Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of our troops, and I want to underscore that. But I also want to make clear that I am opposed to the war in Iraq. Our service men and women are proudly serving our country. More than 3,063 of our sons and daughters, including 13 from the 32nd Congressional District that I represent, have given their lives.

This war, as you know, has cost taxpayers $387 billion so far, and an additional $100 billion to $130 billion is going to be requested by this President. There is no plan to secure the peace. There is no accountability for companies like Halliburton that have been found to make more than $1.4 billion in unreasonable and unsupported billing charges, and our veterans lack the support needed and deserved.

We need a plan that ensures that there are no permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, and not a plan to increase the buildup. We need a plan which investigates and punishes companies engaged in war profiteering and fraud and a plan to redeploy our servicemen and women. We need to find a political solution.

Last November, the American people demanded a dramatic change at home and abroad. Now in the majority, Democrats in Congress are delivering on that promise. With the State of the Union address to be held tonight, President Bush can demonstrate that he has listened to the American public and is ready to work with the Congress on these priorities. On critical issues from Iraq to energy independence, it is time to take America in a new direction.

On security and Iraq. President Bush likes to make promises in the State of the Union addresses, he just doesn't always keep those promises. The President has promised the American people to strengthen America's security. Unfortunately, his policies have made the world more dangerous and America less safe. Now he wants to escalate the war in Iraq over the overwhelming opposition of the American public and many of his own generals. Unfortunately, President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq will not bring success in Iraq or make America safer. It will receive an up-or-down vote in both chambers of Congress. We will always put our troops first, and that means holding the President accountable for those changes that he wants to provide.

Democrats have a plan for success that will make America safer and bring our troops home. Shifting the principal mission of our forces from combat to training, logistics, force protection and activities to counter terrorism; beginning the phased deployment of our forces in the income tax 4 to 6 months; and implementing an aggressive diplomatic strategy both within the region and beyond to help the Iraqis achieve a sustainable political settlement, including amending their constitution.

On economic security. Last November, the American people demanded real results to improve their everyday lives and strengthen middle- class families. Today, President Bush has the opportunity to talk about a change of action there and work in a bipartisan way with those of us that are here serving in the House.

In its first 100 hours, the House of Representatives succeeded in passing legislation to raise the minimum wage, expand Federal funding for stem cell research, implement recommendations of the bipartisan 9/ 11 Commission, require negotiations for lower prescription drug costs, make college more affordable for many, many families, and end subsidies for Big Oil to invest in clean renewable energy. These 100-hour bills are just the beginning. The new Congress will do more to take America in a new direction.

On health care. President Bush's health insurance proposal is a tax hike on the middle class of our country. It will do little to help the uninsured and will undermine the health insurance of those lucky enough to have it already. In the same year that President Bush is once again submitting a budget making his tax cuts permanent--tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the richest Americans--he is proposing to shift more of the cost of health care onto working families. Under President Bush's leadership, the Nation's health insurance crisis has actually worsened, costs are up and the number of uninsured Americans has grown. This latest proposal is another step in the wrong direction.

On energy independence. Key to our national security and our economic security is energy independence. Last year in the State of the Union address by the President, he declared that we were addicted to oil. One week later in his annual budget, he shortchanged the development of alternative fuels and technologies needed to make America energy independent. As you know, Democrats are already putting America on a path to energy independence by cutting huge subsidies to Big Oil and investing in the alternative fuels and technologies needed to protect our national security, our economy and our environment. The science of global warming and its impact is overwhelming, as you know. The American public understands the urgency of the problem. We want to work with President Bush in a bipartisan fashion but we can't wait for him to put science before special interests.

Democrats will listen to what President Bush has to say today and we hope he will listen to the American public. It is time for all of us to work together for a new direction for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate America Ferrera for winning the Golden Globe for best actress in a comedy for her work in ABC's television show ``Ugly Betty.'' America Ferrera is a native of Los Angeles, the daughter of Honduran immigrant parents and a student at the University of Southern California, earning a degree in international relations.

As Betty Suarez, her character in ``Ugly Betty,'' Ferrera plays a smart, young Latina professional breaking into the publishing world. The people we see in here on television and in movies have a great influence on our communities and the attitudes of Americans.

While 40 percent of American youth ages 19 and under are children of color, few of the faces that they see on television actually reflect those races and cultures. Through her work, Ms. Ferrera is breaking down barriers for Latinos and Latinas in prime-time television.

I commend America Ferrera and everyone involved in Ugly Betty for helping to break down the stereotypes and provide a role model for young Latinas. I hope we can work together to teach everyone to appreciate diversity in our country.

Congratulations, America Ferrera.

Madam Speaker, I also rise in strong support of H.R. 5.

The high cost of education and the lack of adequate financial aid make obtaining a higher education unattainable for many of America's working families, including Latinos. This has been a great challenge for us in the last decade.

Since 2001, tuition and fees have jumped by 17 percent at private universities and by 41 percent at public universities and student loan interest rates have risen by 2 percent. According to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, the cost of higher education will prevent 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college or institution.

Obtaining a higher education is especially difficult for Latinos, who face low family incomes, low financial aid awards and a reluctance to assume debt. The median household income for Latino families has fallen by over 4 percent over the past 5 years.

Latinos, as you know, represent about 15 percent of the college-age population, and yet only represent 12 percent of all undergraduates in U.S. colleges and universities and only represent 5 percent of those students in graduate schools.

Of all undergraduate students enrolled in the 2003-2004 academic year, 49 percent of Latino undergraduates were more likely to be first- generation students, much like myself. Fifty-one percent are enrolled on a part-time basis and the majority are coming from low income households. Yet Latinos receive the least financial aid of any ethnic group in the country.

Latinos and other low income communities deserve the security provided by an affordable higher education. H.R. 5 is part of that solution. Cutting the interest rate on subsidized student loans in half from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent will make college more affordable for many thousands and thousands of Latino students.

A higher education should not be a privilege and available only to the few. Today, we are fulfilling that promise by passing this bill,

Madam Speaker, I stand here today in strong support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007.

I was proud to cast my support for this bill earlier today and commend the democratic leadership for making college affordability one of our first items of business in the 110th Congress.

Our children's future is very important to America's families. A quality education is key to that future.

However, many of America's working families, including Latino families, struggle to provide this future for their children.

The high cost of an education and the lack of adequate financial aid makes obtaining a higher education unattainable.

Since 2001, tuition and fees at private universities have jumped by 17 percent after inflation.

At public universities tuition and fees have increased by 41 percent after inflation.

In addition to tuition and fees rising, interest rates on student loans have risen.

Over the last 5 years, the interest rates on student loans have jumped by almost 2 percent--further increasing the cost of college.

During the same period of time that tuition jumped by 41 percent, the median household income for Latinos fell by 4 percent.

Of the millions of student loan borrowers with need based loans, half have family incomes between $26,000 and $68,000.

According to the 2004 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 73 percent of Latino families had incomes below $62,240. Forty-seven 47 percent of Latino families have incomes less than $34,288 per year.

In 2005, the total cost of college for one Latino student was 32 percent of a median household's income for a public institution.

It nears 75 percent of a median household's income for a private institution.

Yet Latinos receive the least financial aid of any ethnic group, including Federal and non-Federal aid.

While the average total aid award for all undergraduates in 2003-04 was $6,890, Latinos

received the lowest average aid award of $6,250.

The high cost of higher education leaves many Latino students with no choice.

According to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, the cost of a higher education will prevent 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college over the next decade.

And would prevent another two million high school graduates from attending any college at all.

This road is especially difficult for Latinos, who face low family incomes, low financial aid awards and a reluctance to assume debt.

Latinos represent 15 percent of the college-age population, yet only 12 percent of all undergraduates in U.S. colleges and universities, and 5 percent of students in graduate programs.

Only 12 percent of Latinos over the age 25 have a bachelor's degree.

Of all undergraduates enrolled in the 2003-2004 academic year, 49 percent of Latino undergraduates were more likely to be first- generation students, 51 percent are enrolled on a part-time basis and the majority have low-incomes.

Latinos and other low income communities deserve the security provided by an affordable higher education. H.R. 5 is part of the solution.

Cutting the interest rate on subsidized student loans in half from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over the next five years will make college more affordable for thousands of Latino students.

In fact, this bill will save students with $13,800 in subsidized federal student loan debt approximately $4,400 over the life of their loan.

At a time when financial barriers are preventing millions of young Americans from attending college we must make college more affordable.

I was fortunate to have access to federal and state programs such as the Pell Grant and Work-Study Program.

As Director of the California Student Opportunity and Access Program, I was able to help students find ways to afford their college education.

As a former Member of the Rio Hondo Community College Board, I know the struggles our colleges face in providing services to students.

My experience taught me that access to higher education should not be a privilege available to a select few, but a right available to all.

Investing in affordable higher education for every child benefits our society as a whole.

Today we are fulfilling our promise to make college more affordable for students.

Cutting interest rates in half on student loans is the first step.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensuring our children--all of our children--have a brighter future through education.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 70,000 eligible Medicare beneficiaries in the 32nd Congressional District of California, I rise to strongly support this legislation to reduce the cost of prescription drugs through negotiated pricing.

As a result of the Medicare Modernization Act, millions of low-income and minority seniors pay higher prices for their prescriptions. A recent report by Families USA revealed that the lowest Medicare part D plan drugs are still 58 percent higher than the lowest prices offered by those with the authority to negotiate, like the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Negotiated pricing is the difference between receiving needed medicine and putting food on the table. This is a reality for one in five Latinos above the age of 65 who live in poverty. Latinos are the fastest growing sector of the senior population. As chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Task Force on Health, I am concerned that without negotiated drug prices, Latino seniors will be unable to afford their medication and continue to suffer needlessly from chronic health diseases.

The overwhelming majority of Americans favor allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices for the Medicare program.

Organizations such as the National Council of La Raza, the Nation's largest Hispanic civil rights organization, and the National Hispanic Medical Association, which represents licensed Hispanic physicians in the U.S., support this legislation because they agree it will make a difference in the lives of Latino seniors.

I am proud that today we are considering this legislation that will make a real difference to the health and welfare of all of our seniors.

I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will help to make prescription drugs affordable for all of our constituents for seniors across the country.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentlewoman from Colorado and also Congressman Castle for their leadership on this issue.

Today I rise in strong support of H.R. 3.

Stem cell research, as you know, is a promising science that provides hope for millions of our families whose loved ones suffer from Parkinson's disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease and, even more, diabetes.

And as one who chairs the Hispanic task force on health, I know how very important it is that research be done on diabetes treatment because Latinos have a disproportionate large number in our community that suffer from this illness. Puerto Rican Americans and Mexican Americans are nearly twice as likely to have diabetes. The promising potential of stem cell research for those with diabetes provides a real opportunity to eliminate one of the most blatant health disparities for Latinos and African Americans.

Nearly three out of every four Americans support stem cell research. The American public have clearly stated that stem cell research is important to them and their families and their well-being. Let us make sure that we do the right thing today and we support this very important piece of legislation that went out of this House not too long ago. As a country, we have a moral obligation to support life, especially those who are ill and who need this treatment and cures. With stem cell research we would help to provide assistance to over 100 million Americans suffering from these various diseases. We cannot ignore a valuable research tool that might provide real cures for millions of Americans.

In my congressional district, the City of Hope, a grand research facility, is ready, willing and able to conduct promising cancer research using stem cells. For my constituents and for all Americans, I hope that we can remove this cumbersome limitation on federally funded research.

I urge my colleagues to strongly support H.R. 3.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Fair Minimum Wage Act, H.R. 2. As you know, women and minorities make up a disproportionate number of those earning minimum wage. In fact, they haven't seen a wage increase in 10 years. Too many single head-of- household women struggle to make ends meet, some working two and three jobs every single day to make sure that their children are cared for and the rent is paid for; 61 percent of those are sole bread earners. One-third of those, as you know, are women raising their children. Most don't even have an opportunity to have health care coverage. African American women and Latinas only make up 23 percent of the workforce, but they represent 33 percent of the women only receiving minimum wage.

This fair minimum wage package will allow for 1.4 million working moms to get an increase in pay. Let us not forget those women who are working in the garment industry in the Northern Mariana Islands who only earn $3.05. These women also work up to 20 hours a day in squalor with no health care and no reform in labor.

I stand up for those working women and men, and urge the support of

Mr. Speaker, good evening to you and to those families that are listening to us tonight.

I believe our Nation needs a policy to secure and stabilize Iraq, one that constructively engages in diplomacy and partners with neighboring countries and the region to create a stable and peaceful Nation in Iraq.

Unfortunately, President Bush missed the opportunity to set the United States on a new course in Iraq. Without a plan to secure the peace and stabilize Iraq, President Bush's plan will do nothing but unnecessarily risk the lives of more U.S. servicemen.

I have here displayed 13 of those service members who represent my district, most of whom, if you can look through each, are under the age of 30 and who left families, parents and children. They went to serve our country with honor, no doubt, but many of them enlisted in the Reserve and the Guard hoping that they would come back to get a college education, to have a better life, to be able to get housing and to get health care for their families. Unfortunately, that dream is not true for many of them.

There are approximately, at this time, 132,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq. This war, as you know, is having a significant impact on our families and our communities. Last December was the deadliest month of the war in over 2 years. U.S. casualties have exceeded well over 3,000 lives, and more than 22,700 servicemen and women have been permanently injured or disabled. Nearly half of those will not be able to lead a normal life.

While Latinos make up just about 12 percent of the U.S. population, they make up 17 percent of the service men and women in combat in Iraq, and about 11 percent of those have already been killed.

In the District that I represent in California, we have lost these young men. Sadly, Latinos, both citizens and noncitizens, and I mean those that carry green cards, are proudly there to serve our country, but we need to do more for them.

In 2001 to 2005 alone, the number of Latinos in the Army who enlisted rose by 26 percent. There are currently 35,136 green card soldiers proudly serving our country today. An additional 28,000 have become U.S. citizens since 9/11, and 73 have been granted citizenship after death.

This includes one of my very own, who was a fallen soldier early in the war, a young man, Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez, in the Marines, representing the City of Duarte in the San Gabriel Valley. His service to this Nation is countless. He was not even a U.S. citizen. He gave his life and was granted posthumous citizenship. But we need to do more for our soldiers than that.

The plan the President is going to speak to us of tonight ignores the real needs of our troops and the reality of the situation. Three times in the past 2 years President Bush has increased the number of troops in Iraq. Three times the approach has failed. From November 2004 to March 2005, the level of U.S. troops increased from 12,000 to 150,000. The increase did nothing to improve long-term security.

During the constitutional referendum in the fall of 2005, troop levels increased by 22,000 soldiers, for a total of more than a 160,000 American service men and women in Iraq. Again, this increase, while limiting major violence during the referendum, did nothing to improve the long-term security in that particular area.

During Operation Together Forward, the Bush administration sent additional troops to Baghdad. The U.S.

military spokesman, General William Caldwell, stated this effort was a failure and had ``not met our overall expectations for sustaining a reduction in the level of violence.''

Each of these instances has something in common. Each failed to improve the long-term security situation and the violence and death toll, which continues to rise. Even the Commander of U.S. Central Command has testified that top military commanders in Iraq do not believe increasing the number of troops is the right approach. He stated, in fact, more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more of their own responsibility.

We know the solution is not to send more troops to Iraq without a real plan to secure the peace. Fifty-five percent of Americans do not believe more troops can secure Baghdad, and 59 percent of Americans want redeployment of American forces, this includes two-thirds of the Latino population, who want our troops brought home. A study done by the Pew Hispanic Center found that 75 percent of Latinos now believe that the U.S. made the wrong choice in using military force in Iraq.

Americans, as you know, voted November 7 for a new direction in Iraq, and we must deliver that promise. Our Nation needs a policy to secure and stabilize Iraq, one that constructively engages in diplomacy and partners with our neighbors there. We need a plan that ensures that there are no permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and a plan to decrease the U.S. presence there. We need a plan which investigates and punishes companies like Halliburton engaged in war profiteering and fraud, like the $1.4 billion in unreasonable and unsupported charges by Halliburton which the Defense Contract Audit Agency identified.

We need a policy and a plan to put welfare of our service men and women first so that they come home, rejoin their families and receive the care that they deserve. This should also include services for all of our veterans, both men and women.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker, and buenos dias.

You know, folks, this is the people's House, but for much of the last 6 years, House Republican leaders chose to run it with an iron hand-- one where only the voices of the special interests were heard in this House. Opposing voices were always ignored.

House Democrats vowed to restore democracy in this House and today we live up to that promise by committing to a fair and democratic process and the end of the 2-day workweek. Our proposal specifically prohibits holding votes open for the sole purpose of affecting the outcome. We all remember the Medicare prescription drug vote. I

do. I remember staying here in the wee morning hours, 3 hours, when that vote was held open in 2003 so Republican leaders could twist enough arms to win their vote. That is not how democracy is supposed to work, and our rules change would prevent that from ever happening.

We are also going to give Members more time to read bills so that they actually know what they are reading. It should be par for the course to get a bill of a thousand pages and then begin to vote on it. We need to have more time to review that.

Today, Mr. Speaker, democracy returns to the House.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the bipartisan Iraq Study Group is scheduled to release its recommendations on how best to proceed with the war in Iraq. While the group is led by one of the Bush family's closest friends, it has not actually given, I think, notice or great recommendations.

This does not bode well for change in Iraq. It is time for Bush to face reality. His Democratic experiment in Iraq has been an utter disaster, one that has destabilized even further the Middle East. Last month the American people sent a strong message to the President that they want change in Iraq, that staying the current course is simply not acceptable, but President Bush seems unwilling to listen.

The Iraq Study Group is expected to call for the redeployment of American troops out of Iraq by 2008. Finally, a bipartisan group of leaders are joining us in our calls for a phased redeployment out of Iraq. This report should serve, I hope, as a wake-up call to the Bush administration that Democrats and Republicans alike are calling for change.

Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage, as you know, has not been raised in the last 9 years and is currently at its lowest level in the last 50 years when adjusted for inflation. Yet Republicans have continually refused to raise the pay of these full-time workers who struggle to make ends meet.

During the last 6 years, by the way, 5 million people now live in poverty. Last week the American people spoke out for the Democratic majority in Congress, because they agreed that no one in the Nation who works hard should be denied a livable wage. In fact, over 70 percent of Latinos work at minimum wage to support their children.

These are hardworking Americans, and they deserve better treatment and fairness. Now the American people have spoken and call for immediate action to raise the minimum wage. Within the first 100 hours of the Congress, Democrats will pass a pay increase for those workers who need it the most. It is only fair. How can we as a Nation justify giving millionaires tens of thousands of dollars in tax breaks while we continue to force more than 6 million Americans to live with just $5.15 an hour?

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the election results, we will see a much- needed raise in the minimum wage for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, for 6 months now, President Bush has known that the Iraq war is making our efforts to fight global terrorism more difficult, yet he refuses to change the course. A top secret National Intelligence Estimate concluding that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse should have set alarms off in the Bush administration. The document shows that the President's stay-the-course strategy in Iraq is only undermining our prospects for winning the global war against terror.

The Bush administration knew that this was a possibility before it even went into Iraq. Another intelligence estimate that came out in January 2003 stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives. Yet the administration set aside these concerns and chose to attack instead.

Today, our Nation is suffering the consequences. As the intelligence report states, radical Islam has metastasized. It's time for us to stop the growth of Islamic fanaticism by showing the world that we have no plans of occupying Iraq indefinitely.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am not reluctant to vote against this bill. I voted against it in committee because it is not the right measure we should be approving today. In fact, I supported some of our alternative amendments that were presented by folks on our side of the aisle.

For my community, this is devastating. We see an increase in communities like East Los Angeles, the hub of the Hispanic community in the San Gabriel Valley, that fought over 20 years to combat this disease, yet it continues to be on the rise. Yet you want to take away very important funding and reappropriate it to other parts of the country.

We need to expand the pie. We need to make sure people are covered everywhere. And I am glad to hear from my colleagues that while we know that this is not a good solution, but we are really working toward a deadline of October 1, we should hold off, make some rational decisions, and when we come back in November do the right thing for those afflicted by this disease.

I am very concerned, because a large number of Latinas, almost 20 to 25 percent, are now faced with this disease, and it is through heterosexual relationships. We have yet to understand what the cultural dichotomies are that exist in our communities. We have to understand that, get information tools out there, a campaign to combat this disease, and put all the resources that are necessary there.

I am glad that we were able to get some semblance of these concepts in the bill, but it is still not good enough. Places like Los Angeles and San Francisco and other epicenters that we heard of in New York and Miami, they are affected. Our communities need this funding.

So I just want to say to my colleagues that don't know much about this, because it is on suspension, take a very close look at what is going on in your district. All of my groups, the minority groups that I represent, are saying that they also are urging us to vote ``no'' on this bill.

The reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act has enormous implications for people living with HIV and AIDS, and the communities providing related health services.

The communities I represent in East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley have fought this disease since its onset over 20 years ago.

Los Angeles is an epicenter of the HIV and AIDS epidemic, with between 50,000 and 60,000 persons living with HIV/AIDS.

As the epidemic grows, communities of color are disproportionately at risk.

Although only 14 percent of the U.S. population, Latinos constitute almost 20 percent of the AIDS cases diagnosed since the start of the epidemic.

I am proud of the work that has been accomplished to codify the Minority AIDS Initiative in this reauthorization, a priority of the TriCaucus.

I am pleased that the committee agreed to report language recognizing the importance of language services to persons with limited English proficiency at risk of and living with HIV and AIDS.

However, I cannot support this legislation.

We are being pushed to vote on this legislation because of an arbitrary October 1 deadline.

We could move to extend this deadline and create better, sounder policy, as my good friend Mr. Pallone has suggested, but instead we are being pushed to vote on legislation that risks too much for the health of too many.

This bill considers language services a support service, when in reality, for many racial and ethnic minorities, language services are necessary to ensure proper HIV/AIDS related health care.

This bill also bases future funding levels on questionable runs and conflicting data.

I believe that, while we need to address the increasing incidence of HIV and AIDS in the south and rural areas, we must do this without risking those communities such as mine which have historically had large populations and which continue to struggle.

The position we are in today is not enviable, but we have the opportunity to work through the needs of our States and communities by rejecting the arbitrary deadlines.

I am rejecting this risky bill and encouraging my colleagues to join with me. Let's give our suffering communities a better policy for a brighter, healthier future.

Mr. Speaker, the headlines in the New York Times says it all, ``Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat.''

The top secret terrorism document was completed in April, after receiving final approval from all 16 national intelligence departments. The report concludes that rather than being in retreat, Islamic radicalism has spread across the globe. According to an American intelligence official, the report says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse and attacks continue to increase, with 2,700 soldiers killed and 17,000 injured.

And yet, over the last month President Bush told the American people that our Nations and its allies are safer than they ever were.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the President to be honest with the American public. He needs to tell the truth, and we need to make sure that those folks that are preparing to vote in November don't believe all of these lies and scare tactics being used by the Republican Party.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to discuss H.R. 6131, legislation to make technical corrections to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We are here today to make these technical corrections because of the hastily drafted Energy Policy Act of 2005.

As ranking Democrat of the Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, which has authorization over the leaking underground storage tank program, I will support the policy to fix this piece of legislation.

However, the bill should not mask the failure of the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress to adequately fund this Federal program. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank program is responsible for protecting groundwater and local drinking water supplies by preventing and cleaning up MTBE and petroleum contamination from leaking underground storage tanks in our communities.

More than a year ago, Congress dramatically increased the funding authorization for the EPA Leaking Underground Storage Tank program to $605 million annually. This increase was necessary to support additional clean-ups of leaky tanks to ensure States have funding to carry out new inspections, operator training, delivery prohibition, and secondary containment requirements.

However, President Bush proposed a reduction in funding to clean up MTBE and petroleum from the tens of thousands of leaking tanks throughout the country in his fiscal year 2007 budget. The budget which has been approved by the rubber-stamp Congress, in my opinion, is outrageous.

During this time of high gas prices, Americans are being taxed one- tenth of 1 cent for every gallon of gasoline they purchase with the expectation this money will be contributed to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank trust fund and released to help to clean up contamination.

The tax on the American public raises $190 million every year; and by the end of fiscal year 2007, the trust fund will have a surplus of more than $2.7 billion.

Yet President Bush only sought $72.8 million for the clean-up and protection of our water supplies, an amount that the Republican-led Congress said was needed. The amount is nearly $120 million less than what taxpayers will be contributing next year.

Rather than use this money to clean up contamination and protect water supplies, the administration and Republican-led Congress are holding onto the money to offset the cost of Republican budget priorities, such as tax cuts to the wealthy.

Congress acted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to take steps to prevent leaks before they occurred by adding new requirements for inspections, operating training, delivery prohibition, and secondary containment. And during consideration of EPACT, Congress authorized $155 million annually to carry out these prevention activities.

Again, the President only requested $37.5 million in his fiscal year 2007 budget, only 24 percent of what Congress authorized. This Congress appropriated even less. The rubber-stamp Congress approved only $17.5 million, only 9 percent of what we authorized for this program.

As a result of Congress's failure to adequately fund the program, States are now facing unfunded mandates. Between 2005 and 2007, States have lost $899 million in Federal support. The lack of Federal support is leading States to consider turning back their programs to the Federal Government, including their tank programs.

In a letter dated December 9, 2005, a coalition of State officials, gasoline marketers, convenience store owners, stated: ``If the administration and Congress do not break with tradition and appropriate significantly higher amounts from the fund in the coming years, EPA and the States will be unable to implement those important reforms.''

It is unacceptable that our States are being saddled with these unfunded mandates. There is absolutely no reason to justify saddling our States with unfunded mandates and failing to appropriately use taxpayer money.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert at this point in the Record a letter Ranking Member Dingell and I sent to the EPA and the EPA's response.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, February 22, 2006.

Hon. Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,