Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Tuesday, May 23, 2006 to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, and 193 due to a family medical emergency.

Had I been present, I would have voted:

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 179 on calling the previous question on H. Res. 830--the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5384-- Department of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 180 on passage of H. Res. 830--the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5384--Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 181 on suspending the rules and agreeing to H.R. 4681--the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism of 2006; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 182 on an amendment to H.R. 5384 to increase funding for Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service by $23 million to fight invasive species; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 183 on an amendment to H.R. 5384 to increase funding for Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service by $500,000 to fight Bovine Tuberculosis; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 184 on an amendment to H.R. 5384 to prohibit funds from being used to implement the National Animal Identification System; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 185 on an amendment to H.R. 5384 to prohibit funds from being used to implement the Market Access Program, an agricultural export program; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 186 on an amendment to H.R. 5384 to reduce funding in the bill by 1 percent; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 187 on an amendment to H.R. 5384 to reduce funding for the Sugar Loan Program by 6 percent; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 188 on an amendment to H.R. 5384 to reduce funding for the Agriculture Research Services building and facilities account by $65.3 million and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services by $16.7 million; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 189 on an amendment to H.R. 5384 to prohibit the use of funds for expenditures in contravention of the Immigration and Nationality Act; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 190 on an amendment to H.R. 5384 to strike $229,000 in funding for dairy education in Iowa; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 191 on an amendment to H.R. 5384 to strike $180,000 in funding for hydroponic tomato production in Ohio; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 192 on an amendment to H.R. 5384 to strike $100,000 in funding for the National Grape and Wine Initiative in California; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 193 on final passage of H.R. 5384--Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Monday, May 22, 2006, to vote on rollcall votes Nos. 177 and 178 due to a family medical emergency.

Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 177 on passage of S. 1235, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2005, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 178 on passage of H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I could not be present today because of a family medical emergency and I would like to submit this statement for the Record in opposition to the previous question and H. Res. 821, the rule providing for consideration of the FY2007 Military Quality of Life appropriations bill (H.R. 5385).

The Veterans' Administration has treated more than 144,000 returning veterans from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, and nearly 30,000 veterans are waiting in line for their first appointment--nearly double the number last year. However, funding for veterans and military retiree health care has barely kept pace with the increasing demand. As a result our young men and women will return home from Iraq and Afghanistan to a health care system that is struggling to take care of current veterans--let alone new ones.

While the bill before us today is certainly an improvement over last year's bill, it still under-funds critical programs and services that our veterans and military retirees rely on. For instance, even as the Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 5122) we passed last week rightfully rejected the President's plan to increase fees for military retirees, this bill still falls $735 million short of the level needed to ensure that military retirees do not face having their TRICARE fees doubled or tripled. In addition, this bill uses a budgeting gimmick to designate $507 million for 20 military construction projects as emergency spending so that the committee could keep the overall total under the bill's allocation level--jeopardizing this critical funding by leaving it vulnerable to procedural points of order that could strip it from this bill. Finally, this bill provides $25.4 billion for veteran's medical services--$2.6 billion more than last year, but still $400 million below the recommendation of the Independent Budget and $2.8 billion below the level recommended by the House Veterans Affairs Committee Democrats.

Unfortunately, Democratic amendments to address these shortcomings were rejected by Republicans on the Appropriations Committee and are blocked from being considered here today by this rule. These pragmatic measures would have made this a stronger bill that fulfils our promise to our military retirees and veterans. I urge the defeat of the previous question and this rule so that we can debate critical amendments to ensure that veterans and military retirees get the timely, quality, and affordable health care they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Friday, May 19, 2006 to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 173, 174, 175, and 176 due to a family medical emergency.

Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Nay'' on rollcall vote no. 173 on calling the previous question on H. Res. 821--the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5385, the FY07 Military Quality of Life, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill; ``nay'' on rollcall vote no. 173 on passage of H. Res. 821--the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5385, the FY07 Military Quality of Life, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. ``aye'' on rollcall vote no. 175 on an amendment to H.R. 5385 that increases the 1990 BRAC accounts by $27.5 million and increases environmental restoration on formerly used bases account by $50 million, and; ``yea'' on rollcall vote no. 176 on final passage of H.R. 5385, the FY07 Military

Quality of Life, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.

Madam Chairman, I regret that I could not be present today because of a family medical emergency and I am in opposition to the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act (H.R. 4200).

This bill misses the point. In the face of the President's drastic budget cuts to State and local wildfire assistance programs, including a 30 percent cut in the State Fire Assistance program, which directly funds local community fire risk reduction planning and projects, this bill seems wholly inappropriate. Instead of providing the necessary tools to mitigate future fires to the 11,000 high risk communities around the country threatened by wildfires, this bill ``expedites'' or ``streamlines'' the timber salvage process for the logging industry following a catastrophic event. It is unnecessary and unwise to weaken existing laws meant to protect public participation and the environment, when the authority and ability to recover and restore forests after fires, floods, or other disasters is not being prevented. Our communities deserve better. I urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be present today because of a family medical emergency and I would like to submit this statement for the Record in support of the amendment offered by Representative Rahall to protect wild, free-roaming horses and burros from commercial slaughter.

Since 1971 when Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, the federal government has ensured the protection of wild mustangs and burros roaming on public lands. Unfortunately, in 2004, a controversial rider rolling back these protections was slipped into the massive omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005. Congress must act to right this wrong. We owe it to the next generation to preserve a piece of American heritage--to protect our wild and free horses. As cosponsor of H.R. 297--the bill upon which this amendment is based, I urge my colleagues to support the Rahall amendment and reinstate the humane and appropriate protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be present today because of a family medical emergency and I would like to submit this statement for the Record in support of the amendment offered by Representative Chabot to protect the Tongass National Forest.

The Tongass National Forest spanning 17 million acres in southeastern Alaska is the United States' largest national forest and home to the world's largest temperate rain forest. Over the past 24 years, the American taxpayers have provided $850 million in subsidies to the timber industry to harvest areas within the Tongass. The American taxpayers deserve better. The bipartisan amendment offered by Representative Chabot and Representative Andrews would simply prohibit the Forest Service from using any more tax dollars to build more roads for private timber in the Tongass. I urge my colleagues to support this environmentally smart and fiscally responsible amendment. Additionally, I am submitting for the Record an editorial in the Hartford Courant that also expresses support for the amendment.

[From the Hartford Courant, May 16, 2006]

Protect Tongass National Forest

Later this week, Congress will have a chance to right a

wrongheaded public boondoggle that last year gave the timber

industry $48.5 million in Federal funds to defile the Tongass

National Forest in Alaska.

Tongass was established as a national forest by Teddy

Roosevelt in 1907 and occupies the extreme southeast corner

of the Alaskan coast. The world's largest intact temperate

rainforest, it's a place of unimaginable lushness and beauty

strewn along the Inside Passage like a jade necklace. It is

home to ancient Sitka spruce, bald eagles, bears and wolves.

It's also a renowned destination for tourists who fish, hunt,

hike or simply want to witness the rugged grandeur of one of

the world's last wild places.

During the past two decades, the Federal Government has

spent as much as $1 billion to prop up the timber industry in

the Tongass. Putting aside the environmental consequences of

clearcutting and road-building in this natural treasure

(consequences including the destruction of rare, old-growth

trees and woodland habitat, erosion, streams choked with silt

and the loss of fish habitat), this practice is also a

singularly bad investment.

Last year for example, the forest service spent $48.5

million to help timber interests build roads in the Tongass.

In return, the government--or, rather, taxpayers--received

$500,000 in logging revenues. It's a situation reminiscent of

the oil-industry giveaway uncovered early this year by The

New York Times. The investigation found that, while prices

for natural gas nearly doubled between 2001 and 2005, the

royalties paid by companies to the Federal Government for

right to drill on public lands and coastal waters actually

declined.

Thursday, the House is scheduled to consider an amendment

to the House Appropriations bill that would put an end to the

Tongass boondoggle. The amendment is being offered by

Representatives Steve Chabot, a Republican from Ohio, and

Democrat Rob Andrews of New Jersey.

Congress should support this amendment. Wasting taxpayer

money is bad. Wasteful corporate welfare with little or no

public benefit is worse. Publicly subsidizing the destruction

of the largest intact temperate rainforest is beyond the

pale.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be present today because of a family medical emergency and I would like to submit this statement for the Record in support of the Capps amendment to H.R. 5386, the FY2007 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill.

The bill before the House today includes a provision lifting a long- standing Congressional ban on natural gas drilling and production in most of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). More import than what it does, however, is what it fails to do. For instance, rather than giving States a ``buffer zone'' which allows them to block the construction of natural gas platforms within 20 miles of their shores, the provision in this bill opens the OCS to drilling as close as three miles. Since this provision is being tacked onto an appropriations bill, it does not include the critic authorizing language that will provide the Department of the Interior with guidance on how and where to provide for drilling and production, or even grant them the authority to issue leases. In addition, it lifts only the Congressional prohibition on OCS natural gas drilling and leaves intact the Executive ban in effect until 2012, making this provision meaningless without more extensive authorizing legislation.

Many of our colleagues have deep concerns about the impact that opening our OCS to natural gas drilling and production will have on their States. This is therefore not an issue we should rush into with only cursory debate in an appropriations bill. Rather, it is one that should be carefully considered, with input reflecting all sides of this issue, through hearings held by the House Resources Committee. I urge my colleagues to support the Capps amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Thursday, May 18, 2006 to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, and 172 due to a family medical emergency.

Had I been present, I would have voted:

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 160 on calling the previous question on H. Res. 818--the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5386-- Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007;

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 161 on passage of H. Res. 818--the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5386--Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007;

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 162 on suspending the rules and agreeing to H. Res. 795--Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt, on April 24 and 26, 2006;

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 163 on an amendment to H.R. 5386 to fully reopen the Statue of Liberty up to the level of her crown, which has been closed since 9/11;

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 164 on an amendment to H.R. 5386 to strike all remaining moratoria in the bill on oil and gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf;

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 165 on an amendment to H.R. 5386 to prohibit the EPA from raising the threshold which requires reports to be issued on toxic chemicals and substances in the Toxics Release Inventory;

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 166 on an amendment to H.R. 5386 to cut $30 million from the National Endowment for the Arts in order to provide an increase in funds for the Forest Service's wildfire management account;

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 167 on an amendment to H.R. 5386 to prohibit the awarding of new leases to oil companies in taxpayer-owned waters--unless those companies agree to pay royalties for the oil and natural gas they are extracting from such areas;

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 168 on an amendment to H.R. 5386 to prohibit funds in the bill to plan, design, study, or construct roads in Tongass National Forest in Alaska for the purpose of harvesting timber;

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 169 on an amendment to H.R. 5386 to prohibit funds in the Act from being used by the administrator of the EPA to implement or enforce the Joint Memorandum published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 1995);

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 170 on an amendment to H.R. 5386 to prohibit use of funds in the bill to conduct activities in violation of the moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf;

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 171 on an amendment to H.R. 5386 to cut all funds in the bill by one percent across-the-board, and;

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 172 on passage of H.R. 5386--Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be present today because of a family medical emergency. I am in strong opposition to the Republican's budget plan and in support of the Democratic alternative. This budget bill represents how out of touch the Republican Majority is with the needs of the American public.

The budget is a moral document and this budget highlights the priorities of the Republican leadership--cutting more taxes for the wealthy while making harmful cuts to critical programs for working families--including health, education, veterans' services and environmental protection. Most concerning about this budget is that it continues the Republican record of huge deficits and irresponsible debt accumulation. This budget plan writes a check that Congress cannot cash without increasing the debt limit to $9.618 trillion--hidden on page 121 of the report accompanying the budget resolution is a provision that will automatically increase the debt limit by $653 billion.

In contrast, the Democratic budget alternative would balance the federal budget by 2012 and immediately stop the Majority's record of increasing the national debt, again and again. Among other things, the Democratic alternative would reinstate the effective pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules to eliminate deficit spending and give the American people a budget that is fair and responsible. The Democratic alternative would provide $4.6 billion more for education; would provide $18 billion more for health programs over 5 years, which includes medical research at the National Institute of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and would protect seniors from Medicare prescription drug enrollment penalties; would provide $8.6 billion more for our veterans in healthcare over five years and rejects increases in fees for military retirees enrolled in Tricare; and finally would provide $2.9 billion more for environmental protection and conservation programs.

The Republican budget resolution does not reflect the priorities of the American people. As Members of Congress, we cannot abandon our obligations to our children, to our parents and future generations by cutting vital programs and increasing the debt limit to finance tax cuts bigger than we can afford and hiding the true cost of the ongoing war in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to reject the underlying bill and support the Democratic budget alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I could not be present today, Wednesday, May 17, 2006 and Thursday, May 18, 2006 to vote on rollcall vote Nos. 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, and 159 due to a family medical emergency.

Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 147 on an amendment to H.R. 4200 to strike all exemptions and waivers of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act;

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 148 on an amendment to H.R. 4200 to allow emergency procedures authorized in the bill to be used on lands managed for timber production;

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 149 on an amendment to H.R. 4200 to stipulate that the bill would not apply to any areas in the National Forest System that are designated as roadless areas;

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 150 on an amendment to H.R. 4200 to direct the Interior Department and the Agriculture Department to consider the impact of any pre-approved management practice, forest recovery or research project on the risk of fire and on forest regeneration;

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 151 on passage of H.R. 4200--the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act;

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 152 on passage of H. Res. 815--the rule providing martial law consideration for H. Con. Res. 376--Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Resolution;

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 153 on calling the previous question on H. Res. 815--the rule providing martial law consideration for H. Con. Res. 376--Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Resolution;

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 154 on passage of H. Res. 817--the rule providing for consideration for H. Con. Res. 376--Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Resolution;

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 155 on an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Con. Res. 376 offered by Representative Watt;

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 156 on an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Con. Res. 376 offered by Representative Hensarling;

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 157 on an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Con. Res. 376 offered by Representative Spratt;

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 158 on passage of H. Con. Res. 376-- Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Resolution;

``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 159 on passage H. Res. 740--Calling on the Government of the United Kingdom to immediately establish a full, independent, public judicial inquiry into the murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Pat Finucane, as recommended by international Judge Peter Cory as part of the Weston Park agreement and a way forward for the Northern Ireland Peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule for consideration of H.R. 5122, the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act.

There is no doubt that the bill before us today authorizes critical funding and programs for our troops, our Nation, and my home state of Connecticut. It authorizes billions for weapons systems vital to our Nation's security, such as the F-22A, Joint Strike Fighter and C-17 aircraft. It provides critical health care access to our National Guard and reserve by expanding their access to the TRICARE program and rejecting most of the Pentagon's proposed hike in TRICARE fees. For our men and women in Iraq, it authorizes billions for IED protection, body armor, up-armored Humvees and other equipment that will help keep them safe.

By most accounts, this bill appears to have been considered in a bipartisan manner by the House Armed Services Committee. Protecting and providing for our men and women in uniform is one of our most important duties as elected representatives. It should not and must not be a partisan issue.

It is therefore unfortunate that this bill has been brought to the floor by the majority leadership under a restrictive rule that prevents the House to considering several important and pragmatic amendments offered by Democrats that would have greatly contributed to our debate and this bill.

Today we are not allowed to consider the amendment by the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, which would have blocked a provision increasing pharmacy cost-share fees for our troops, their families, and military retirees. While rejecting most of the President's proposed fee increases for TRICARE, this bill increases the co-pay for generic drugs from $3 to $9, and the co-pay for brand name drugs from $6 to $16. These proposed increases may not amount to much on paper, but they add up to real money for a military family relying on their TRICARE coverage for their health care and prescription drug needs.

The last thing we should be doing in this bill is increasing the burdens placed on military families at a time when their loved ones are being routinely and repeatedly deployed abroad. Getting by is hard enough these days for these families, and increasing the costs for their health care is unacceptable. Despite wide opposition to TRICARE fee increases, a handful of Republicans on the rules committee last night denied this House the opportunity to consider the Skelton amendment on its merits and allow a straight up or down vote.

In addition, this rule blocks consideration of several other measures that address critical aspects of our national security. For example, an amendment that would have addressed the security implications of our dependence on foreign oil by expanding resources for the development of alternative energy sources, such as fuel cells, at the Defense and Energy departments was blocked. An amendment establishing a Truman Commission-style committee to investigate billions in contract abuses in Iraq will not see the light of day on the floor. A provision that would help to restore our reputation in the world by denying the use of taxpayer funds for the use of torture will not be debated. Finally, an important proposal to increase funding for one of our most critical national security challenges--the proliferation of nuclear weapons--was denied consideration today.

Mr. Speaker, the national security challenges we face today, and will face in the future, are simply too important to be left subject to partisan politics. It is unfortunate that this rule fails to reflect the cooperation and bipartisanship on these issues that our troops and our nation expect and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the tax reconciliation conference report, H.R. 4297, that will cost $70 billion over ten years and provides little to no tax relief for working American families. With continued job outsourcing, cuts to pensions, health and retirement benefits, and a deficit crisis, the American people deserve targeted tax relief, they deserve better than this bill.

Today is yet another missed opportunity by the Republican-controlled Congress to provide real tax relief to working families. This tax package is disingenuous and reckless. For example, for the wealthiest among us, this bill

would extend the capital gains and dividends tax cut set to expire in 2008 for an additional 2 years through 2010. While on the other hand, the bill would only provide a one-year extension in relief for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that affects an estimated 18.9 million middle-class taxpayers and already expired in 2005.

Originally intended to ensure the wealthy taxpayers paid their fair share, the AMT has become a tax on the middle-class. Without adjustments for inflation like the federal income tax, the AMT targets a growing number of people each year. Those most affected by the AMT are taxpayers in states like my home state of Connecticut with high property taxes, high local and state income taxes, and high sales taxes. These taxpayers are middle-class families: the engineer at Pratt & Whitney, the assistant school principal at your child's elementary school, the real estate agent, the architect, the restaurant general manager, or the policy underwriter working at any number of the insurance companies located in Hartford.

What are the priorities of this Republican-controlled House? Consider this, under the Bush dividends and capital gains tax cut, taxpayers making more than $10 million a year will receive approximately $500,000 annually in tax savings. ExxonMobil's retiring CEO, Lee Raymond will receive approximately $2.5 million in tax relief for his stock investments, while the average American family making less than $50,000 will receive an average of $10 in relief a year, which barely covers the cost of 3 gallons of gas.

This conference agreement also drops three provisions in the Senate bill that would have rolled back nearly $5.4 billion over ten years in unneeded tax breaks and loopholes for the oil industry. Last week, I offered a motion to instruct house conferees to adopt these provisions because they reflected the common sense that Americans should not be getting hit by high prices twice--once at the pump and once again by seeing their tax dollars given away to an industry enjoying unprecedented levels of profit. House Republicans, and this conference agreement, rejected this simple idea in favor on continuing this Congress' misguided record of subsidizing the bottom line of oil companies and executives rather than providing real energy relief for the American people.

I am voting against this tax package because it is another example of the party of the few ignoring the majority of Americans and taking care of only the wealthiest taxpayers. I am not opposed to tax cuts. In fact, I've voted 6 times to expand tax relief and protect middle-class families from the growing reach of the AMT in the 109th Congress. The American people deserve better. Instead of helping more Americans help themselves and ensure that as a country, we move forward together, this bill will continue the Republican's record in the House to benefit the wealthiest among us and leave the majority of Americans behind.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my Democratic colleagues to offer a motion to instruct the House conferees on the tax cut reconciliation conference committee.

This motion has two simple yet important provisions. First, it closes over $5 billion in unneeded tax loopholes and subsidies for oil companies. It eliminates the ``last in/first out,'' LIFO, accounting method for oil companies, which amounts to $4.3 billion over the next 10 years. It prohibits oil companies from writing off costs associated with oil and gas exploration, which is about $292 million over the next 10 years. It limits the foreign tax credit that companies receive for the taxes they pay to oil-producing countries.

This rollback amounts to, for oil companies, a mere $540 million a year and $135 million each quarter.

To put this in appropriate perspective, this represents approximately 1.6 percent of Exxon's first-quarter profits in 2006 alone. Second, it ends the extension of lower capital gains and dividends tax rates.

We offered this motion last week. The distinguished gentleman from Washington State put forward the amendment in the motion because of the way that Americans are being hit this time both at the gas pump and again because we hoped that the other side would join us in this effort. Unfortunately, only nine Republicans voted for the motion, and it failed 190-232.

We offer this again because the American people simply cannot understand why their government would hand billions in tax breaks and subsidies to an oil industry that by all measures is enjoying an unprecedented level of success. In fact, last week, President Bush discussed his plan to address the rising price of gas and oil.

During his remarks the President stated, ``Record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that Congress has got to understand that these energy companies do not need unnecessary tax breaks. I am looking forward to Congress to take about $2 billion of these tax breaks out of the budget over a 10-year period of time. Cash flows are up, taxpayers do not need to be paying for certain of these expenses on behalf of energy companies.''

Now, if the President of the United States can call for this, it just seems logical to those of us on this side of the aisle that Congress ought to be able to join with the other body. This body ought to embrace what the Senate has already done and concluded, and be in harmony with the Senate and the President of the United States.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly think that the President of the United States understands the laws of supply and demand and has prevailed upon this Congress to take action with regard to this.

More importantly, back in my hometown, John Mitchell, the former Republican mayor of South Windsor, Connecticut, and past president of the Independent Connecticut Petroleum Dealers, says there is no correlation between what is going on in this country between the laws of supply and demand and what is happening with home heating oil and what is happening at our gas pumps. He says the only thing that is happening here is a matter of fear, speculation and greed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), someone who understands that and someone who has represented the State of Connecticut with distinction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I say to my distinguished colleague and good friend and learned man who everyone respects in this Chamber, it is the Republican-controlled Senate that passed these initiatives. It is the Republican President that has called for these rollbacks.

I said last week that the administration's policy seems to be ``leave no oilman behind.'' Or as Thomas Freeman has pointed out in the New York Times, from an international perspective, it seems like the policy is ``leave no mullah behind'' because of what we end up exporting abroad and how that money in turn is used against us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who articulated this position last week.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan), whose State leads this Nation in ethanol production and certainly understands the importance of the need for energy and the need for us to roll back these costs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who has put forward legislation of his own and is here to speak and address this issue as he so often does and articulates it with such conscience and with such articulation.

I don't believe we have any more speakers. I believe I have the right to close. I will reserve that right, and the gentleman can proceed.

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

And to my distinguished colleague from Texas, apparently, pigs have taken flight in the United States Senate because the Republican- controlled Senate has sponsored this very straightforward legislation that calls for these rollbacks.

And no one less than the President of the United States, and I will reiterate again, said ``record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that Congress has got to understand that these energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks.''

``I am looking forward to Congress to take about $2 billion of these tax breaks out of the budget over the next 10-year period. Cash flows are up. Taxpayers do not need to be paying for certain of these expenses on behalf of energy companies,'' the President of the United States.

But, you know, the real test here, I like to call it the Augie & Ray's test. Augie & Ray's is a little diner in my hometown of East Hartford. I go there frequently, and I have an opportunity to meet with people that are baffled by what is going on here in the United States Congress but surely astounded by the greed that exists in corporate America, especially as it relates to energy prices.

These are people, regular people, in the Northeast who have seen their moneys cut for low energy assistance to heat their homes. These are people that are paying huge prices at the gas pump that is chewing up all of the profits that a small businessman makes, and they are wondering aloud what the United States Congress is going to do about it. So the President of the United States, a Republican, and the Republican-controlled Senate call for this rollback that is modest at best; and yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle persist in saying, oh, no, this is much-needed relief for oil companies that receive tax cuts on top of record-breaking profits, while we cut assistance to the poor.

People that have to make a decision between the food that they eat, heating and cooling their homes, and the prescription drugs that their doctors tell them to take want relief from their government. We have already made them refugees from their own health care system by sending them to Canada to get the kind of prices on their prescription drugs that they can afford, and now we are squeezing the middle class throughout the Northeast and senior citizens who have nowhere else to turn.

This is a modest, modest proposal that Mr. McDermott submitted last week and I submit this week, that the Republican-controlled Senate has already passed.

We implore you to embrace this straightforward rollback in a time when oil companies and their executives have made unprecedented profits so that we can provide basic relief to American citizens. I implore my colleagues to vote for this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4297, the tax reconciliation conference report.

The form of the motion is as follows:

I move that the managers on the part of the House at the

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the

Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4297 be instructed--

(1) to agree to the following provisions of the Senate

amendment: section 461 (relating to revaluation of LIFO

inventories of large integrated oil companies), section 462

(relating to elimination of amortization of geological and

geophysical expenditures for major integrated oil companies),

and section 470 (relating to modifications of foreign tax

credit rules applicable to large integrated oil companies

which are dual capacity taxpayers), and

(2) to recede from the provisions of the House bill that

extend the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains that

would otherwise terminate at the close of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington, and I join with the distinguished gentlemen from Washington and Michigan, and I associate myself with their remarks.

I thank Representative McDermott for bringing forward a practical, pragmatic and effective solution that joins with the Senate in recognizing what we can do immediately to rectify this situation.

I say to my colleague from California who receives letters from the elderly, I would like to give him the scores of my e-mails and letters from the elderly who make daily choices between heating and cooling their homes; providing themselves with transportation money that they need to get back and forth to their doctors for their appointments, where they then, because of this administration and Republican control of Congress, have to become refugees of their own health care system and travel to Canada in order to get prescription drugs. If ever there was a need for relief and a focus on a matter that needs urgent attention, it is here in this pragmatic proposal that has been put forward.

You have to be aghast when you look at the policy. At least the President has come forward and recognized apparently what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not, that there is a need to roll back these excessive tax cuts. He stated so yesterday. We applaud him for that.

But we are confounded by an administration policy that Thomas Friedman best described in terms of its international perspective as ``leave no mullah behind.'' We find ourselves in the confounding situation where we see profits going abroad to the very nations, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Sudan, who in turn fund the madrassas and fund the very people that are working against our men and women in the field and serving this country so valiantly.

Here at home the domestic policy becomes ``leave no oil executive behind.'' In the reports that come out daily, CEOs are granted $400 million, while we cut LIHEAP provisions to the very needy in the Northeast and across this great Nation of ours, people who are struggling to make ends meet. ``Leave no oil executive behind'' becomes the hue and cry we hear from the other side of the aisle.

In my district, and as I am sure everyone did going home this past week, in talking to a number of people, most notably rock-rib Republicans like John Mitchell, the former mayor of South Windsor, who happens to be the past president of the Independent Connecticut Petroleum Dealers.

He said to me, John, you know I care deeply about the people that are being impacted daily by these costs. And he says, I got to tell you, I have been in business for more than 30 years, and I have never witnessed anything like this before.

He said, I have been a Republican all my life. He says, but I will be damned if I am going to stand by and watch what is happening to this country and watch what is happening at the gas pumps and what is happening to home heating oil.

He said, there is no reason. There are no corollary between supply and demand that is going on here. He says, what this amounts to is nothing more than fear and arbitrarily raising prices based on greed.

I was further joined by Gene Gilford, the executive director, who also had the same thing to say with respect to what is going on here.

Mr. McDermott has proposed very logical amendments, amendments that the Senate has already embraced that make sense, that only go a small way in terms of the help that we need. Other measures that the Democrats have put forward wait for brave Republicans to come forward and sign discharge petitions so that we can even have an open and honest debate about the escalating prices at the gas pump, and what is happening to our senior citizens and all of our citizens across this country as they deal with the high cost of heating and cooling their homes this past winter and as we approach yet another summer season.

So I ask my colleagues on the other side to join us in supporting this measure. Embrace your President, and provided an opportunity to join the very practical and pragmatic provisions that Mr. McDermott has put forward, and then join in signing with Mr. Stupak and others in the vote for the Free Act and the Pump Act that Democrats have been proposing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay great honor to a dear friend and colleague of mine, Marjorie S. Anthony of South Windsor, Connecticut, who passed away on March 27, 2006. Marge was wonderfully unique in the way she pursued politics and community service. She did it with enthusiasm and love, candor and spirit.

Marge was a devoted wife, mother and grandmother. My heart goes out to her family, her loving husband of 48 years, Peter T. Anthony, Sr. Marjorie will be greatly missed by her four children and their spouses: Katherine Kennison and her husband, Ed, of South Windsor; Marybeth D'Onofrio and her husband, Tom, of Ellington; Patty Antonaras and her husband, Sam, of Ellington. Marjorie will also be deeply missed by her 12 grandchildren, Ashley Kennison, Shannon and Trevor Anthony, Matt, Rachel and Vinny Metacarpa, Katie, Tommy, and Christopher D'Onofrio, John, Brittany and Mikala Antonaras. Marjorie leaves behind five exceptional brothers, Charles J. Sullivan and sister-in-law, Maureen, of Riverton, NJ; Michael Sullivan and sister-in-law, Tina, of Atlanta, GA; Thomas Sullivan and sister-in-law, Carole, of South Bend, IN; Patrick Sullivan and Chris Domenick of Marlborough; and Kevin Sullivan of Hartford; her brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Thomas and Jane Anthony of Rocky Hill. Marjorie will also be deeply missed by her many nieces, nephews and cousins who were all a close knit family.

Marge led a tremendous life and was an active member of her community. Marge lived in South Windsor for 48 years of her life and graduated from Bulkeley High School. For 30 years of her life, Marjorie was a private business owner, Justice of the Peace, member of St. Francis of Assisi Church and Ladies Society, and State Central Connecticut Woman. Marge served as Past President of the South Windsor Democratic Women's Club, Past Vice-Chair and Secretary of the Democratic Town Committee, Past Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Chairperson of the Economic Development Commission, Chairperson of the South Windsor Committee for St. Patrick's Day Parade, Past Corresponding Secretary of the South Windsor Historical Society,

and Past President of the South Windsor Athletic Booster Club. She was a member of the Board of Directors of the Greater Hartford Transit District, Board of Directors of the Tolland County Chamber of Commerce, and an Advisory Board member for Rockville Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in honoring the life of Marjorie S. Anthony. Marge will be missed by her family, friends and her community. She was a dear friend of mine and my family who join with her family in mourning her passing but rejoicing in her life.