Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained and missed the rollcall vote No. 237. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, while I have some reservations about the COPE Act, H.R. 5252, I will vote for it today.

There have been many changes in the telecommunications and cable industry in the 10 years since the last major revision of telecommunications law.

In 1996, telecommunication companies and cable companies provided very different services. Today though, these industries are providing very similar services and the distinctions in the old law are no longer as relevant. As a result, I believe it is time for us to make changes to our telecommunication laws that take into account the technological advances of the industry and the changes in the marketplace.

This bill would make some of those needed changes. However, I am concerned that its provisions, particularly those affecting the local franchise authorities, may go a little too far and do not do enough to allow localities and their constituents to adequately address right-of- way concerns in a timely fashion. I hope that Congress will be able to more fully address these concerns as this bill proceeds through the legislative process.

I supported the Markey amendment, even though its language would have needed some adjustments in conference particularly as it pertained to the ``last mile'' of Internet connectivity, because I thought it would improve the bill.

I was joined in this support for ``net neutrality'' by a wide variety of organizations whose members place a high value on unencumbered use of the internet--from AARP, ACLU and Gun Owners of America. I regret the amendment was not adopted.

However, even without that amendment this bill is an improvement over current law. It takes important steps to increase competition and reduce costs of cable and Internet. There is no doubt that the Internet has revolutionized how we do business, educate, and entertain. Making broadband services more affordable and accessible is vital to ensure we close the digital divide and allow businesses to benefit from new Internet-based technologies.

While this bill is not perfect, it is a good step forward. I believe it is important that we continue to work with the Senate to improve this bill and hope a conference report will continue to provide an increase in competition while protecting the freedom of the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a Colorado company, MGA Communications, which has been named `Boutique Agency of the Year' by the prestigious Holmes Report. In addition, MGA Communications was one of five finalists for `National Agency of the Year.' The Holmes Report, a national review of the public relations industry, recognized MGA for fostering genuine dialogue in complex community issues.

In particular I would like to thank my good friend and trusted advisor, Omar Jabara, who serves as the Vice President of Public Affairs for the company. I have known Omar for several years and can attest to his political passion. From the time he led Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's successful 1996 election as the communications director, he has demonstrated his political savvy and media relations talent. When he moved back to Colorado, he served as the press secretary for Dottie Lamm's United States Senate campaign. For the past several years, Omar has generously taken the time to speak to my Udall Youth Task Force about issues in the Middle East and public policy. He has become a perennial favorite for his insight, passion and candor on the issue. I suspect that Omar is an outstanding example of the kind of talent that led to the award for MGA Communications.

``No one is better when it comes to engaging local communities around environmentally sensitive--even toxic--issues and earning the kind of trust that is an essential element of any controversial industrial development,'' said the Holmes Report in describing MGA.

Founded in 1987, MGA Communications is engaged in some of the more complex community development issues in the Rocky Mountain region for clients ranging from the U.S. Army and Shell Oil Company to Cabela's and Questar Market Resources. MGA serves clients throughout the country.

``It's flattering to have the pioneering community relations work we've done over the years acknowledged at this high level,'' said Mike Gaughan, Chairman of MGA Communications. ``Such a prestigious national award is gratifying because ultimately, we pride ourselves on the business-driven results we deliver for our clients and the communities they serve.''

The Holmes Report highlighted MGA's work at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, the former chemical weapons manufacturing facility near Commerce City, Colorado, stating, ``That kind of work has turned MGA into one of the nation's leading experts when it comes to dealing with high profile, complex community issues.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Omar Jabara and MGA Communications on the well deserved recognition of their good work. We are proud to have them in Colorado. I wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the FY 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. This isn't a perfect bill, but it provides much needed funds to make our country safer.

Total funding in the bill is increased by nearly $2 billion from this year's levels, with some increases from FY06 in Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Transportation Security Administration.

Still, I'm concerned about shortfalls in the bill. First, although the bill increases funding for Border Patrol salaries and expenses over FY06 levels, it only funds 1,200 new Border Patrol agents, 300 less than requested by the Administration and 800 less than the 2007 level called for in the Intelligence Reform bill. Similarly, although the bill increases funding for salaries and expenses for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, it only funds about 4,800 additional detention beds, almost 2,000 less than requested by the administration and 3,200 less than the 2007 level called for in the Intelligence Reform bill.

The bill also cuts firefighter and SAFER grants by 11 percent, cuts air cargo security by $30 million, and cuts urban area security grants from FY06 levels.

I opposed the amendment offered by Mr. Campbell which would block any Homeland

Security funding from going to State and local governments if their law enforcement is prohibited from reporting immigration information to the federal government.

I believe that linking this provision to vital homeland security funds could have unintended consequences for our national security. Since 9/11, national security has become a national priority, and State and local governments play an essential role in assisting the Department of Homeland Security to improve the security in this country.

Under current law passed in 1996, it is already illegal for law enforcement to restrict the reporting of immigration information to the federal government. I support this law, and believe it should be fully enforced. The efforts of state and local governments to enhance our security should not be undermined because the federal government has not properly enforced immigration law.

We should be providing states with resources to improve security, not taking these resources away. By under-funding and allowing the weakening of security in some states and localities due to their lack of reporting illegal immigrants to immigration officials, the federal government would in effect be contributing to the weakening of our national security.

Mr. Chairman, much remains to be done to improve our defenses against terrorism, hut this bill is an important step, and I will vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my congratulations to the American Jewish Committee (AJC) as it celebrates its 100th anniversary.

The early 1900s were a very challenging and tumultuous time for Jewish-Americans. For decades prior, millions of Eastern European Jews immigrated to the United States to flee political and religious persecution. By coming to America, these brave people took monumental steps toward freedom, but even on America's more welcoming shores, they often encountered discrimination and economic hardship. Meanwhile, in the countries from which they fled, the persecution and danger against Jews intensified. The pogroms in Russia left thousands of innocent Jews dead, and many more wounded or without homes. In 1906, striving to end the senseless violence and discrimination perpetuated against their people across the world, a small group of Jewish Americans came together to create the American Jewish Committee, an organization committed to ending anti-Semitism, promoting pluralism and religious freedom, and protecting human rights.

Although the task before them was often daunting, they succeeded at raising national and international awareness to the crimes being committed in Europe this time. Often, this awareness was sparked by collaborative efforts with organizations of different faiths. As anti- Semitism spread prior to its horrendous climax in the Holocaust during World War II, the AJC was one of the first organizations to bring the issue to the forefront by lobbying political leaders, the international community, and appealing to the media.

Since that time, the AJC's positive impact has been felt around the world. The AJC was instrumental in developing many of the provisions included in the United Nations Charter, and later would advocate for the establishment of the International Criminal Court. They also provided invaluable research to the plaintiffs in the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. the Board of Education which ended racial segregation. During the 1960s, the AJC worked tirelessly with the Catholic Church to foster a productive friendship between the two faiths. This culminated in the Church's release of Nostra Aetate, a document officially condemning any animosity by Catholics against Jews. And in 1965, the AJC recognized Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. with the American Liberties Medallion in honor of his efforts to end racial intolerance.

The AJC's Jacob Blaustein Institute continues to work with international organizations to monitor war crimes and intolerance, as well as providing humanitarian aid to victims of natural disasters, refugees of war, and suffering around the globe. To this day, the AJC remains strongly committed to strengthening interfaith relations to ensure that when they speak on issues of great concern to the world, they are speaking on behalf of all humanity, not just the Jewish people.

Mr. Speaker, the American Jewish Committee's 100th anniversary is a tremendous achievement. Even more remarkable are the contributions the AJC has provided during its existence. The AJC has built a tremendous reputation, and continually strives for religious freedom, equality, and tolerance. Although it is called the American Jewish Committee, the goals they set forth and the feats they have accomplished are valued by members of all faiths, all nations, all people. I congratulate the AJC on its anniversary, and wish this extraordinary organization more success in the future.

Mr. Chairman, the Military Quality of Life- Veteran's Administration appropriations bill we are voting on today is not nearly as good a bill as it should have been. I will support it today, but I'm very disappointed in the Republican leadership's priorities reflected in this legislation.

The House Armed Services Committee, on which I sit, authorized these projects in the authorization bill that the House passed earlier this month. The Administration budget also requested these 20 projects, all of which are conventional military construction projects--things like hangars, barracks and unit headquarters.

To try to square the military priorities funded in this bill with the budget resolution the Republican leadership forced through the House, the Appropriations Committee used budget gimmickry to designate $507 million for 20 routine military construction projects as an `emergency' so that this funding would not count against the bill's allocation.

Those in the Republican leadership concerned more about finding money for tax cuts than for our troops decided to cut these military construction projects today. Because of the projects' `emergency' funding status, Republicans chose to strike all $507 million.

Regardless of whether or not they are labeled as `emergency funding,' for bookkeeping reasons, they are valid and needed projects, selected through long-term planning exercises developed by the services, vetted through the Administration, and requested by the President.

The fact that the Republican budget put tax cuts ahead of the needs of our troops strikes me as backward and wrong. These are military priorities as defined by the President of the United States, and the majority chose to ignore them. They want to have it both ways--to say they support the troops, but also to be able to cut taxes for wealthy Americans. If this isn't a good example of how this approach doesn't work, I don't know what is.

Mr. Chairman, on Rollcall 198, I inadvertently voted against the amendment offered by my colleague Rep. Rosa DeLauro to restore $25 million to the Department of Energy's State Energy Program. I had intended to vote yes because the State Energy Program is effective and important program that provides vital funds to 55 State Energy Offices around the country.

While energy prices continue to escalate, State Energy Offices are one of the few on the ground resources to increase energy efficiency for consumers, educate the public on ways of reducing energy use, and monitor the price and supply situation.

That's why I was puzzled and disappointed that the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee effectively terminated the State Energy Program, SEP, in its FY07 bill.

In many of the States, the impact will be devastating. For States without other dedicated sources of revenue, State energy services will be terminated. Many legislatures have already adjourned for the year and will not have an opportunity to attempt to step into the breach. Destroying the State Energy Offices at the very time that energy costs are hovering at record highs, many oil producing nations are unstable, and supplies are tight makes no sense.

It was just last year that this body voted to authorize $100 million for the SEP in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In his FY07 budget request, the President asked for $49.5 million for the SEP, restoring a 20 percent cut from last year. So I find it troubling that the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee voted in contradiction both to the Administration's proposal and the recently adopted energy policy of Congress.

SEP has a proven record of reducing energy consumption for residential consumers, as well as schools, hospitals, small businesses and agriculture, and has funded a variety of important programs in Colorado.

Restoration of SEP funding will have an immediate effect on reducing demand for energy, allowing us to leverage specific investments in a variety of energy efficiency projects in all types of buildings. In addition, SEP funding will permit us to expand aggressive public information efforts, convincing consumers and businesses alike to increase their use of energy efficient products, add insulation to their homes, utilize hybrid or ethanol-fueled vehicles, etc. Studies have shown that for every Federal dollar invested in this program, over $7 is saved in direct energy costs.

I am pleased that the DeLauro amendment passed the House, and I regret that the final vote tally does not reflect my strong support for the State Energy Program.

Madam Speaker, today with my colleague and friend, Representative Joe Schwarz of Michigan, I will introduce a bipartisan resolution that can be the basis for consensus about future military involvement in Iraq.

Our resolution recognizes progress in Iraq, including the establishment of a national unity government last week. But it also recognizes the need for more progress. In particular, it urges the Bush Administration to tell the new Iraqi government that they must seize this opportunity to complete the formation of their new government and agree to modifications in their own constitution.

We need to let the Iraqi government know this is no time for complacency. Iraqi leaders must seize this opportunity to complete the political process which could build trust and legitimacy in the new government and reduce insurgent-led violence and sectarian strife.

Only the Iraqis can unify their country and achieve a lasting peace. Our resolution makes it clear to both the people of Iraq and the American people, the presence of U.S. military forces is linked to Iraqi political achievements and the deadlines the Iraqis have set for themselves in their constitution need to be met.

I urge the support of my colleagues on this important bipartisan resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill.

It wasn't long ago that President Bush stood in this chamber and rightly said we need to end our addiction to oil. But instead of working to break our fossil-fuel habit, today the Republican leadership of the House today is calling for one more fix.

Instead of putting together a prescription that will treat the underlying problem, they are trying to get us to swallow their favorite nostrum of drilling on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

That would be bad enough if what they are peddling was just a harmless placebo. But it is not only ineffective, it is harmful to many important resources and values.

Any doctor will admit that any drug can have side effects, and that writing a prescription involves weighing the potential benefits against the risks.

Here, we are being asked to take a chance that there is a significant of economically recoverable oil on the coastal plain. So, we first must decide what stakes we are willing to risk, and then weigh the odds.

The stakes are the coastal plain. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it ``is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge'' which is ``America's finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/subarctic ecosystems.'' In fact, because of the abundance and variety of its wildlife, the refuge has been compared to Africa's Serengeti. This area is a habitat for caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, snow geese, 135 species of migratory birds, eagles, wolves, sheep, and muskoxen.

And what are the odds? Well, as anyone in the oil business knows, unless a well is drilled it is impossible to say whether even the most promising location actually has oil or gas. But the best estimate of the potential of the coastal plain is by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1998 they estimated that if the price of oil drops to less than $16 per barrel (as it did a few years ago) there would be no economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. At $24 per barrel, USGS estimated there is a 95 percent chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain and a 50 percent chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels. And at today's prices, presumably the odds are better for economically recoverable amounts.

But when you compare that with the amount of oil America uses each day, it is clear that at best there is a chance of finding several months' supply of oil in the coastal plain.

On the other hand, there is one thing that is a 100 percent sure bet--drilling will change everything on the coastal plain forever. According to the Department of the Interior, oil and gas exploration and development in the Refuge would permanently and irreversibly: Destroy the unique wildland values of a world-class natural area; disrupt ecological and evolutionary processes in one of the most pristine conservation areas in the North American arctic; diminish the Refuge's scientific value as a benchmark for understanding these processes; damage the biological and ecological integrity of the entire Refuge.

I do not think we should take that bet. We do not need to trade one non-renewable resource--the wilderness qualities of the coastal plain-- for non-renewable oil.

There are less-sensitive places where oil may be found. And there are even better alternatives as well, including steps to conserve energy and greater use of renewable resources such as solar and wind power.

For example, consider that two-thirds of our oil consumption is for transportation. Experts agree that fuel-efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks could feasibly be raised to more than 40 miles per gallon by 2010. That would save 10 times as much oil as would likely be extracted from the Arctic refuge over the next 30 years. It also would mean a net economic gain for consumers of $69 billion over the life of the vehicles, according to a 1998 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy study. And it would be accompanied by a reduction in carbon dioxide pollution of more than 450 million tons per year--about a quarter of the reductions needed for the United States to meet the emission reduction goals established by the Kyoto Protocol.

In short, when it comes to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I think that the stakes are too high and the odds are too long. I do not think we should gamble with the future of the refuge-- especially since we have better options.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, some other speakers in this debate made statements about the legislative history of the current law that governs management of the coastal plain portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I think those statements deserve a brief response.

As we all know, relevant current law says the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is off-limits to drilling, and that only Congress can change that.

That relevant law is the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act--often called ``ANILCA'' or just the Alaska Lands Act.

My father, Mo Udall, was the chief House sponsor of that legislation.

During the time I have served in Congress, there has been some discussion about the history of the Alaska Lands Act and how its authors might vote if they were still Members of this Committee. And in particular, there have been suggestions that my father, if he were voting with us today, would oppose this amendment and support opening the coastal plain to drilling.

That's an interesting thought. Of course, all we really know is that if things were different, they would be different. But I think that claim is not based on history.

I think that my father fact would oppose this legislation, because the law as it stands represents a compromise between two positions.

On the one hand were those who opposed drilling on the coastal plain because they thought it should be left alone. That was my father's view, and that was what was provided in the Udall-Anderson bill passed by the House.

On the other hand, there were then, as there are now, people who thought oil and gas exploration and development should be permitted on the coastal plain.

The final compromise required a special study of the area's energy potential to be followed by a recommendation about whether Congress should open the area to drilling. And, in the meantime, no drilling was allowed.

This compromise was worked out in the Senate. It passed there and came over to the House in the summer of 1980 but the House did not act on it until after that year's elections. Then, in a lame-duck session, my father moved that the House concur in the Senate-passed bill--which the House did, on a voice vote. That sent it to President Carter, who signed it into law on December 2, 1980.

I have no doubt that my father and the other House champions of the Alaska Lands Act considered the compromise the best that could be achieved at that time.

I also have no doubt that they considered it acceptable only because there would not be any drilling in the coastal plain unless and until Congress specifically approved it. My father did not support drilling there in 1980. I do not think he would support it now.

Of course, the real issue here isn't what happened in the past, but what will happen in the refuge in the future. That is up to us--not our predecessors--to decide. And as we do so, we are deciding not just for ourselves but also--and more importantly--for our children and their children.

But if people do want to consider some words from the past, I would direct their attention to the Interior Committee's original report on the Alaska Lands Act, dated April 7, 1978.

On page 149, the report points out that ``the Committee has noted the eloquent statements of a number of prominent Alaskans'' about the idea of building a pipeline across the coastal plain.

And the report quotes the words of the senior Senator from Alaska, who ``told the Council on Environmental Quality that `Some have appropriately compared [that idea] with slicing a razor blade across the face of the Mona Lisa.' ''

I am not saying that the senior Senator from Alaska would oppose this legislation--on the contrary, I know he supports it. But I think that years ago he aptly described what will happen if the coastal plain is opened to drilling, and why I oppose letting that happen.

Mr. Chairman, I will vote for the bill H.R. 5384, the ``Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Appropriations Act of 2007.''

While the bill is a dramatic improvement from the request made by the Bush Administration it still does not fully meet the needs of rural Colorado. I'm disappointed about that, but the fact is that the federal government is being forced to do more with less because of the budget resolution the Republican leadership forced through the House.

I am pleased the bill provides support for research programs important to Colorado State University, including research on infectious diseases and ultraviolet radiation monitoring. I am also pleased provisions of the legislation adequately funds important programs for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency grants which can provide much needed resources for rural economic development to communities throughout the Eastern Plains, Western Slope and San Luis Valley of Colorado.

While there are good things about this bill it does have its shortcomings. Even though attempts were made to the conservation provisions, more needs to be done to address the continued under funding of these important programs. I am also particularly disappointed this legislation does not address the continued delay of the implementation of a mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) for products such as meat and produce. The shortsightedness of the committee denies Colorado ranchers and farmers a wonderful resource to market their products and provide consumers a clear choice in the products they purchase.

I am hopeful the Senate will build on the work of the House passed legislation so an even stronger bill can be sent to the President.

Madam Chairman, I cannot support this bill in its current form.

H.R. 4200 focuses on actions to be taken after a ``catastrophic event,'' defined as any one of various natural disasters or events.

For Colorado, this misses the point--our most pressing issue is the increased likelihood of severe wildfires that endanger human life and property (and municipal water supplies) resulting from a combination of increased fuel stocks (itself the result of various causes, including past fire-suppression policies), drought, and widespread insect infestations.

So, what we need is accelerated action to reduce hazardous fuels in the ``red zones'' before the communities that adjoin or intermingle with the forests are confronted with severe wildfires--not legislation that aims at speeding salvage or restoration after the damage has been done.

The bill also has serious flaws. I will not attempt to list them all, because they have been discussed fat length in today's debate. But I think it is worth emphasizing that while it is doubtful that the legislation is necessary anywhere it seems clear that there are certain lands to which it should not apply, including (1) National Conservation Areas and National Recreation Areas; (2) lands that have been recommended for wilderness by the President; (3) wilderness study areas; (4) BLM-designated areas of critical environmental concern; (5) lands recommended for wilderness in a Forest Service or BLM land- management plan; (6) the Fossil Ridge Recreation Management Area in Colorado; (7) the Bowen Gulch Protection Area in Colorado; (8) the Piedra, Roubideau, and Tabeguache Areas in Colorado; (9) the James Peak Protection Area in Colorado; and (10) the Arapaho National Recreation Area in Colorado. Further, I think the bill should include language to make clear that it will not change the requirement of section 103(d) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which requires that at least 50% of the fuel-reduction funds must be used for projects in the wildland- urban interface--the ``red zone'' lands.

In the Resources Committee, I offered an amendment to make those changes, and also supported amendments offered by other Members. Unfortunately, those amendments were not adopted.

Similarly, I voted for the Rahall, DeFazio, Inslee, and Udall of New Mexico amendments when the House considered the bill earlier today.

Regrettably, however, the House did not agree to revise the bill as proposed in those amendments. And because I think the bill should not be enacted without those changes, I must vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot vote for this appropriations bill.

Colorado has a special stake in the bill because it provides funds for Federal agencies that are particularly important for our State, including most of the Interior Department, the Forest Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

And of course the bill is important for the entire country, because it provides much of the funding necessary for the Federal Government to meet its responsibilities regarding protection of the environment and the conservation of our natural, historic, and cultural resources.

If the bill dealt adequately with those matters, I would gladly support it. Unfortunately, however, it falls so far short of the mark that I do not think it should be approved.

Responsibility for the bill's shortcomings lies with the Republican leadership and the misguided budget resolution that they forced through the House in the very early hours of this morning. Their budget plan provides $9.4 billion less for domestic programs than the amount necessary just to maintain current service levels.

That is why the funds available for this bill are $145 million below this year's level and about $800 million below what would be required to maintain current services. That is why the bill includes only about 70 percent of increases mandated by law for Federal pay and for other fixed costs for the Federal agencies covered by the bill. And that is why despite maintenance backlogs of some $12 billion in our parks, refuges and forests, funding for construction projects throughout the bill are cut by $216 million below last year and there is no funding at all for new schools on Indian reservations.

And that is why there are similar cuts in the Clean Water Revolving Fund, wildlife grants, and the North American Wetlands program while funding for Federal land acquisitions--already reduced by more than 80 percent over the last 4 years--is cut by $98 million.

These cuts are particularly bad for Colorado because our growing population puts increasing pressure on our open spaces and wildlife as well as the water-related infrastructure of our rural communities.

If the bill now before the House were to be enacted as it stands, the result would be dirtier water and air, reduced care for our natural landscapes and historic structures, and declining levels of services for the visitors to the national parks, wildlife refuges, and national forests in Colorado and across the country. I cannot support such results and cannot support the bill.

Of course, today's vote is not the end of the story for this legislation. Once the Senate has acted on the bill, differences between its version and the House-passed bill will have to be resolved and a final version considered. I hope that the result of that process will be a version that deserves to be supported and enacted into law.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen makes a compelling point that we would be following the recommendations of a number of groups. Primarily the Bush administration has pointed out that this is a sound business decision that is fair to the taxpayers.

I believe the gentlemen's amendment should be supported today, but we will support whatever decision he decides is appropriate.

The amendment would remove language from the bill requiring the USGS to have a ``full service mapping organization'' at a specific location.

The Interior Department says that this would require them to continue to use outdated technology and would block them from their plans to consolidate mapping operations.

The Bush Administration objects to the language now in the bill because they say it is not fiscally responsible and would reduce their ability to provide needed geospatial information.

In a letter to the appropriations committee, the Interior Department describes their plans as being ``a sound business decision'' that is ``fair to the taxpayers.''

I think that description is accurate, showing that even this Administration sometimes gets things right.

So, I think that on this matter we should do what they suggest.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important amendment. The amendment would increase funding for the so-called PILT program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, by $16 million. It would bring the total in the bill to about 81 percent of the authorized amount. In my opinion, that is still not enough, but it is an important down payment and a definite improvement for all of our rural counties.

As you can see here on the map, those of us in the West, in particular, are affected by payment in lieu of taxes payments because we have the great majority of public lands in the West. Uncle Sam is everybody's neighbor in the West, and we look to our neighbors for help. PILT is one of the best ways that Uncle Sam can help Colorado and other States. So this is an important amendment and one that deserves to be adopted by the House.

If I could, I would like to use the rest of my time to talk about how we can do more.

We should act to make it unnecessary to continue debating PILT as a part of the appropriations process every year, and this is why I have introduced along with my colleague the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) H.R. 788, which would provide permanent and automatic funding at the full authorization level and outside the appropriations process for PILT.

Under our bill, PILT would no longer be held hostage every year to the appropriations and budget processes so local counties could count on receiving full and timely payments based on the formulas set by law.

This legislation is similar to a bill proposed by our former colleague Congressman McInnis before he retired from the Congress, and like his bill, our legislation has bipartisan support.

In addition, my neighbor, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), has introduced a bill that would phase in PILT funding over a 3-year period, and this, too, would be an improvement over the current situation.

So I know, along with all of my Western colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, I stand here hoping that the Resources Committee will take up our legislation soon, but in the meantime we should do the next best thing and adopt this important bipartisan amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this budget resolution represents more of the same misplaced priorities and, misguided policies that over the last 5 years have brought only deficits, debt, and danger. It does not deserve adoption, and I can not vote for it.

Even before last year's hurricanes, the Federal budget was on a dangerous course marked by tidal waves of red ink and towering piles of debt. Since 2001, the budget surplus that President Clinton and a Republican Congress bequeathed President Bush has been erased and our country is now in debt to the tune of $8 trillion, or $25,000 for every American man, woman and child.

There were several causes, but the size and scope of the Bush tax cuts must bear a large part of the blame.

Several parts of those tax cuts--for example, eliminating the marriage penalty, fixing the 10 percent bracket and extending child care tax credits--were good. They gave a reasonable boost for the economy and increased the fairness of the tax laws. But having campaigned on giving back most of the budget surplus in tax cuts, President Bush insisted on much more, and Congress went along. Many of us warned against reducing the surplus so

recklessly, and urged the administration and Congress to remember the need to be ready for future emergencies.

But our pleas for restraint were ignored--and then came the attacks of 9/11 and the need for increased spending on homeland security, a military response in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq. The budget nosedived from surplus into deep deficit.

Since then, even in the face of national emergency, neither the president nor this Republican Congress has seen fit to call on Americans for any sacrifice, and instead of temporarily scaling back tax cuts, the president and his supporters have insisted on making them permanent even as federal spending has skyrocketed.

So now we are putting the costs of war and everything else the government does on the national credit card--and much of the debt is owed not just to ourselves (as in the past), but to China, Japan and India.

Of course, this cannot go on forever. Sooner or later, something has to give. And, if the result is a new sense of responsibility, sooner is better--because there is an urgent need to rethink and revise our budget policies, including both taxes and spending.

Unfortunately, however, with this budget resolution the Republican leadership is doing just the opposite--instead of new thinking they are insisting on following the same policies that have produced the problem.

Even though the national debt has reached $8 trillion, under this Republican budget we will add another $2.3 trillion to the debt over the next 5 years in order to endorse the President's tax policies, which squander as much as $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years on permanent, top-heavy tax cuts.

And, even worse, this budget resolution still fails to meet the most important challenges that face us--protecting America, caring for our veterans, and making the investments needed for our future.

It shortchanges key homeland security programs--cutting them by $488 million this year and $6.1 billion over 5 years from the amount needed to keep up with inflation--while failing to provide for needed increases in our armed forces, including the National Guard, and shortchanging the program to dispose of the hundreds of tons of unsecured nuclear material around the world, particularly in Russia and former Soviet Union countries.

And even though the VA is already treating more than 144,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, with more to come, the budget resolution would cut veterans' health care by $6 billion over 5 years, and increase TRICARE health care premiums for more than 3 million military retirees and their families.

In addition, the budget resolution falls short in other areas.

For example, despite record enrollment growth, it follows the President's budget, which proposes the largest cuts in education in 23 years. It cuts discretionary appropriations for the Education Department--meaning an even greater gap between promise and performance in implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. And it also follows the lead of the President's budget in proposing to freeze the maximum Pell Grant for college at $4,050--for the fifth year in a row--while setting the stage for other cuts in programs to boost college opportunities and access.

And, like the President's budget, this resolution shortchanges NIH funding and public health programs, including prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and rural health activities, while also reducing funding for programs to protect and improve our water supplies, to protect open space, and to conserve natural resources.

I voted for the Spratt substitute, which would have led to lower deficits over the next 5 years and put us on the path to a balanced budget in 6 years while still doing more for homeland security, veterans care, education and training, and to protect public health and the environment.

Unfortunately, that alternative was not adopted, and so I am left with no choice but to vote against the Republican leadership's budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Gene Bolles on receiving the American Association of Neurological Surgeons' 2006 Humanitarian Award. The award recognizes ``members who have done extraordinary work in neurosurgery, going way beyond their normal practice and bringing their skills to areas around the world that desperately need them.'' I can think of no better recipient for this honor than Dr. Bolles.

Dr. Bolles practiced neurosurgery in Boulder for 32 years before serving as chief of neurosurgery at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. There he repaired the shattered bodies of our U.S. soldiers who had been wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now Dr. Bolles is in Kurdistan helping Iraqi physicians better care for civilians wounded in the war.

Gene Bolles has been using his skills and talent for humanitarian good for over twenty-five years. He was the first person to establish a neurosurgery program in Belize City. He has traveled to Indonesia several times with the purpose of providing medication to and performing surgery on the indigenous people there. Each year, he makes a trip to Albania to educate neurosurgeons and to keep them abreast of the latest technologies. In recent years, Dr. Bolles has used his first-hand experience to draw attention to the living casualties from the United States' actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dr. Gene Bolles is a remarkable man. I greatly admire his energy, commitment and humanity. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Bolles for his incredible work for people around the world and in particular for his work on behalf of our soldiers abroad. He is a great Coloradan and a great American. I wish him continued health and happiness in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Howard Roitman. On May 12, 2006, Mr. Roitman is leaving the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to assume the position of Deputy Executive Director of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) here in Washington.

Howard Roitman has worked on important environmental issues and programs for the State of Colorado for nearly 20 years. He joined the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in 1987 to serve as manager of the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program. He later served as director of the department's combined remedial action and Superfund oversight programs before becoming director of the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. Since January 2003 he has been the department's director of environmental programs.

His service has resulted in a safer, higher quality of life for all Coloradans. He was personally involved or oversaw efforts to cleanup radioactive waste piles, superfund sites, waste disposal facilities and pollution control and materials management at many industries and businesses across the State.

In addition to his service at the Department of Public Health and Environment, he was past president the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, an organization that supports the environmental agencies of the states and trust territories. He also served as the chair of the Environmental Council of the States compliance committee and as chair of the Council's subcommittee on Long Term Stewardship. In his work on the subcommittee, he was responsible for successful negotiation of a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Interior. He also is recognized as a national spokesman for states on federal facilities issues. He also is on the faculty of the University of Denver's University College Environmental Policy and Management Program.

Prior to his work with the State of Colorado, he worked for the Solicitor's Office and the Office of Surface Mining for the U.S. Department of Interior's Denver regional office and private consulting work in government regulation, natural resources and environmental protection.

Howard Roitman is now moving on to a nationwide organization where he can share his expertise on environmental protection with other States and the Nation. ASTSWMO focuses on the needs of state hazardous waste programs; non hazardous municipal solid waste and industrial waste programs; recycling, waste minimization and reduction programs; Superfund and State hazardous waste cleanup programs; waste management and cleanup activities at federal facilities, and underground storage tank and leaking underground storage tank programs.

Howard Roitman has also spoken eloquently about the need for State- based programs and actions to address climate change. He is one of a growing number of State-based regulators who understand this environmental challenge.

Colorado has benefited from Howard Roitman's strong public service commitment and environmental ethic. I ask my colleagues to thank him for this service and to wish him much success at his new post.