Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, the Woolsey-Miller-Payne-Andrews-Van Hollen-Frank-Scott-Nadler amendment is a Democratic substitute to H.R. 3030. This Democratic substitute is word for word the same as H.R. 3030 except for one big difference: the Democratic substitute prohibits religious discrimination with Federal CSBG funds.

It does this by making just three changes to the underlying bill. First, the Democratic substitute adds the word ``religion'' to the list of protected groups that cannot be discriminated against with CSBG funds. This list now prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex. We want to add religion to that.

Second, the substitute does not include the title VII exemption to the Civil Rights Act, which is in current CSBG law, permitting faith- based organizations to discriminate based on religion when hiring with Federal funds. In other words, Mr. Chairman, religious discrimination is not allowed when using Federal funds.

Finally, the substitute adds a provision to clarify that while religious organizations are welcome and able to participate in CSBG, they must conduct their activities in a lawful and secular manner when using Federal funds. This language is taken directly from Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion in the Supreme Court case of Bowen v. Kendrick, the case which sets the constitutional requirements for religious organizations that provide government services.

Faith-based organizations have a long and successful history of participating in CSBG programs, and we want that participation to continue. We celebrate their contribution. We want faith-based organizations to participate in the same lawful and secular manner as they did prior to the 1998 reauthorization, an authorization that

occurred in the middle of the night that allowed faith-based organizations to discriminate when hiring staff with Federal funds. That change was made by tucking a significant anti-civil rights provision into an otherwise sound conference report that was based on a voice vote in the middle of the night on the House floor; and, of course, it passed.

With this Democratic substitute, Members have the opportunity to actually vote in the clear light of day on whether or not they want organizations to be able to use Federal funds to further religious discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, a vote for the Democratic substitute is a vote for community service block grants. The Democratic substitute funds local community action agencies which sponsor so many important programs that address the needs of low-income families in our communities. Strong community action agencies make for strong families, strong communities, and a stronger Nation.

The Democratic substitute gives Members the opportunity to take a clean vote for CSBG, without voting for religious discrimination, and I urge my colleagues to please support it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me, and I just wish to respond to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), because he repeats over and over that by not allowing faith-based organizations to discriminate using Federal funds, it would have a chilling effect on these organizations. I want to tell him that what would have a chilling effect and does have a chilling effect is allowing the use of Federal tax dollars based on religious hiring.

Using Federal tax dollars to discriminate is chilling, and we must not let it happen.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, my point ought to be taken very seriously by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor). We have all received an action alert in our offices from the Focus on the Family CitizenLink. In the communique they say that on Wednesday we are going to have this debate and we are going to have this amendment to prohibit faith-based organizations from hiring on the basis of religion. As a result, Christian charities interested in accepting Federal funds would be required to ignore religious conviction in hiring even if potential employees practice Islam, Judaism or no religion at all. So the gentleman from Virginia's folks that he quoted would not get hired.

Mr. Chairman, in response to the comment of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) that there is no known discrimination because of the exemption included in the underlying bill, I would like to read a story that I have here, and the story is that in Georgia last fall, Alan Yorker responded to an advertisement in the Atlanta Journal Constitution for a position at the Methodist Children's Home. Mr. Yorker is an exceptionally qualified psychotherapist with over 20 years' experience counseling young people and their families, and over a decade's experience teaching in Emory University professional schools, and a number of appointments to State professional committees. The Home, as the Methodist Children's Home is referred to, has admitted that his credentials placed him among the top candidates for the position. On the strength of these credentials, the Home rushed him in for an interview where he was first required to disclose in an application form his religious affiliation, church and minister.

Mr. Yorker, a Jew, supplied the name of his synagogue and rabbi. As his interview was getting under way, the home administrator checked Mr. Yorker's response to this section of the application, noted that Mr. Yorker is Jewish and announced that the home does not hire people of his faith. Alan Yorker was shown the door.

The same administrator told another woman in the organization that it is the home's practice to throw the resumes of applicants with Jewish- sounding names in the trash. Only because the administrator had not recognized the name ``Yorker'' as Jewish was he interviewed in the first place.

That is what happens, and that is what happened.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the 1964 Civil Rights Act allows faith-based organizations, religious organizations to use their own funds, and they can discriminate if they choose. That act does not allow faith-based organizations to use Federal funds starting in 1964.

The chairman is right. The only difference in this bill is the faith- based discrimination based on religion language. That is what we would like to remove because, Mr. Chairman, this is a sad move on the side of the Republicans to continue to take perfectly good legislation and allow a poison pill to stay in that legislation thinking that the people on this side of the aisle are going to vote yes, that we have no choice.

You know what? It is wrong. We do have a choice. It is wrong to allow religious discrimination using Federal dollars, and we are going to vote against it.

I support faith-based organizations and the good they are doing in their outreach and their human service programs. I support them totally. The faith-based groups in my district are successful. They tell me, Get that language out of the bill. We do not need it. They agree that the exemption to title VII is useless. It should not be in there and that individual groups should not be able to use Federal tax dollars to discriminate in their hiring policies.

If this language remains in the bill, I, for one, will be forced to vote against the underlying bill because I will not vote to use tax dollars for discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Ms. Woolsey

Amendment No. 4: Strike all after the enacting clause and

insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1385, which continues the authorization of the breast cancer research stamp. This stamp has been just one small part of a comprehensive federal effort to combat this horrible disease, and I am pleased that it will continue. It's strange to think that a postage stamp has the ability to save lives, but the breast cancer stamp truly has such potential. With the continuation of this stamp, people around the country will have the opportunity to support research programs at the National Institute of Health and the Department of Defense. These research efforts are playing a critical role in understanding breast cancer, identifying who is at risk, and creating safer and more effective treatments that allow more people to survive and prosper after fighting this disease.

Perhaps no one understands the tragedy of breast cancer more than the people of Marin County in my Congressional district. For some reason, Marin has an unusually high rate of breast cancer. Far too many mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters have been lost in our community. We're doing all that we can to find out what is happening in Marin and what we discover will be used to fight breast cancer all over this country. In the face of so much community tragedy and loss, I have had the honor of working with breast cancer survivors and advocates in my community to help understand the causes of this epidemic and support those who are battling cancer. Watching their struggle has underscored the importance of federal efforts just like the creation and extension of the breast cancer stamp. By allowing Americans to give just a little bit every time they mail a card or a letter, we can help fund the research that will save the lives of our daughters and granddaughters.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1385 to help continue the fight against breast cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jean Schulz, who is stepping down as the National Board President of Canine Companions for Independence after 15 years of dedicated service.

Jean Schulz has been committed to developing and enhancing the services that CCI provides, and with her leadership, CCI places twice as many dogs with people with disabilities as they did when she took over as president. The Jean and Charles Schulz Campus, which serves as the National Headquarters and Northwest Regional Center of Canine Companions for Independence, was built due to the efforts of Ms. Schulz and her late husband, Charles M. Schulz, creator of the Peanuts comic strip.

In 1997, Jean and Charles M. Schulz were instrumental in creating the Charles M. Schulz Museum and Research Center designed to preserve and educate people about Charles M. Schulz, the Peanutes comic strip and its characters. Ms. Schulz remains an active member on the board of directors of the museum.

Dedicated to various environmental, educational and human service organizations over the years, the Schulzes donated $5 million to Sonoma State University to build the Jean and Charles Schulz Information Center that houses a state-of-the-art library, computer labs and an art gallery. This facility has become a hub of student activity.

Ms. Schulz's combination of leadership and commitment to her community has earned her many awards and honors. She received a Key to the City from the Santa Rosa City Council, was the recipient of a Leadership Award from the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce and received an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from the Sonoma State University.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Jean Schulz for her many contributions to Canine Companions for Independence and the entire community.

Mr. Speaker, I too am in opposition to this martial law rule because it fails to bring attention to the hardworking families that are struggling every day in this Nation to meet their needs and to take care of their children. The economy is letting them down. The economy continues to suffer. The job market is weak. These families are why we must absolutely extend the unemployment benefits and why we must do it now. Not later, but now.

Mr. Speaker, families must have the means to be healthy, they must be safe when their jobs are no longer secure, and that is why we must extend these unemployment benefits before we adjourn Congress this year, before we leave here for our holidays. We are highly paid. We are employed. Yet we are going to leave and enjoy our holidays, and it will be absolutely irresponsible if we do not extend the unemployment benefits.

If it is not irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly hardhearted, because we need 26 weeks' more extension for those who have already lost their jobs or who are going to lose their jobs or for those who have unemployment benefits that have lapsed. If we do not give unemployed workers the help they need today, an estimated 500,000 or 900,000, over half a million of the Nation's jobless, will be without benefits by the time we return from our holidays in January; holidays that we have been able to enjoy because we are highly paid and we are employed, until at least November of every other year.

Why are we not taking care of those who do not have the benefits that we have? I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the extension of benefits and vote against the martial law rule.

Mr. Speaker, today I am submitting for the Record resolutions in support of H.R. 2656 from cities in the California

Bay Area. The resolutions are regarding the planned casino in my congressional district. The communities surrounding the proposed site are doing all they can to ensure that their voices are heard on this controversial issue and it is extremely important that all sides of the issue are given a platform to do so. I hope that H.R. 2656 is brought before the House for a vote in the near future.

Resolution No. 2003-220 N.C.S.

Whereas, the Petaluma City Council respects the rights of

Native Americans to establish and have recognized tribal

sovereignty, and to secure lands under their jurisdiction;

and,

Whereas, under the existing federal legislative

requirements, there is no provision for coordination of

gaming proposals or associated major tribal enterprises with

established and approved off-reservation local or regional

planning law and General Plans in any timely and meaningful

way; and,

Whereas, developments of great magnitude are being proposed

which are dependent upon local and regional public

infrastructure, including highways, streets, transit systems,

water, wastewater and energy systems and resources,

affordable housing, and emergency services, both built and

yet to be built; and,

Whereas, without appropriate mitigation, the developments

proposed are very likely to have substantial negative impacts

and place substantial burdens on the public infrastructure

with a substantial burden falling upon existing and future

taxpayers, residents, visitors and businesses; and,

Whereas, with the rapid construction of tribal gaming

facilities, local governments are experiencing serious,

adverse impacts related to off-reservation economic,

environmental, health and safety issues; and,

Whereas, the current conditions placed on Indian gaming to

achieve and preserve the environmental, public safety, and

public health objectives of both state and local government

have been insufficient to prevent such adverse impacts; and,

Whereas, when California voters approved Proposition 1A

(Indian Gaming) in March of 2004 as a means of supporting the

laudable goal of Indian economic development and self-

sufficiency, they were not aware that such approval would

allow Nevada developers to seize prized off-reservation

environmental resources for intense development without

regard to locally approved general plans or any meaningful

environmental review or protection; and,

Whereas, under the provisions of Proposition 1A and the

Tribal-State Compact, local communities have not been granted

effective input into the development of proposed

tribal casinos that threaten their rights and the State

appears to have no effective redress for significant

environmental impacts these gambling casinos impose on

local communities; and,

Whereas, on February 6, 2003, the California State

Association of Counties has adopted a policy document that

includes seven principles of critical concern to counties,

including a principle that tribes and local governments enter

into binding and enforceable local agreements for the

mitigation of off-reservation impacts that arise from a local

gaming project; and,

Whereas, approximately 360 acres of prime agricultural

lands west of Rohnert Park are presently in imminent danger

of being withdrawn from County land use control and placed

into trust for the purposes of casino development--including

an extensive gaming complex, with a 300 room hotel, spas,

restaurants, a 2000 seat entertainment venue, parking and

other support services, by Station Casinos, a Las Vegas-based

developer and the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria

(Graton Tribe); and,

Whereas, Station Casino and the Graton Tribe's gaming

proposal will have substantial negative impacts upon the

federal highway system (US Highway 101), upon which it is

dependent for bringing its customers into and out of the

region; on local and regional roads; to the Santa Rosa Plain

groundwater aquifer, to water quality, along with unknown

local and regional fiscal impacts; and,

Whereas, the proposed Graton Tribe casino site is proposed

on property whose zoning is inconsistent with the Sonoma

County General Plan (on prime agricultural land, in the

community separators and outside Rohnert Park's Urban Growth

Boundary), within the Laguna de Santa Rosa's flood plain and

within critical wetland habitat for several federally

endangered species; and,

Whereas, the proposed Graton Tribe casino proposal is not

subject to a thorough CEQA-like process that identifies

fiscal and environmental impacts then to be mitigated by the

Graton Tribe, nor is administrative consideration by the

Department of the Interior required to determine if the use

of this land, sought for gaming, will have significant

detrimental impacts on the neighboring communities which

outweigh the benefits to the tribe; and,

Whereas, the Graton Tribe was restored in 2000 based, in

part, on its promise not to engage its Indian casino gaming:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Petaluma City Council strongly supports

the revisions in federal legislation [HR 2656/S1342]

introduced by Representative Woolsey and Senator Feinstein.

The Petaluma City Council also urges all members of the

Senate and House of Representatives to support these

important statutory changes and immediately move for their

passage; and be it further

Resolved, That the Petaluma City Council supports the

California State Association of Counties policy document

regarding compact negotiations for Indian Gaming; and

requests that the Graton Tribe follow the principles

contained therein; and be it further

Resolved, That the Petaluma City Council, based on the

information currently available, strongly opposes the

creation of a gambling casino resort on any site that is

inconsistent with the local land use planning and zoning

policies; and be it further

Resolved, That the Petaluma City Council calls on the Board

of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, in all negotiations

with the Tribe concerning creation of a gambling casino

resort, to safeguard the vital and legitimate interests of

all Sonoma County citizens by requiring that the following

minimum standards be included in a binding, legally-

enforceable Memorandum of Understanding with the Tribe:

1. The proposed casino/resort project must be subject, at a

minimum, to the same level of environmental review as would

be required by the pending Federal legislation; and

2. The proposed casino/resort project must be subject to

the principles of the California State Association of

Counties policy document regarding compact negotiations for

Indian Gaming; and

3. Even though the pending federal legislation does not

require environmental mitigation, in order to ensure that the

citizens of Sonoma County do not bear the costs associated

with the impacts of the casino/resort, the Tribe must agree

to mitigate, and must in fact mitigate, all environmental

impacts caused by its project; and

4. In order to prevent Sonoma County cities from having

land within their jurisdiction exempted from local land use

control by reason of future acquisition by the Graton Tribe,

the Tribe must agree that it will take NO OTHER LAND anywhere

in Sonoma County or in any adjacent county into tribal trust

Mr. Speaker, I rise against this sham Republican prescription drug bill that will harm, not help, elderly women.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my profound disappointment at the Medicare Conference Report and this squandered opportunity to help seniors afford the increasing cost of prescription drugs.

I want to make one thing abundantly clear to everyone here today: This debate is not about prescription drugs. Instead, the majority has taken this opportunity to advance a plan that will undermine the future of Medicare.

Seniors may think this final bill will help them with some of their prescription drug costs. While it will save some seniors a small amount of money after they pay an unspecified premium, this bill will give them little more than a false sense of security.

Seniors will read the newspaper headlines and believe that we have passed a drug benefit that will alleviate all of their financial hardships. They'll mistakenly think that they no longer have to choose between paying for groceries and paying for their prescriptions.

But imagine their surprise when they read the fine print. Our seniors need immediate help. Many will be shocked to learn that this bill won't give them a prescription drug benefit until 2006. If this is such a great plan, why must seniors wait 3 more years to reap its supposed benefits?

They'll find that their out of pocket costs are still enormous. Imagine their outrage, as they dutifully write a check to pay their monthly premium, even though they aren't receiving any drug coverage, because they have fallen into the ``donut hole'' coverage gap.

Seniors who currently enjoy quality prescription drug coverage many think this doesn't impact them, but they too are in for a rude shock. As many as 2 million will watch their prescription drug benefit provided by their former employer vanish into thin air.

Others will find their previously generous benefit slashed to the bare bones level of Medicare, complete with high deductibles, premiums, and a ``donut hole'' coverage gap. That's because employers will be eligible for subsidies if they provide any type of coverage--even if it's less than what they promised their employees.

But this bill is about far more than prescription drugs. This is the biggest bait and switch operation I've seen in quite some time. The majority is saving one thing and doing quite another. They'll talk all they want about providing prescription drugs. But their actions will ruin the Medicare program that for decades has so effectively provided seniors with access to health care.

You won't hear them talking about their large subsidies to private health plans. They won't talk about the voucher scheme that will begin in 2010. They'll employ the euphemism ``demonstration project'', instead of speaking honestly to seniors about their real goal: privatization.

They won't talk about the catastrophic impact this legislation will have on the poorest of the poor. By imposing an assets test on poor seniors who need additional help, this legislation could force a widow living only on her social security benefit to choose between selling her wedding ring and qualifying for an additional subsidy. She could be disqualified from receiving the help she needs because she has purchased a burial plot next to her husband's. This is tragic--and you won't hear about it from the majority.

They also won't talk about the ways in which they are helping their friends in the pharmaceutical industry. By continuing a long standing restriction on the reimportation of prescription drugs, and by prohibiting Medicare from negotiating lower prescription drug prices, the majority is assuring that seniors will continue to pay astronomically high prices for the medicines they need.

Our seniors deserve an honest and complete explanation of what this bill will do to Medicare. Seniors deserve a prescription drug bill that is actually about prescription drugs. Our seniors need a comprehensive benefit, not a false sense of security. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bait and switch proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my profound disappointment with the squandered opportunity we have right now, an opportunity to provide our seniors with the prescription drug coverage they need and they deserve.

But I am just as concerned about the decision made by AARP, the American Association of Retired People, to endorse these misguided policies. I have long been proud of my membership in AARP, but now they have sold out seniors. Now I understand why AARP no longer stands for American Association of Retired People. Perhaps they would like to be known as the American Association of the Republican Party. They no longer represent retirees. They are more concerned about the interests of large drug companies.

I want no part of an organization that is willing to sacrifice its principles for short-term political gain or favors from the majority party, and neither do more than 65 of my colleagues. Today we will surrender our AARP membership, and I urge all of my colleagues who truly care about the needs of seniors to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are calling this a jobs bill, let's call this what it really is--billions of dollars in pay-offs to republican campaign contributors. . . . Today, we have given up an opportunity to do the right thing for our energy future; for our environmental future and for true national security.

We have missed an important opportunity to make our Nation more secure. This could have been an opportunity to decrease our reliance on foreign oil and to relieve the burden on our power grid by investing in efficient and renewable energy sources.

Instead the republican conferees, excluding democrats from the conference, have delivered a conference report that will allow large companies to pollute our air, contaminate our water, and all the while giving pork to big business.

The majority party has only paid lip service to renewable energy. Instead of focusing on the benefits of solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources, this bill contains billions of dollars of pork for ethanol producers.

And, apparently they ran out of pork because they have even included some turkey because I guess they really got into Thanksgiving because they included a $95 million tax credit is in the bill that will help a single plant dispose of turkey carcasses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this conference report and asking the conferees to send us back something that will really help our national security.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the gentleman from Georgia to know he is going to have to continue doing the math and subtraction because the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) is not alone in resigning her membership today. I resigned mine, and I also circulated a letter here on the House floor, and within 30 minutes I had over 50 Members sign a letter to Mr. Novelli saying they were resigning their membership because of his change in his positions with AARP determining that it is more important to protect their insurance industry and their own insurance company than protecting the membership of AARP.

I want Members to know each time one of us announces that we have resigned and our constituents hear of it, we get calls back saying oh, I am resigning, too. I want to tell Members when the seniors in this country catch on to what the other side of the aisle are doing to them, they are going to want to resign.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration has openly demonstrated its dissatisfaction with the stories that the major media has chosen to broadcast about Iraq, saying that the news media too often covers the negative events that occur in Iraq but rarely reports the positive happenings there. In fact, in their peak in order to achieve its desired results, the administration has regularly pressured reporters to find the so-called good news in Iraq or lose access.

Perhaps the reason reporters have been focusing on the so-called negative stories about Iraq has something to do with the fact that since the start of the war in March, over 412 soldiers have been killed in action, in fact, two more today. Over 2,000 have been wounded and at least 7,000 have been evacuated to hospitals for noncombat medical conditions, not to mention that approximately 4,000 unarmed Iraqis have perished since the war began.

You have to agree, it is a bit easier to understand the media's decision about which stories to report when those tragic numbers are considered.

Still, the White House wants reporters to focus on the supposedly good news, but intimidating reporters into writing stories that make President Bush look good is not enough for the White House. Instead of just spinning the news, Bush's people want nothing short of controlling the information that comes back to the United States from Iraq. They want to have final say as to what gets reported and what does not, what the American public actually knows and what is spoken only in faded whispers halfway around the world.

So they decided to do what any autocratic, propaganda-loving dictator like Saddam Hussein himself would have done, bypass the media entirely.

The Coalition Provisional Authority, which runs Iraq and was created by the Bush administration, plans to create its own broadcast operation which will broadcast live to the United States 24 hours a day from Iraq, and one of the worst parts about this project is that the money to pay for it comes from the $87 billion in emergency supplemental funds that Congress recently approved to continue military operations in Iraq. That means that the U.S. taxpayers are paying for Bush's propaganda campaign that attempts to falsify and falsely mold their perceptions about the increasingly unsustainable situation in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the Bush administration has dared to control the media. Fearing that support for his Iraq policy would fade if Americans caught sight of U.S. soldiers returning home in flag-draped caskets, the Bush administration banned all news coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecomings on all military bases. This new, government-run propaganda operation, which is informally referred to within the administration as C-SPAN Baghdad, represents a new low even for the Bush administration. Influencing the media is one thing; controlling it is something entirely different.

Mr. Speaker, we must stay on top of this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 438. This resolution honors John Gagliardi, the football coach at St. Johns University. Coach Gagliardi is the winningest coach in college football history. This month he overtook the legendary Eddie Robinson by winning the 409th football game of his career. This record puts Coach Gagliardi at the very top of his profession. It should come as no surprise that the students, the student athletes, the faculty and fans of St. John's University greatly admire Coach Gagliardi. Fortunately, we are not only honoring Coach Gagliardi for his winning ways but also his commitment to his school, his team and, most importantly, his players and their education.

Coach Gagliardi has coached over 5,000 players during his 50 years at St. John's. Over that time, none of his players have failed to graduate and most have graduated within 4 years.

This is an amazing feat in today's world of college athletes. Coach Gagliardi more than deserves the honor we are bestowing on him today. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of the House to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 379. This resolution honors the Rice University Owls baseball team for winning the NCAA baseball championship. This summer the Rice University Owls captured the national championship in their fourth trip to the College World Series in the past 7 years. College fans, student athletes, and the general public were treated to an exciting 14 to 2 win in the final game of the year's College World Series. I want to extend my hearty congratulations to the Owls' head coach, Wayne Graham. His leadership over the past 12 years has taken baseball at Rice University from obscurity to national prominence. Rice University's student athletes also deserve our congratulations. We are on the floor today because of their hard work, their determination, and their winning ways.

I would be remiss if I did not also recognize the outstanding play by Stanford University's student athletes in the College World Series. Both teams are to be congratulated for their excellent play.

Winning a championship has brought national acclaim to Rice University. I hope the Owls fans and their community treasure this moment for many years to come. And in closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell), the author of this resolution.

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

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

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, the Coalition Provisional Authority which is the title of the American authority overseeing the reconstruction of Iraq, and the Bush administration which created it, are openly dissatisfied with the stories the media has chosen to broadcast regarding the United States' role in Iraq. In fact, they say the news media too often covers the negative events that occur in Iraq, but rarely reports any positive happenings there. They even pressured reporters to find the so-called good news in Iraq or lose access in an attempt to manipulate the stories coming out of Iraq.

Let us keep in mind that over 400 American soldiers have died in Iraq since the start of the war in March. That is more than 11 brave young men and women killed each week. It is hard to find the good news when our sons and daughters keep coming home in body bags. And it is exceptionally insulting to the families of these victims to complain about media bias at the same time four helicopters have been destroyed by enemy fire over the last 2 weeks.

The situation in Iraq is getting less safe for our troops, not safer. In addition to the 404 troops killed in action, over 2,000 have been wounded and another 7,000 have been evacuated for noncombat medical conditions. And yet, the President continues to complain about media bias. So what has the White House decided to do about the quote/unquote ``unfair reporting'' by the media?

Why, bypass that very media, of course. The President's handlers plan to influence public perception by creating a government-run broadcast operation to provide American news agencies unfettered access to the real stories in Iraq. This broadcasting system which the administration unofficially refers to as C-SPAN Bagdad will run via satellite 24 hours a day. C-SPAN Bagdad. More like American Al-Jazeera, the media giant that reports to the Arab world in a very biased fashion.

The White House is increasingly aware, of course, that President Bush's fate in the upcoming 2004 election is directly linked to the progress of the war in Iraq. So bypassing the third-party national media allows the Bush administration to mold public perception of the war effort. I think our country's founders would be ashamed to know that at the same time hundreds of our soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilians are dying, President Bush is thinking about the chances for reelection. That is nothing short of appalling.

But equally appalling is that the American taxpayer will finance this shameful propaganda machine. That is right. The administration is directing money from the $87 billion emergency supplemental spending bill that Congress approved last month to help pay

for the new Bush media machine. This is not emergency spending. This is campaign spending. This is propaganda spending. Instead of trying to win the hearts and minds of Americans through propaganda, President Bush should be trying to win the hearts and minds of the insurgents who are making Iraq less stable. He should show them a United States to which burgeoning democracies like Iraq can aspire, a United States that would be a democratic model for the rest of the world. I daresay an autocratic state-sponsored propaganda campaign is not a part of this model.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for offering this motion to instruct the energy bill conferees.

Rather than working on an energy bill that will work to solve our Nation's energy crisis, it appears that the Republicans are using this bill to wage a tax on our national resources, on our air, on our water.

The provision that was passed in the House without committee action would permanently exempt the oil and gas industry from the Clean Water Act's requirement to control stormwater runoff from construction activities at their exploration or production sites. Contaminated runoff would certainly impair the health of our Nation's streams, our lakes, our rivers, the waters, Mr. Speaker, where anglers fish, children swim. And we must not forget where our drinking water comes from.

Why are we rolling back the good progress that the Clean Water Act has made? Why are we doing this without a single hearing in the committee of jurisdiction and without the benefit of the EPA's years of work? It is time for the GOP gas/oil/petroleum group and their leadership to stop putting the interests of big oil and gas companies ahead, ahead of what is best for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the gentleman's motion to instruct.