threats to life and property, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management can request alternative arrangements with the Council on Environmental Quality, and to date I do not believe that one Forest Service request has been denied.

I think the DeFazio amendment is improving the legislation.

The sponsors' underlying rationale for this legislation is that there is a dire need for environmental exemptions for timber salvage on Federal lands following a catastrophic event.

But there's no evidence that existing authorities are inadequate.

The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management already have many existing authorities for timber salvage, including the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

In 2005, 35 percent of the logging volume on our National Forests came from timber salvage--all completed with existing authorities.

The Forest Service is quickly completing one of the largest timber salvage projects in history, 676 million board feet, for those National Forests on the gulf coast impacted by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

For situations involving threats to life and property, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management may request alternative arrangements with the Council on Environmental Quality, and to date not one Forest Service request has been denied.

If Congress approves H.R. 4200, roads will be built in inventoried roadless areas, even though the existing road maintenance backlog is large and growing.

Ironically, H.R. 4200 will also divert resources from wildfire prevention. Over 11,000 communities around the country are at high risk for wildfire. There's an urgent need to treat the neighboring forests to reduce the danger. And there are similar conditions across the Country.

But instead of focusing on this elevated threat, H.R. 4200 would emphasize putting limited resources on post-fire timber sales, even in areas far from communities. To make things worse, there is a serious chance these salvage operations could actually increase the risk of new fires.

The bottom line is that H.R. 4200 is worse than unnecessary--it's counterproductive.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt substitute.

Once again, the Republicans in the House have proved that there is little compassion in their brand of conservatism. If anything, with this budget they are declaring themselves to be fiscally irresponsible; soft on national security, veteran neglecting, anti-tax cuts for the middle class, pro-drug company, against real reform in rural health care as well as making quality education affordable.

I don't know what brand of conservatism you would call that, but it certainly isn't compassionate. If anything it's irrational; irrational conservatism. Because what the GOP proposes to do is wrong for America.

Here's a look:

fiscal responsibility

The GOP budget calls for deficits for as far as the eye can see, never achieving balance--adding another $2.3 trillion to the national debt over the next 5 years.

Democrats propose to lower the deficit over the next 5 years, and get to balance in 6 years. Our plan would reimpose the pay-as-you-go rules, which require that spending increases and tax cuts to be paid for, and which brought us to budget surpluses in 1990s.

makes america safer here at home?

GOP budget cuts homeland security by almost $500 this year and $6.1 billion over 5 years. It is not much better than the President's budget, which eliminates port security grants and rail and transit security grants--rolling them into a larger grant program.

Democrats would provide $6.5 billion more over the next 5 years for homeland security, thereby guaranteeing funding for port security, first responders, and Justice Assistance Grants.

adequately funds veterans' programs?

The GOP budget cuts funding for veterans' health care by $6 billion over the next 5 years.

Democrats have a better way, by providing $6 billion more over the next 5 years for veterans' health care than the GOP budget. Also rejects increases in TRICARE health care costs for more than 3 million military retirees and their families.

targets tax cuts to the middle class?

No. The GOP budget follows the President's budget, which provides $2.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years, targeted to the very wealthiest taxpayers.

Democrats would provide $150 billion for middle-class tax relief including child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and 10 percent individual bracket.

addresses problems with the prescription drug benefit?

The GOP budget does nothing to address the serious problems in the confusing and costly Bush Prescription Drug plan.

Democrats would use PPO slush fund and savings from negotiating drug prices to improve the Prescription Drug plan by working to close the donut hole and providing that drug coverage is reliable. We would also extend the enrollment deadline without penalty.

Provides Funding for Key Discretionary Health Care Initiatives?

No. The GOP budget is identical to the Bush budget, which slashes rural health activities, underfunds NIH, and cuts prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control. It also cuts physician payments by 5 percent each year.

Democrats would provide $18 billion more over the next 5 years for discretionary health care programs than the GOP budget, including NIH and the Centers for Disease Control. And we would provide for an increase in Medicare physician payments in 2007.

Makes College More Affordable?

No. The GOP Budget is identical to the Bush budget, which freezes Pell Grants for college and denies more than 460,000 students low-cost loans. This is on top of the $12 billion cut in student loan funding that Republicans just enacted.

Democrats reject the GOP cuts in higher education programs. We would also lower the cost of student loans--cutting the interest rate on student loans in half in 2007.

Expands Educational Opportunity?

No. The GOP Budget is identical to the Bush budget, which underfunds No Child Left Behind by 39 percent, denying extra math and reading help to 3.7 million children and shutting 2 million children out of afterschool programs.

Democrats would provide $4.6 billion more in 2007 and $45.3 billion more over the next 5 years for education and training programs than the GOP budget.

Provides Funding for Key Environmental Protection Initiatives?

No. The GOP budget is similar to the Bush budget, which slashes Clean Water funds by 22 percent, cuts Safe Drinking Water funds, and underfunds land and water conservation programs.

Democrats would provides $2.9 billion more in 2007 and $25 billion more over the next 5 years for environmental protection programs than the GOP budget.