Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chairman of our committee.

I particularly want to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Berkley, for her work on raising awareness about osteoporosis. It has been a particular mission of hers and it is making a difference around the country, that women are stepping forward on this issue.

As we may know, osteoporosis affects around 10 million Americans, most of whom are over 55, and it is the cause of an estimated 1.5 million fractures annually.

It is often called the silent disease because this bone loss occurs without

any outward symptoms and, of course, 80 percent of all osteoporosis occurs in women.

The quality of life for those affected often takes a downward spiral, leaving those who suffer from osteoporosis unable to walk, to stand up or even to dress themselves.

National Osteoporosis Awareness and Prevention Month is celebrated each May, and becomes a chance for our Nation to become more familiar with the effects of this disease, and about the preventable steps that we can take to deal with it.

Unfortunately, too many people are not at all aware that osteoporosis can be prevented through diet and exercise, both of which help maintain bone density.

Research clearly shows us that the earlier women think about maintaining their bone mass and take the steps to do so, the better their health will be in the long run. And you know, these aren't difficult steps to take. Proper diet, including calcium, proper exercise, are good for very many reasons, but knowing that at the same time you are making yourself healthy, you are also preventing osteoporosis is an important message to get out to everyone. So I encourage the public to take advantage of National Osteoporosis Awareness and Prevention Month by speaking to their health care providers about their risks, and encouraging health care providers to proactively address this subject with their patients.

I proudly support this resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I now invite my colleague, Ms. Berkley, about whom I was speaking, who has now arrived, to speak for as long as she may wish to, 3 minutes or whatever.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to this so-called energy and jobs bill. There are simply some places that should be off limits to drilling. The arctic refuge is one of them.

I was privileged to visit this wildlife refuge and to camp on the shores. It is not a barren slope. The harm to polar bears, to caribou, millions of migratory birds and to the subsistence way of life to the natives there would be irreversible.

We have a moral responsibility to save wild places like the arctic refuge for future generations, and that is why our country has remained committed to its protection for nearly 50 years.

Drilling in the refuge will not solve America's energy problem. The Energy Department's own figures show that drilling would not change gas prices by more than a penny a gallon, and this would be 20 years from now. With 3 percent of the world's resources and 25 percent of the world's demand, it is pretty obvious this country cannot drill its way to energy security.

What we need to do is really improve energy efficiency standards, develop in full scale renewable and alternative energy and use the one resource we have in abundance, our creativity.

This bill is just a continuation of the backward thinking energy policies that have gotten us here in the first place.

Americans deserve cheaper, quicker, safer, cleaner energy policies that also safeguard the wild places we care so deeply about. This desperate obsession with drilling off our coastlines and in the arctic refuge has distracted us long enough.

It is time for Congress to stop wasting energy and start working on real and clean energy solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oregon for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by paying special tribute to Chairman Hyde. This may be his last year of service in this House, but his legacy of trying to bring peace to Israel and the Palestinians will live on for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to this bill.

Let there be no mistake, Hamas is a ruthless terrorist organization. Unless Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist and renounces terror, the Palestinian Authority should receive no direct U.S. assistance. Direct aid to the Hamas-controlled PA has been cut off. The basic goal of this bill has already been accomplished.

But H.R. 4681 goes well beyond this objective. It is a punitive measure aimed at punishing the Palestinian people. It will undermine U.S. national

interests. It will do nothing to strengthen Israel security.

I have two main objections with this bill. First, it places nearly insurmountable efforts to future U.S. efforts to engage Palestinians and Israel in peacemaking. It lacks the normal Presidential national security waiver; and unbelievably, it would limit United States diplomatic contact with moderate, non-Hamas Palestinian officials. Why is this? These are the very leaders who recognize Israel and who support peace, and it makes absolutely no sense for us to undercut them at this critical time.

Second, except for very limited circumstances, this bill will cut off humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people at the very moment when a horrendous humanitarian disaster is looming.

The United States, our Quartet partners, and Israel are all hard at work at present to avoid catastrophe and to deliver assistance around Hamas to credible and transparent NGOs. H.R. 4681 goes in the opposite direction.

I simply cannot see how denying chemotherapy treatment for Palestinian children increases Israel's security or advances U.S. national interests.

Mr. Speaker, there is significant opposition to this bill in the pro- Israel community, and I highlight again, respected national groups like Americans for Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum, and Brit Tzedek strongly oppose this legislation. They tell us voting ``no'' on this bill is a pro-Israel vote.

Groups like Churches for Middle East Peace and the Conference of Catholic Bishops, with decades of experience providing humanitarian relief, they oppose it as well.

The State Department also opposes the bill, calling it unnecessary and criticizing its provisions as objectionable.

On Wednesday, we will welcome Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to this Chamber. Yesterday, this is what he told his Cabinet: ``We have no intention of helping the Palestinian government, but I say we will render such assistance as may be necessary for humanitarian needs.'' He also dispatched his top two ministers for a substantive meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

If this policy of shutting the door on Hamas but opening it to Palestinian moderates and the Palestinian people themselves is good enough for the Prime Minister of Israel, it should be good enough for the U.S. House of Representatives.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4681.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Poe amendment, and I would like to set the record straight. This current ban on new drilling is actually two moratoria, one of which is enacted by Congress annually through a ban on Federal funding to drill for oil in areas now off limits.

In addition, there is a complementary moratorium put into place originally in 1991 through an executive moratorium by George H. W. Bush, extended till 2012 by Bill Clinton, embraced by the current President in his current 2007 budget.

The provision in the Interior bill and in the Poe amendment eliminate the annual congressional moratoria. It doesn't end the Presidential moratorium. However, the President certainly has the authority to revise or revoke his existing Presidential moratorium before 2012.

I am not a betting person, but I would wager that if Congress eliminates the moratorium through this legislation and encourages the President to do the same, he is going to revoke the Presidential moratorium. Why not? Drilling advocates will argue that the people, through Congress, have spoken in favor of new drilling; and when that Presidential moratorium is revoked, it would mean an immediate end to the ban on new drilling in waters off our coastal States.

It is not just coincidental this amendment is coming up just as the next 5-year plan is being enacted. This would happen right away.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Our amendment restores the longstanding bipartisan ban that currently protects sensitive coastal and marine areas from new drilling. We support the current ban not just because the coastlines are beautiful; they are. And not just because we believe our coastlines provide valuable environmental habitat, and they do. We support the ban because we know our coasts are the economic engines of our communities, and that is threatened by new drilling. The people in these communities whom we represent know the value of their coastline, and that is why they are so against new drilling.

Under this bill, we could literally see the push for new drilling as close as 3 miles to our coasts begin almost immediately. The oil and gas companies, awash in profits from our constituents' pockets, would have you believe that all offshore resources are off limits today; that we are only talking about drilling for natural gas and not oil; and that today's high gas prices demand this new drilling. These arguments simply don't hold up to scrutiny.

First, the industry already has access to the vast majority of natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. Indeed, according to the Bush administration, about 80 percent of the known reserves are located in areas where drilling is already allowed.

Furthermore, the oil and gas industry already owns drilling rights to more than 4,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of Mexico alone.

Second, there really is no such thing as gas-only drilling. Drilling for natural gas means drilling for oil. Even the Bush administration and energy industry honchos have dismissed the so-called gas-only drilling as unworkable. This is the president of the American Petroleum Institute on gas-only drilling:

``We are somewhat concerned about some gas-only leasing proposals that have been embraced by people who don't know how the industry works.''

And this is the head of MMS:

``Natural gas seldom comes totally by itself. Do you want to drill a well offshore that will cost anywhere between $20 million and $80 million? And then, if you find oil with it, what will you do? I do not know how successful it will be.''

Finally, new drilling 3 miles off our coasts will not lower gas prices today or anytime in the near future. It would take an estimated 7 years for natural gas for new leases to come online. Serious energy efficiency measures and more use of renewables would reduce demand and bring down prices much faster.

Mr. Chairman, the grand energy plan President Bush unveiled 5 years ago is over 95 percent implemented according to his own energy department; yet, with this plan in place, energy prices and industry profits are at record highs, the predictable result of a strategy of increasing supplies and ignoring demand.

The Peterson amendment to drill within 3 miles off Florida, California, and other coastal States is just more of the same. With 3 percent of the world's resources, 25 percent of the world's demands, shouldn't it be obvious that we can't drill our way out of this problem? We need to be using energy smarter, develop renewable and alternative energy, and use the one resource which we do have in abundance, our creativity. I urge my colleagues to vote to protect our coasts.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to a previous speaker.

According to an Army Corps of Engineers report on the drilling in the Great Lakes, ``Routine drilling is known to be hazardous to human health. Discharges and accidental spills of toxic chemicals from drilling can also contaminate the water of Lake Erie contaminating a primary drinking water source for millions of people.''

Drilling, either in the Great Lakes or offshore, is a dirty process.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), my colleague.

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

I respond to my colleague, Mr. Peterson. I lived in Santa Barbara in 1969. I saw that devastation with my own eyes, beach closures, fish kills, air pollution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to a couple of statements that have been made.

First, LIHEAP has been underfunded for years, high natural gas prices or not. Yesterday's price of natural gas was $5.91 per million Btus. That was about 8 percent less than it was 1 year ago. There is a better way to respond to today's high prices than by drilling. We can start by making our homes, our buildings, and our cars more energy efficient.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I remind the gentleman that there is production off my district as well. Several coastal State Governors are voicing concerns about the proposal to allow drilling as close as 3 miles off our coast, including California's Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger; New Jersey Governor, Jon Corzine; North Carolina Governor, Mike Easley; South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford. And this is what our former colleague, Mark Sanford, had to say: ``Energy independence is something we are all after, but we think it makes more sense in the long run to pursue that goal through focusing on alternative forms of energy rather than fossil fuels. Tourism is our State's number one industry, and we don't think it makes sense to undertake something that could potentially damage our coast.''

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Peterson wants to discuss the facts, so here are the facts:

Most of the natural gas off our shores is already available. In February MMS released its inventory. This is the copy right here that was required by our energy bill. It says that 80 percent of the Nation's undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf is located in the central and western Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska where drilling is currently allowed and well under way.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

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

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

I will make three points. First, the Poe amendment and the Peterson amendment are the same thing. Two hundred and seventy-four Members just voted ``no'' on the Poe amendment. If you voted ``no'' on the Poe amendment, you should vote ``yes'' on our amendment.

Drilling for gas is drilling for oil. The American Petroleum Institute says as much, as does MMS. Second, it is simply untrue to say that we do not have access to the vast majority of resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. The Bush administration itself says that we currently can drill in areas where 80 percent of the natural gas is located.

Finally, this is more of the same failed energy strategy that has gotten us record high energy prices and record high profits for the oil companies. We need a new direction on energy.

Vote for the Putnam-Capps amendment, protect our coasts, and take a step into the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind my colleagues today that May is Stroke Awareness Month.

Throughout this month we recognize the millions of Americans struggling with the effects of stroke, and we recommit ourselves to helping them. We also acknowledge the efforts of organizations, like the American Stroke Association, which provide leadership, helping all of us to prevent and treat stroke.

On average every 45 seconds, someone in the United States has a stroke, and someone dies from stroke every 3 minutes. Representative Pickering and I have introduced the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Stroke Act, H.R. 898, the STOP Stroke Act, which now has the support of 132 of our colleagues. This legislation will increase awareness, provide critical resources to implement stroke care systems. The legislation will help ensure that patients recognize the symptoms of stroke and treat it as a medical emergency. We want to ensure that hospitals and other health care providers provide timely, lifesaving treatment that reduces disability from stroke and the need for extensive rehabilitation.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and all efforts which address the scourge of stroke.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in firm opposition to this budget resolution. It is offensive. It is immoral. It does not reflect the true priorities of the American people.

Speaking of priorities, just this week the Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce held a hearing on Children's Hospital's graduate medical education. This President's budget proposes cutting this successful program from $297- way down to $99 million. This program enables our Nation's independent children's hospitals to train the next generation of pediatricians, pediatric specialists, pediatric researchers who treat the sickest of our children.

I asked the administration's representative why the President wants to cut funding for children's hospitals, and she responded that this administration will be focusing those funds toward higher priorities.

I must ask, what is a higher priority than sick children? What is a higher priority than investments into life-saving medical research at the NIH, cancer patients waiting for the next clinical trial which will save their life? What is a higher priority than health care for our Nation's veterans coming home today from Iraq with such severe injuries? Judging by yesterday's tax vote, it would seem to be a further higher priority for this Republican Congress to have the wealthiest in our country have a tax cut.

That is what adopting this budget comes down to. I urge my colleagues to reject this budget resolution, the underlying resolution, and prove that you are committed to protecting funding for our Nation's hard- working families. Vote for the Democratic substitute and not for the special interests.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a great friend, constituent and tireless advocate for women's issues, Ms. Eva Haller.

Eva Haller began her political activism in Budapest, Hungary during World War II by printing and distributing anti-Hitler leaflets. She eventually moved to the United States, where she earned a master's degree in social work while maintaining full-time employment in the service-industry. After graduating, Eva worked as a social worker in New York's Lower East Side. She then took time to volunteer for UNICEF with her husband in Southeast Asia, officially beginning her career as a philanthropist.

A dedicated activist as well, Eva serves on the board of Women for Women International, a Washington-based agency that helps women in war- torn regions rebuild their lives. She also chairs the American board of Free the Children U.S.A., an organization dedicated to eradicating child poverty, exploitation and the use of child soldiers.

Dedicated and talented women such as Eva Haller deserve to be recognized by such credible institutions as Women's eNews. Serving as the definitive source of substantive news--unavailable anywhere else-- covering issues of particular concern to women and providing women's perspectives on public policy, Women's eNews enhances women's ability to define their own lives and to participate fully in every sector of human endeavor.

Eva is an excellent example for all of us to live up to and I am proud to recognize the inspiring work she does on her own and in conjunction with Women's eNews. It is no accident that the organization will honor Eva, among other admirable women, at its gala dinner, ``21 Leaders for the 21st Century'' on May 16. In these trying times there is more and more need for the leadership exemplified by Eva and Women's eNews.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.

Yesterday, I spoke about a provision in the defense bill that has nothing to do with helping our troops and everything to do with congressional hubris.

This provision would kick the public off Santa Rosa Island, a part of the Channel Islands National Park.

Mr. Snyder and I have an amendment to strike that provision, but the Republicans on the Rules Committee have decided the House just won't vote on it.

This provision affects a national park in my congressional district. There have been no hearings on it. DOD didn't ask for it. Park Service flat out opposes it.

Yet, it is in the bill with no discussion, no opportunity to let the House decide whether it is a good idea or not to kick taxpayers off the land that they spent $30 million for.

I can only assume the Republican leadership is afraid to have a debate on this. And I don't blame them, in a sense. This provision is a travesty. They should be embarrassed.

They might have to explain why the public should be kicked off this island so a privately run, extremely lucrative trophy-hunting operation can continue in a national park.

This all started when the chairman of the committee said he was driving down the highway, saw the island, thought that hunting in the national park was a good idea.

End of debate.

He first defended his proposal as a way to help veterans hunt. When that didn't fly, it was to protect the animals.

Mr. Speaker, this absurd provision is indefensible, and a vote on it should win; and that is why there will be no vote on it.

So as Members consider how to vote on this rule, I would ask them to think about the national parks in their district and offer them this advice: don't let the chairman take a drive in your district; he might come up with better uses than letting the public visit their own national park, and then you would be down here in my place trying to keep our national parks open.

I oppose this rule. I ask the House to vote ``no'' and save itself from this embarrassment.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant and friend, Alan Seltzer, upon his retirement from Santa Barbara County.

Alan has served the people of Santa Barbara County well during his employment in the County Counsel's office, where he most recently served as Chief Assistant County Counsel. During his tenure with the county, Alan Seltzer worked on a multitude of issues and projects but he managed to carve time out of his busy schedule to have some fun. Mr. Seltzer served as pitcher for the Air Pollution Control District's softball team in a fiercely competitive adult softball league in Santa Barbara. At one point, he dressed up as a charcoal briquette for Santa Barbara's quirky and offbeat Summer Solstice parade.

His enthusiasm for the job and for the County of Santa Barbara is what makes Alan such an effective attorney. He has worked tirelessly on endangered species issues, which are plentiful on the Central Coast, including the establishment of open space conservation areas. He has been an extremely successful facilitator in bringing all stakeholders together to find solutions on many tough issues. One especially important focus for Alan was the regulation of development of the Gaviota coast, a pristine coastal region of open space north of Santa Barbara. Mr. Seltzer also worked on collaborative efforts to save native oak trees in the Santa Ynez valley, in addition to spending a great deal of time trying to save wetlands throughout Santa Barbara county.

I am pleased to honor Alan Seltzer for all of his hard work on issues that are important to so many of us on the Central Coast. His dedication to environmental protection and sound land use policy are exemplary and deserving of recognition. Alan, I wish you the best in the future and thank you for your service to this community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues on the Rules Committee to make in order my amendment to save Santa Rosa Island in the second rule. Santa Rosa Island is part of the Channel Islands National Park located in my district. This bill kicks the public off the island, which the public bought for $30 million in 1986.

The bill prohibits the Park Service from carrying out a court-ordered settlement to phase out and shut down the privately run, extremely lucrative trophy hunting operation on Santa Rosa Island, as ordered, by 2011 and requiring removal by that date of non-native deer and elk. This ridiculous provision has no place in a Defense bill. There have been no hearings, the Pentagon hasn't requested it, and the Park Service strongly opposes it.

Under this provision, the former owners of the island, who were already paid $30 million, will continue this money-making trophy hunting operation indefinitely. Since hunting basically closes the island to the public for 5 months a year, taxpayers will keep getting shortchanged.

In addition, the Park Service's plans to expand visitor services will be halted and the huge non-native herds will continue to threaten several endangered species on the island.

It remains unclear why this provision was even in the bill. The chairman has said it was to increase access to the island for veterans. But veterans can visit today, and the park superintendent has offered to work out any accessibility problems, if they are identified.

There is also a fuss about how this will protect the deer and elk from extermination. Nonsense. These privately owned animals are presently required to be removed from the island, not killed. And since when was an effort to keep hunting animals a strategy for protecting animal rights?

I have here a letter from many groups opposing this provision, including the Humane Society, which I will include as part of the Record.

Mr. Speaker, this provision is a travesty. It is an affront to all taxpaying Americans. That is why I hope the Rules Committee will make my amendment in order for the second rule. It will give us an opportunity for debate and the ability to strike this shameless provision and let all American taxpayers, including veterans, enjoy their own national park.

Mr. Speaker, I include the letter from the various groups opposing this provision for the Record:

May 10, 2006.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the millions of members

represented by our organizations, we write to express our

strong opposition to Section 1036 of the FY 2007 Defense

Authorization Bill put forth by Representative Duncan Hunter

concerning Santa Rosa Island, part ofthe Channel Islands

National Park.

Section 1036 would counteract restoration efforts at the

national park, as well as decrease public access to the park.

The proposal represents a severe threat to the recovery and

survival of 3 subspecies of the island fox that are each

listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species

Act. This unique fox species is found nowhere else in the

world and only 32 wild foxes currently exist on Santa Rosa

Island. The proposal would undermine the immense amount of

time and resources that have been spent to address the

recovery needs of this species on the island.

The provision would close off a portion of the island to

the public, and undermine a court ordered settlement that

calls for the phase out of hunting on the island over the

next five years. The current court settlement regarding

hunting on Santa Rosa Island requires that Vail & Vickers

Inc., which owned the island since 1902 and sold it to the

National Park Service in 1986 for about $30 million, phase

out deer and elk hunting by 2011. The hunting currently

prohibits full public access to the park as portions open to

hunting are closed to the public. Maintaining populations of

non-native species for the expressed purpose of hunting is

contrary to the intended purpose of the island as a national

park.

In short, Section 1036 of the FY Defense Authorization Bill

would undermine the ongoing and successful work to restore

the island, including the recovery ofthe federally endangered

Channel Island fox, and greatly reduce the accessibility and

ultimate value of the Channel Islands National Park.

The National Park Service is strongly opposed to this

provision and the Defense Department has not requested it. We

strongly urge you to oppose this unnecessary provision that

will harm both restoration and public access on one of our

nation's crown jewels, the Channel Islands National Park.

Sincerely,

Kieran Suckling, Policy Director, Center for Biological

Diversity; Mary Beth Beetham, Director of Legislative

Affairs, Defenders of Wildlife; Liz Godfrey, Program

Director, Endangered Species Coalition; Dr. C. Mark

Rockwell, D.C., Vice President, Conservation Northern

California Council Federation of Fly Fishers; Nancy

Perry, Vice President, Government Affairs, Humane

Society of the United States; David K. Garcelon,

President Institute for Wildlife Studies; Karen Steur,

Vice President, Government Affairs, National

Environmental Trust; Blake Selzer, Legislative

Director, National Parks Conservation Association;

Emily Roberson, Ph.D., Director, Native Plant

Conservation Campaign; Karen Wayland, Legislative

Director, Natural Resources Defense Council; and Sara

Barth, California/Nevada Regional Director, The

Wilderness Society.

Mr. Speaker, the May 15 Medicare part D enrollment deadline is now 6 days away; but a significant number of eligible beneficiaries do not even know that. The enrollment deadline is 6 days away, and eligible beneficiaries don't know about the penalty fee they would incur for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, the enrollment deadline is 6 days away, but call centers are still giving eligible beneficiaries inaccurate or incomplete information. This Sunday, sons and daughters should be spending time with their mothers taking them to brunch or showering them with gifts, not trying to navigate a complex Web site or holding onto the phone.

The administration's insistence on this deadline is offensive to millions of Medicare beneficiaries. Many of them are telling me just that, and many are the most vulnerable in our society.

I urge my colleagues to press for extending the deadline for part D enrollment. We owe it to the unenrolled seniors and seniors who are disabled, who need more time to figure out this complex program. We owe it to all beneficiaries so that we can continue fixing the many flaws of the Medicare prescription drug plan.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.

I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived legislation, nothing more than a shameless attempt to blame public health and environmental protections for the shortage of refinery capacity and high gas prices.

First of all, public health and environmental laws are not impeding construction or expansion of refineries. My colleague, Mr. Boucher, already quoted the CEO for Shell saying on record that he is ``not aware of any environmental regulations preventing us from expanding refinery capacity or siting a new refinery.''

Also, this bill will do nothing to lower gas prices in the short term or the long term. What it will do, however, is lead to increased pollution at the expense of public health; and that is why both State and local officials, air pollution control officials, oppose this bill.

I have here the letter, which I know is being submitted to the Record. State and Territorial Air Pollution Program administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control officials sent this letter in strong opposition to this bill. Specifically, they say the bill's new Federal coordinator position is certain to lead to more, not less, delay in permitting.

Mr. Speaker, the problem of high gas prices is serious. It affects businesses and families on a daily basis. I know that well.

I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

The date of the letter, May 3, 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I know that because gas prices in my district are usually among the highest in the Nation; and right now they are way over $3 a gallon. But this bill does not do anything about that. It is, in fact, trying to distract the American people from a failed Republican energy strategy, a strategy that says if laws that protect public health or environment get in the way, then we should just waive them. This is a strategy that dooms America to never-ending energy crises that consistently enrich energy companies at the expense of hardworking American families and businesses and their health.

Over the past several years, we have had repeated chances to craft commonsense, effective energy legislation setting America on a more stable future. But this Republican Congress has failed to do that. This failure has resulted in this bill. We should vote this harmful legislation down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the Health Subcommittee and Energy and Commerce, Mr. Deal from Georgia, and also the ranking member, Mr. Brown, both of you for your advocacy for nurses and for health care in general; and I also commend my friend and fellow nurse, Eddie Bernice Johnson from Texas, for introducing this resolution.

As we observe National Nurses Week May 6 through 12, our goal is to raise awareness about important issues facing the nursing community here in the United States. After all, the priorities of this Nation's nearly 2.9 million nurses do reflect the priorities of everyone when it comes to health care issues.

Nurses serve their patients in the most important capacities. We know that they serve as our first lines of communication when something goes wrong or when we are concerned about health. They check their vital signs and collect our patient histories. They are critical players in the performance of life and death surgery and procedures.

They attentively care for the most vulnerable patients in the ICU and the newborn nurseries and in our senior centers, and they serve as essential first responders in times of disaster.

Beyond that, it is nurses who sit patiently with their patients to educate them about important preventive and follow-through health care. They are there for patients and their families, giving them the moral support needed when faced with an ominous diagnosis. They are the ones who advocate on behalf of patients for quality health care.

Unfortunately, today our Nation is experiencing a crisis, a crisis in the nursing shortage. Currently, it is at 6 percent. That means 6 percent fewer nurses today at work, in hospitals, in public health, in clinics, than is needed for the health and safety of this country; and that number is surely going to grow unless we make some serious investments now.

For several years in a row, this administration has proposed flat funding of nurse education programs. Without enough nursing educators, those to train the next generation of nurses, we cannot deal with the shortage. At the same time, we are all aware of our budget deficit, which is the reason given for not funding nurse educator programs.

I come back to the fact, educating the next generation of nurses and nurse educators is something that cannot be compromised. I know, Mr. Speaker, that this message is getting through to my colleagues. This year, over 150 Members of Congress in a bipartisan way supported an appropriations request to increase nurse education funding.

To repeat, 150 Members of Congress supported an appropriations request to increase nurse education funding.

But we must build on this momentum now and ensure that funding is increased this year and next year. Investments in nurse education now will mean a greater ability to provide quality health care to Americans in years to come.

Studies have indicated there is a strong correlation between the shortages of nurses and morbidity and mortality rates in our hospitals. Other research studies today in America are revealing that Americans on average are less healthy than people living in other industrialized nations. Just this week, new research specifically revealed the greater incidence in which Americans suffer from illness than their counterparts in England.

Now, it is not my attempt to make assumptions about the reason for this. But I can tell you beyond a doubt that, by increasing our investments in nurses and providing better working conditions for nurses, we can improve the health of all Americans. So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, support the goals of National Nurses Week.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind my colleagues that this week, April 3-9 is National Public Health Week.

I want to thank the efforts of the American Public Health Association and its 200-plus partners who have organized events around the Nation that serve to raise everyone's awareness of the need to improve public health.

This year, the theme of National Public Health Week is, ``Designing Healthy Communities, Raising Healthy Kids.''

Mr. Speaker, less than 10 percent of our Nation's children walk or ride their bicycles to school, and too many schools continue to invite fast-food vendors into their cafeterias.

In America today, the percentage of children and adolescents who are defined as overweight is more than double what it was in the early 1970s.

My experience as a school nurse taught me that we need to make a concerted effort, all of us, to increase physical fitness activity among our children and to encourage all Americans to adopt a healthier diet that includes fruits and vegetables, but there is more.

If we are going to be successful in designing healthy communities and raising healthy kids, we must make sure this message is heard the entire year and not just for 1 week.

I urge my colleagues to support this and other efforts to promote children's health.