Floor Statements

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

In these waning hours of the first session of the 108th Congress, it is absolutely true that we need to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, which is due to expire at the end of this year. However, this is not the bill with which to do so.

I should note that there is much in this bill that I support. As an example, this bill will offer a multi-year reauthorization, which will definitely help with municipal planning. But, this bill could harm many of my unfortunate constituents in Southern West Virginia who have already suffered so much in flood damage over the last several years. They already have to buy flood insurance, in the first place. Now, their burden is going to be increased, again, under this proposal.

Under the pilot program, which I fear may wind up covering too many of my constituents, this bill will disallow more than four separate claims payments under flood insurance if the amounts exceed $3,000 each or just $15,000 in total. If an individual exceeds these limits, as many of my constituents may, they could be forced to accept mitigation. At worse, mitigation means having to move to a new residence or else face increased insurance premiums that many of my constituents just can't afford.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in West Virginia who are suffering disaster aren't people who are losing beachfront vacation homes. These are people who are losing their livelihoods. Many of them live in homes built long before flood risks were even known, and their land is sacred to them. For many, their properties have been in the family for generations, and being told that you have to move is not consolation.

Southern West Virginia has suffered massive, unpreventable, and unanticipated flooding since 2001. The U.S. Geologic Survey said the 2001 flooding in the cities of Pineville and Mullens, West Virginia even exceeded the 100-year flood level, the estimated maximum expected to occur in a 100-year period, as the Guyandotte and Tug Rivers rose to record levels. The Governor's helicopter actually had to be used to rescue people off of rooftops.

In McDowell County, we actually experienced two different 100-year floods in consecutive years.

We have even experienced two floods just this week due to the severe weather conditions. The most recent storm damaged more homes and businesses across the region, and caused Governor Bob Wise to extend a state of emergency to 29 counties, many of which are in my district.

Mr. Speaker, I have been working tirelessly with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Appalachian Regional Commission, and state and local authorities to combat our flood damage while seeking to prevent future flooding. I have even worked with the U.S. Library of Congress to replace books, electronic employment, and furniture destroyed at the McDowell Public Library. In addition, we are updating flood maps in the region to be able to better gauge where future flooding would be likely to occur.

But, my constituents can't hold back the weather, and they need relief. Unfortunately, this bill, instead, seeks to limit that relief and maybe even force some West Virginians to have to surrender their dearly-held property.

Mr. Speaker, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I say to the White House, wake up, because you just lost West Virginia. You got us once, but not again.

This bill contains nothing for the coal miner and coal field communities. It seeks to lull us into complacency with false promises of future spending for clean coal technology that maybe, perhaps, some day will translate into real money. This bill says to us in the coal fields, go trolling for dollars while we bust open the doors of the Treasury and shovel out loads of cash and tax breaks to Big Oil. Billions of dollars. This bill digs deep into the pockets of West Virginians, and we get nothing in return.

We sought to have provisions inserted into this bill to reclaim our abandoned coal mine lands so that we can rebuild our coal field economies. Just payment. Just payment for the coal that we produced that fired the industrial revolution, took us through a war, and sparked the technological revolution. And we sought to have provisions inserted for promised coal miner health care. They gave their all to produce the coal in back-breaking conditions that made this country the world power that it is that helps produce domestic energy security.

Yet, the pleading voices of coal miners and their widows hailing from southern West Virginia to the Powder River Basin met deaf ears in this conference. Why? I will tell my colleagues why. Because it does not involve handing out goodies to multinational energy corporations. Then it is not in this bill, if it does not involve that.

Believe you me, they are partying today in the corporate boardrooms of America, but in the hills and hollers of Appalachia, this is no laughing matter. You take us for a fool. You try to play the coal miner for a fool. You are going to get burned for that, I say to the White House. You are going to get burned if you continue to try to do that.

In the words of my senior Senator, fie on the White House, fie on the White House. Shame on you. Let us defeat this terrible piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to object to the rule accompanying the Conference Report for the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. I also oppose the Conference Report, itself. The rule would allow the Republicans to get away with passing a Conference Report without ever holding public meetings to work out an acceptable compromise.

And, Mr. Speaker, passing the rule ultimately allows the Republicans to get away with defying the will of the House. They excluded the minority Party from the conference, and they wrote a brand new bill out of thin air that contradicts the bills that passed out of both chambers.

One example of this slight-of-hand relates to the Essential Air Services program, which has ensured federal funding since airline deregulation to ensure that rural communities can continue to be included in the national aviation system. In the original House bill, some Members wanted to impose a local match provision, which would have required local communities to subsidize the federal government by paying to qualify for air service. Others, like myself, pointed out that doing this would kill air travel in small communities across more than 35 states.

In my own district in West Virginia, this local match provision would have applied to Bluefield Airport, serving the Bluefield and Princeton areas. Thankfully, the House deleted the local match requirement on the floor to guarantee that rural communities continue to be included in the national aviation system.

Unfortunately, the Republicans on the Conference Committee, who apparently don't care about maintaining a truly national air system, decided to reinsert the local match provision in secret, and to subject my rural West Virginia constituents to hardship.

They also inserted other provisions in the dark of night that are not consistent with the House and Senate bills' provisions aimed at ensuring safety. The Republicans secretly made it possible for the Bush administration to privatize uniquely-skilled air traffic control jobs at 69 airport across the country. It should also be noted that 11 of the airports on the Republicans' hit list for possible privatization are included among the 50 busiest towers in the country.

Although our highly-skilled air traffic controllers guided 5,000 planes to safety after one call from the Secretary of Transportation, on September 11, 2001 while our Nation was under attack, the Republicans think we should replace many of these skilled workers with companies whose only bottom line is pure profit.

Then, because they knew the Conference Committee Democrats, like myself for instance, would object to their brand new bill, they didn't bother to properly hold meetings in accordance with the rules. Instead, we had to find out through the media that they drafted a sham Conference Report, which they all signed. As a result, this bill has gone nowhere since July.

Now, amazingly, the Republicans come to the floor after this bill has lingered for months, and they say that we exaggerate the impact of their revisions. Then, they try to assure us that they have revised the bill again to eliminate the objectionable provisions that they added. And, they say we should just take their word for it and go ahead and pass the bill today, even though we haven't had meetings to review this bill that has supposedly been revised yet again without our involvement.

This partisan hijacking of the bill to ruin rural air travel and increase profits at the expense of safety is grotesque. Didn't we learn anything at all about the importance of a reliable and safe national air travel system from September 11?

The reauthorization of this bill offers us the opportunity to improve upon our current system while addressing areas of need. We should go back to work to accomplish that goal by finalizing a bipartisan bill that reflects the shared interests of the House and the Senate, and the American people. I urge Members to vote against the Rule. This bill should be sent back to the Conference, and conference meetings to work out a good bill should be held after all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations conference report contains language which represents nothing less than a gag order on some 500,000 American Indians who have waited over 100 years for an accounting of their trust funds accounts by the Federal Government.

On two occasions, we have fought similar provisions. Last year, I offered an amendment on the House floor to strip language with a similar intent from the Interior appropriations bill and it prevailed overwhelmingly. This year, our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) took the same action and he was also successful.

Yet this language keeps rising from the dead in this conference report. In effect, it would destroy a Federal court's order to the Interior Department to fully account for amounts derived from royalties and other receipts from lands in Indian country. Going even further, this provision appears to shield officials of the Interior Department from judicial actions requiring compliance, such as contempt of court citations.

This is, simply put, appalling. It is an affront to the American system of government, especially our judiciary system, and it undermines the long-standing trust responsibility we have for Indian Nations and individuals. It is, in my view, unconstitutional and will most assuredly cause more litigation and more mistrust of Congress throughout Indian country.

The Committee on Resources is in the middle of hearings on a settlement process of the Cobell litigation, and this sneak attack only makes it harder for us to conduct our business with the trust of those involved.

How long will it take for the Interior Department to quit with the gimmicks and sleight of hand and legislative riders that are snuck into appropriation bills without any consultation with Indian tribes or representatives of the individual account holders or even the chairman of the appropriate committee? How long will it take for the Interior Department to step up to the plate and accept responsibility and act responsibly in fulfilling its commitment, statutory and moral commitment I might add, to these aggrieved parties? Apparently, we should not hold our breath waiting for that to happen.

I urge a vote for the motion to recommit so that this matter can be addressed, and that will be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and pending that, I urge defeat of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a very valued member of the Committee on Resources and one of the strongest fighters for Native Americans in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), who is cochair of the Native American Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), another valued member of our Committee on Resources and truly a strong fighter for Native Americans in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on Resources who I have had the pleasure to work with, and who is very capable and fair.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to a member of the Cherokee Indian Nation, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson).

(Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, amid the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority's push for a free and democratic society in Iraq, this House has been constructing a dangerous wall threatening Syria. The recently passed legislation, H.R. 1828, will not help alleviate the incessant attacks that our soldiers are facing daily in Iraq, as an integral part in ensuring their safety is an immediate boost to provide Iraqis with jobs and prospects for prosperity. But the SAA will only prove to upset these efforts. Hugh Pope elaborates on this point in the article ``Iraq Adds Complexity for U.S., Syria,'' which appeared in the October 20th issue of the Wall Street Journal. I recommend the following article to all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, and to the administration.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 20, 2003]

Iraq Adds Complexity for U.S., Syria

As Washington Sanctions Damascus, American Troops Seek Syrian Trade

Partners

(By Hugh Pope)

Mosul, Iraq.--While the House of Representatives was voting

to adopt a new raft of Syrian sanctions in Washington last

week, here in northern Iraq the 101st Airborne Division was

doing everything in its power to burnish economic relations

with Syria.

``It's the freest trade there has ever been here,'' said

Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne's

22,000 troops, in an Oct. 10 war room briefing for U.S.

visitors involved in the campaign to promote American

achievements in Iraq. He proudly called for the next slide,

an image from the day the Iraq-Syria frontier post opened for

business. It featured a Syrian border monument with a huge

picture of that nation's late president, Hafez al-Assad.

Mr. Assad's son Bashar is now Syria's head of state, and

the sanctions, headed for the Senate, are meant to punish

Damascus until the U.S. says it has stopped sponsoring

terrorism.

But the burgeoning relationship between Syria and American-

controlled northern Iraq illustrates a divergence of

interests between Middle Eastern priorities in Washington and

the more immediate, on-the-ground needs of the U.S.

occupation forces in Iraq, who seek to bring Iraqis the jobs

and prosperity they view as a key step in ending attacks on

U.S. forces.

``Our No. 1 problem is unemployment,'' said Gen. Petraeus,

who has noted a falling-off in supplies of discretionary

funds that his officers use to keep projects going forward in

his area of responsibility. He has spent $28 million so far

and says he needs more. ``The north has the military forces

it needs,'' he said. ``All we need is money.''

Spurring the local economy is a critical element in Gen.

Petraeus's campaign, and he has used his funds to restart a

long-dormant asphalt factory, uncap local oil wells and work

to bring irrigation to a new area of wheat fields.

Gen. Petraeus didn't say whether he had had friction with

the civilian U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad

over his relationship with the Syrians. An officer of the

101st said its general practice was not to confront the CPA

but to do what they thought best and ``apologize later rather

than seek permission first.'' CPA officials said they had no

comment on the wider question of trade with Syria, which also

takes place elsewhere in Iraq, since no new U.S. sanctions

were yet in force.

But trade is vital to this city of 1.7 million and the

surrounding region, and one of Gen. Petraeus's first

priorities upon taking control of the north was to open the

Turkish and Syrian borders. Now, he said, some 500 to 700

trucks arrive from Syria each day, paying a toll of $10 for a

pickup and $20 for a bigger rig. He has also pioneered easy,

visa-free travel between Mosul province, home to about 12% of

Iraq's 25 million people, and the neighboring Syrian region.

To help Iraq cope with its huge electricity deficit, the

general dreamed up a scheme to buy power from Syria in return

for Iraqi oil. Speeding the process with his fleet of

helicopters, he brought together officials from Damascus, men

from the new ministries in Baghdad and the best of the 60

lawyers in his own force to hammer out a deal.

Negotiations dragged on, and the general feared they would

collapse over bureaucratic details. To break the logjam, he

proposed that his engineers swing open the valves on the

Iraqi oil-export pipeline, the Syrians switch on the power

lines, and the haggling proceed at leisure over the exact

final price. Everyone agreed.

Six weeks later, the informal arrangement appears to be

working well, Gen. Petraeus said, even if the power from

Syria represents well under 10% of local production.

Security hasn't been neglected. Some 800 border guards have

been retrained and set up at the old border post to keep an

eye out for Islamist and other Arab fighters, some of them

Syrian, who have been slipping over the border to attack U.S.

troops. But on the tables of Mosul, breakfast now includes

Syrian apricot jam.

Mr. Speaker, the deafening silence we hear tonight is the silence of the Republican leadership and its lack of support for unemployment benefits to millions of Americans thrown out of work during the Republican reign of ruinous indifference to families and livelihoods.

Mr. Speaker, where oh where have the jobs gone? A crisis of epic economic proportions is upon us.

Since the Administration has taken control, this Nation has lost 3.2 million private sector jobs, and those are the ones we are able to count. Who knows how many more are out there uncounted? This fact alone is bad enough, but under this Administration it gets much, much worse.

According to a study in the August issue of Current Issues in Economics and Finance reviewed by Charlie Cook in this mornings Congress Daily AM, almost 80% of the jobs that have been lost since the President took office are permanent. A figure that is drastically worse than had been the case in previous economic downturns of the mid-1970's and early 1980's. I include in the record Mr. Cook's thoughtful comments on this important study.

This finding should shock every business and every worker in the Nation, Mr. Speaker.

A New Kind of Job Loss

(By Charlie Cook)

When we get the first look Thursday at economic growth

numbers for the third quarter of this year, those gross

domestic product figures may well show impressive economic

growth: a sign that President Bush's tax cut-oriented,

economic growth package did in fact stimulate the economy.

History has shown that economic growth through the second

quarter of the election year usually results in re-election

for incumbent presidents. But the question today is whether

that relationship will remain as strong in 2004 as it has

been in the past.

Despite the fact that the economic downturn ``officially''

began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001, a net loss of

2.6 million jobs has occurred since Bush took office, giving

weight to the term ``jobless recovery.'' A recent paper by

two economists with the Federal Reserve Board of New York

shows quite clearly the most recent economic downturn and

recovery are very different from past ones. Furthermore, it

suggests economic growth figures in the near term might not

be accompanied by the same kind of net job growth in the

future.

Writing in the August issue of an FRBNY publication,

``Current Issues in Economics and Finance,'' Erica Groshen

and Simon Potter looked at the pattern of layoffs and job

creation during and after the past six economic downturns.

Observing that ``recessions mix cyclical (temporary) and

structural (permanent) adjustments,'' Groshen and Potter

found, for example, in the economic downturns of both the

mid-1970s and the early 1980s, 49 percent of the job losses

were cyclical. These are temporary layoffs, whereby an

employer ``suspends'' an employee's job because of reduced

demand for goods or services, then recalls that employee when

the economy turns around, fueling fast payroll growth.

In those two downturns, the other 51 percent of job losses

were more structural or permanent, as when an employee's job

is simply eliminated and the laid-off employee is forced to

seek a new job. Given new job creation takes much longer than

recalling former workers, structural losses are far more

serious than cyclical ones.

That 49 percent-cyclical/51 percent-structural loss mix of

the 1970s and 1980s changed to 43 percent-cyclical/57

percent-structural in the economic downturn of the early

1990s, as more jobs were completely eliminated or relocated

to other countries. For the most part, this shift went

unnoticed.

It became much more pronounced in the current economic

downturn and recovery, with Groshen and Potter finding 79

percent of job losses were structural and only 21 percent

temporary. During this most recent downturn and recovery,

jobs in the fields of electronic equipment securities and

commodities brokerage and communications were largely

eliminated. Indeed, the only field that has truly prospered

through this period is in the standard industrial code

``nondepository institutions,'' a group that notably includes

mortgage brokers, who have benefited greatly from

historically low interest rates and strong home buying and

refinancing.

Equally alarming, but more anecdotal than quantitative, are

stories of more and more high-technology or other

``knowledge-based'' jobs shifting abroad, whether to call

centers handling customer service and even technical support

or in computer programming and other highly skilled fields I

recently heard of some corporate legal departments shifting

more rudimentary legal work--drafting contracts and the

like--to India, an English-speaking country that uses the

same English common-law system as the United States.

No doubt some of these structural job losses are the result

of the impressive productivity gains that American

corporations have enjoyed in recent years as a result of

automation and more efficient processes. But it is also clear

many of these losses were confined largely to relatively low-

skilled manufacturing jobs, many thought this was an

unfortunate but inevitable shift. Low-skilled jobs like

producing pencils could be done abroad more cheaply and

efficiently than by higher-paid Americans under more strict

environmental and safety standards. But as the job losses

have shifted from lower-skilled to higher-skilled--the very

jobs that displaced workers were told they should re-train

for--this has become a far more serious problem.

While few believe the solution to job losses is to

construct trade barriers in this country, it is a far

different and greater problem than we experienced in the

past. And it isn't just an economic or trade problem; it is

also a political problem. Sooner or later, voters will demand

solutions from their elected officials or candidates for

Congress and president.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 63, the Compacts of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003. These amendments to the existing Compact, extends and refines the official relationship between the United States and our friends and allies, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM).

For the next 20 years, we can only hope that these changes will result in continuing economic opportunity, social development, and improvements to the quality of life of these island nations as well as serve the interests of the United States.

The RMI and FSM's contribution to our Nation's history is unique. Beginning in the mid-1940s, after World War II, their people sacrificed both land and culture to help preserve peace.

Then under U.S. Trusteeship, atolls in the RMI were used as sites to test the effectiveness and power of U.S. nuclear weaponry. Islands comprising the FSM and also the Republic of Palau became our ``line in the sand''

in the middle of the Pacific Ocean from which we staved off the spread of communism.

Though their role has largely gone unnoticed by the American public, the relationship we have since established with them to become emerging self-governing and self-sufficient democracies reflects how important we view their contributions to our Nation.

Seventeen years have passed since the RMI and FSM became freely associated with the United States. The relationship has been successful and yet imperfect.

The Compact amendments we are considering today will not make the relationship perfect, or guarantee success. There is no clear legislative path to accomplish such goals. However, all the tools are within this legislation for both the RMI and FSM to continue developing, as well as for the United States to continue to foster their growth.

H.J. Res. 63 preserves education opportunities, advances economic activity, safeguards infrastructure investments, and adequately addressed the consequences of immigration to Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas from the freely associated states.

In that regard, I want to make note of the great amount of work Neil Abercrombie and Madeleine Bordallo put into this issue. With justification, they should be proud of their work on behalf of Hawaii and Guam as it relates to the matter of impact aid.

Let me state that this legislation is the product of bipartisan support and multiple Committee collaboration. Bringing this legislation to the floor would not have been possible without the leadership of International Relations Chairman Henry Hyde and the Ranking Democrat Tom Lantos, as well as Chairman Leach and our colleague from American Samoa, from the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific.

Finally, I also want to thank Resources Chairman Richard Pombo for the bipartisan manner to which he worked with us on the Committee. His willingness to address important Compact issues in a meaningful and responsive manner gave us the opportunity to move this legislation expeditiously.

I urge my colleagues to favorably pass H.J. Res. 63.

Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Bush told the American People he was against nation building, no one, including me, thought he was talking about America. Let me at the outset make clear my support for our valiant soldiers who are pursuing our enemies in Afghanistan, and who are securing the peace in Iraq. But the bill before us today, just as it ignites the Iraqi economy and keeps Iraqi kids out of more debt-- it costs America's great great grandchildren more long term debt, while America herself crumbles.

Mr. Chairman, let us look at this bill's priorities and all of the unanswered questions it raises. There is plenty of money in here for Iraqi health care, but not one dime of the $1.8 billion American Veterans need for their health care, which the majorities in this Congress seem hell bent on ignoring. Why is that? The White House won't fund the No Child Left Behind education initiative, but we're supposed to pay Iraqi teachers' salaries. Why is that? President Bush says he needs more than $4 billion for water infrastructure when there are

people throughout rural America who lack public water service. Why is that? The President wants $856 million to upgrade three Iraqi airports, a seaport and rail lines, while Amtrak is starved for funds and our ports remain vulnerable to attack. Why is that? The White House has a paltry underfunded proposal for road-building at home but wants to spend millions building roads and bridges elsewhere. Why is that? The President wiped out the COPS program at home, and now he wants to pay more than $3 billion for Iraqi law enforcement. Why is that? The President is seeking $5.7 billion to rebuild and expand Iraq's electric grid just as millions of Americans are regaining power lost to Hurricane Isabel, and Congress is grappling with the causes of August's blackout in the Northeast. Why is that?

The President needed the coalfields of West Virginia last election, but today his priorities lie in the oilfields of Iraq. If we can help Iraq pump oil, we sure ought to help America burn coal.

To those who would suggest we should rebuild Iraq at a time when we cannot rebuild America, I say that doing so costs our economy, costs us tax revenues in lost production, and costs American workers jobs as our infrastructure crumbles. The surest way to not be able to help Iraq, if that is the President's goal, is to further hurt America. To shortchange America's infrastructure. Meanwhile, by failing to win the support and aid of the world community, the task of rebuilding Iraq became America's responsibility alone.

And, who pays for these government contracts in Iraq? They are being paid for, by the working men and women in West Virginia, and throughout our Nation. Is that fair? President Bush's friends are getting a double-dip giveaway. First, they get huge tax giveaways, putting more of the tax burden on middle and low-income families like many of my constituents in West Virginia. Is that fair? Then, the President's friends and campaign supporters, such as Halliburton and Bechtel, strike it rich with no-bid contracts. Is that fair? There are, according to the Washington Post, currently more contractors in Iraq than there are soldiers from any force of our allies. Is that fair?

And where, oh where, have all our allies gone? Can this Administration not swallow its pride, can it not make a more conciliatory effort to enlist the World in the rebuilding of Iraq? Mr. Chairman, if we have to pay $87 billion for Iraq, why don't we do the wise thing and roll back the colossal tax giveaway to America's richest 1%, those making over $337,000? If we defer that giveaway to those making over $337,000, we could pay for the entire $87 billion. We have far too many unavoidable needs right here at home.

Several weeks ago, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) identified real shortcomings on a nationwide basis. The ASCE report said we are failing to maintain even the substandard conditions of our transportation infrastructure. It described our national roads system as ``poor,'' and our national bridges and transit systems as ``mediocre.'' The ASCE report also identified needs in my home state of West Virginia regarding roads, bridges, water infrastructure, schools, and education.

Right in my own district of Southern West Virginia, I can point to pressing infrastructure needs: Greenbrier Valley Airport in Lewisburg is 35 years old, and in need of a new terminal. The upgrade is expected to cost $15 million. Where is the federal grant for Greenbrier Valley Airport? Greenbrier Valley Airport's parking apron, used, for housing aircrafts, also needs a $10 million upgrade. Due to lack of funding availability, this project has already been broken into six phases in the hope of completing it. But where are the federal grants for these phases?

In Raleigh County, just one of our wastewater projects is going to cost $6.8 million to serve 3,300 citizens in Glen White and Lester. This is a matter of public health, of bringing in new jobs, of fueling the economy. Where is the federal grant for that program? In Nicholas County, $7.3 million is needed for a water project to serve 562 customers who presently have no water service at all. Where is the federal grant for them? West Virginians are told by this President and this Congress that we can't afford federal grants!

Nationwide unemployment levels remain unsteady. We have 42 million uninsured Americans and rising health costs for those individuals who actually are insured. State budgets in disarray. Attempts to buy homeland security on the cheap while we incur record level deficits. Meanwhile, the Bush administration tells us that we can't afford to pay for all of our needs at home. Not when we're investing in other countries, rather than our own. Well, Mr. President, this land is your land, but you should know this land is also our land.

We have an economic stimulus package that we could pass right now to provide much needed jobs and get us out of this so-called ``jobless recovery,'' which is no recovery at all. I'm talking about reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st century, and fully funding it at the $375 billion that the Bush administration's Department of Transportation says is needed to maintain our economy. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that every billion dollars that we invest in our infrastructure provides 47,500 good-paying construction jobs. However, the Bush administration proposes that we spend almost $130 billion less over the next six years than what President Bush's own Department of Transportation identified as infrastructure problems.

Mr. Chairman, we're fighting two wars at the moment. Like most Americans, I supported our effort in Afghanistan, and I voted in favor of it. I still support it. But, President Bush lost interest in our enemy in Afghanistan because he had this other war that he wanted to fight in Iraq. Now, we're faced with a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan along with a bill for Iraq. And, mark my words, this will not be the last time the administration comes calling for cash for Iraq. Estimates are that it will cost us more than $400 billion.

With that amount of money we could afford to provide seniors with a meaningful prescription drug benefit under Medicare. But, Mr. Speaker, we won't be able to afford it because of the lack of priorities. Not when priorities are to finance Mr. Bush's war, and his rich friends' profit-making ventures. As I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, I have total support for our troops. It is my hope that in the following hours and days we can fix this bill. Fix its priorities, putting the American soldier first, and getting the American taxpayer some relief. But, when we have so many great needs here at home that are being ignored, we need to focus on needs at home first. Then let us see how we can best serve America abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for the reauthorization of the Economic Development Administration (EDA).

The EDA enhances regional competitiveness and provides critical long- term support for regional economies. In my own district of southern West Virginia, the EDA has been an important catalyst that has created or saved an estimated 2,240 jobs just since 1993. Similarly, over $31 million in federal funding has enabled 78 projects in southern West Virginia to leverage more than $50 million in private sector funding as well as approximately $24 million in state and local funding. In 2003. alone, EDA programs have provided much-needed funding for projects as diverse as University Center funding at several of West Virginia's institutions of higher education, an airport business park in Raleigh County, and engineering for building construction in Hinton, WV.

But in some regions of our Nation, EDA cannot complete its mission without additional help. For example, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) works in coordination with EDA to serve America's Appalachian region. Historically, the Appalachian region has faced levels of poverty and economic distress higher that national averages as a result of its geographic isolation and inadequate infrastructure. My home State of West Virginia lies entirely in the Appalachian region. Mr. Speaker, neither of these two important programs can sufficiently serve the area without the other.

For over 30 years, the ARC has provided for development and jobs for more than 22 million people. The ARC's assistance to West Virginia, and to my constituents in the southern part of the state, through the West Virginia Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council has been critical. It has aided the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources to develop educational funding, training and job opportunities for local health care. In my district, the ARC made $1 million available to the Mingo County Redevelopment Authority to provide water service, and to create 130 jobs by processing West Virginia timber into hardwood flooring and related projects. Similarly, the ARC provided water service to 312 new customers in Crum, West Virginia, and it helped to improve the quality of mathematics and science education in Bluefield,

Mr. Chairman, when President Bush told the American people he was against nation-building, no one, including myself, thought he was talking about America.

Let me begin at the outset by making very clear my support for our valiant soldiers who are pursuing our enemies in Afghanistan and other parts of the world and are securing the peace in Iraq.

The bill before us today, just as it ignites the Iraqi economy and keeps Iraqi kids out of more debt, it costs our American grandchildren and great, great grandchildren more long-term debt while America herself crumbles.

This bill's priorities are wrong, Mr. Chairman. There is plenty of money in here for Iraqi health care but not one dime of the $1.8 billion American veterans need for their health care, which the majority in this Congress seem hell bent on ignoring. Why is that?

The White House will not fund the No Child Left Behind education initiative, but we are supposed to pay Iraqi teachers' salaries. Why is that?

The President wants $856 million to upgrade three Iraqi airports, a seaport, and rail lines, while Amtrak is starved for funds in this country, and our ports remain vulnerable to attack. Why is that?

The White House has a paltry underfunded proposal for road building here at home, but wants to spend millions building roads and bridges elsewhere. Why is that?

The President wiped out the COPS program here at home, and now he wants to pay more than $3 billion for Iraqi law enforcement. Why is that?

The priorities are all skewed. Let us support our troops, but not with this $87 billion Iraqi economy rebuilding measure.

Mr. Speaker, the Syria Accountability Act comes to the House floor at a time when the situation in the Middle East is more volatile than ever: the United States' effort to gain control of the situation in Iraq; the breakdown of the Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiations; and the new tensions between Syria, Lebanon and Israel are all major concerns of U.S. Middle East policy.

The proposed legislation, H.R. 1828, could harm the United States' ability to influence various actors in the region and could seriously impair U.S. diplomatic efforts at a very critical time in the Middle East.

At this critical juncture in America's War on Terrorism we should work with Nations like Syria who are aiding our pursuit of the terrorists who attacked America on 9-11.

Since September 11th, 2001, Syria has quietly helped the United States by detaining suspected members of Osama bin Laden's organization. Our government should continue its diplomatic relations with Syria in order to capture these terrorists.

Syria supported the United States by voting in support of U.N. Resolution 1441 asking Iraq to comply with the United Nations and to allow inspectors back into the country.

During America's Operation Iraqi Freedom, Syria assisted the U.S. by supplying power to northern Iraq, thus calming the population, and undoubtedly saving American troops' lives.

In a most recent act of cooperation with the United States and at our request, Damascus has opened its financial and banking institutions allowing us to trace the accounts of the former Saddam Hussein regime.

Syria is currently designated by the U.S. State Department as a state-sponsor of terrorism and, therefore, is already ineligible for U.S. assistance and faces numerous, strict sanctions. This legislation would further restrict the already limited leverage we have with Syria.

Instead of singling out Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, Congress should instead support United Nations resolutions (687, par. 14) pursuing the goal of declaring the whole Middle East a region free from all such weapons and delivery systems. This bill lacks credibility by ignoring Israel's own advanced pursuit of such weapons including nuclear arms.

Imposing unilateral sanctions on Syria would hurt American businesses. At a time when our country is facing increasing unemployment rates, Congress and the Administration should take action to foster economic growth and trade, including with countries in the Middle East, to foster an increase in American jobs.

European and Russian companies have already made contact with Syrian businesses hoping to move in as American companies are forced to leave after adoption of SAA.

This legislation attempts to adopt a simplistic approach to Lebanese- Syrian relations. Both Syria and Lebanon are sovereign countries capable of resolving their own differences without U.S. congressional meddling.

Now is not the time to limit American options as we seek to pursue a long-term comprehensive political solution to conflict in the Middle East. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand in opposition to H.R. 1828 as we must remain focused on the difficult issues of the Middle East already at hand.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

In my capacity as the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, I wholeheartedly join the gentlewoman in illustrating just one of the many outrageous and galling preemptions of due process which is part and parcel of how the energy bill conference is being managed.

The issue that the Capps motion raises is not something of a partisan nature. If a Member represents a coastal State, they should be concerned, whether Republican or Democrat, over what is taking place in this energy bill in conference. And Members should be especially concerned if their constituents support the Federal offshore oil and gas leasing moratoria that have long been applied to both the east and west coasts.

For what we are dealing with here is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. When this body considered the energy bill last April, an amendment was offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) to strike a provision which would have required that an inventory be conducted of all oil and gas resources in the outer continental shelf, regardless of whether those resources fall within an area closed to oil and gas leasing by Presidential or congressional moratoria. That amendment passed by voice vote, and it passed by voice vote for a simple reason: if taken to a rollcall vote, it would have been approved overwhelmingly.

Yet today we find that this very same language has been slipped into the draft energy bill conference report. The question then occurs, who is responsible for this language reappearing. I asked the majority side: Who is responsible for this language reappearing? When the Capps- Davis-Miller amendment was offered to the House version of the energy bill last April, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) asked our colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, point-blank whether it was his intention to support the reinsertion of this provision being removed at that time in the conference committee. In response, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) said, and I quote, ``It is not my intention to recommend the reinsertion of this language, no.''

Page H3312 of the April 11, 2003, Congressional Record, it is right there. Indeed, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) posed the same question to the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). In response, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) said, ``No, we have no intention whatsoever of doing that.'' That is from page H3310 of the April 11, 2003, Congressional Record. It is right there.

So here we have the assurances of two powerful chairmen of two House committees with jurisdiction over the energy bill that this language would not reappear. But it has. Imagine that. It has reappeared.

So today we appeal to these two powerful chairmen to support the pending motion and to join us in doing battle with what must surely be the culprit, that other body.

To my colleagues, the language in question places at risk the offshore oil and gas leasing moratoria areas. Members cast a ``yea'' or ``nay'' vote on this motion on that basis. Members cast a vote on the same basis they did last year when during consideration of the appropriations subcommittee bill, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and myself offered an amendment to block development of some 36 oil and gas leases off the coast of southern California. That amendment prevailed with the support of 67 Republicans joining 184 Democrats. We said then that California wanted the same protections that the President gave his brother, Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, when acceding to his concerns over a proposed lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico off that State's coast, lease sale 181, as I recall it.

So I say to my colleagues, today on this pending motion we are asking those on the other side of the aisle to owe up to their vote on the Capps-Rahall amendment to the interior appropriation bill last year; and to my Democratic colleagues, we are asking them to do what we have traditionally asked them to do, and that is respect the views of the American people. I urge support of the motion.

Mr. Speaker, Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, South Asian-Americans and Sikh-Americans are a vital part of America. These communities join other ethnic and religious groups as they and their ancestors came to this nation in search of political freedom and economic opportunity. They have flourished in this nation and have made great contributions to our society. They have joined the ranks of service-members, law enforcement officers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and business people. They also hold positions of

leadership in this society, including members of Congress and Cabinet members.

But, tragically in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, some bigots turned against Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans, and South Asian-Americans, and singled them out as targets for violence and threats of violence. Hate crimes against these communities, including violent physical assaults, increased sharply. The FBI reported that the number of anti-Muslim incidents increased by 1600 percent from 2001 to 2002, largely in response to this post 9/11 backlash. Obviously this kind of increase has only added evermore to the awesome responsibilities facing law enforcement offices. Therefore, it is unfortunate that their resources must be directed to the unreasonable few rotten applies that take out their vengeance on the unsuspecting innocent.

Most Americans all over responded and came to the support of Arab- Americans, Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans, and South Asian-Americans, condemning the attacks and embracing these communities. A resolution at that time, which I cosponsored, was passed that condemned violence against these groups.

But, now again Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans, and South Asian-Americans are suffering, and it is again time to express support for them. Since the time when the war in Iraq began, hate crimes have seen another hike. There was a man who law enforcement believes was motivated by anti-Arab sentiment, when he allegedly shot four people to death in New York City during February and March. Even after President Bush declared that major combat operations had ended, the hate crimes against Arab, Muslim, South Asian and Sikh-Americans have continued.

These crimes are wrong and are opposed to the values of American society. We must condemn them in the most serious and strongest terms, and law enforcement must investigate and vigorously prosecute the perpetrators.

By the same token, we must pay close attention to the concerns of Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans and South Asian- Americans, that the federal government views them with suspicion, and they are being subjected to grossly heightened levels of surveillance as a result of their national or religious origins. Counter-terrorism efforts must not discriminate on the basis of national origin or religion or violate the civil liberties of innocent Americans. The government's efforts to combat terrorism must focus on criminal or terrorist behavior, not ethnicity or creed.

Discriminatory counter-terrorism tactics and those that violate civil liberties are wrong and do not make the country safer. We must look to history, which has shown us that respect for individual rights enhances our stability and security. Singling out mostly innocent Arab, Muslim, South Asian and Sikh Americans runs counter to the principle of rejecting the use of racial and ethnic profiling, while we need to focus on building trust and respect by working cooperatively with community members.

The resolution before us today, H. Res. 234, recognizes that Arab- Americans, Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans, and South Asian-Americans greatly contribute to American society and serve honorably in the military or law enforcement and it urges respect for civil rights and liberties, condemns bias-motivated crimes against members of these communities, and calls upon federal and local law enforcement to prosecute such crimes vigorously. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great woman and a great American, Mrs. Mildred (``Millie'') O'Neill, who passed away yesterday.

Millie was the wife of our beloved House Speaker, Tip O'Neill. On the dedication page of his autobiography, ``Man of the House,'' Tip described her as ``The Speaker of My House. A loving wife, mother and my partner through so many triumphs and trials.'' They enjoyed 52 years of marriage together, and they had five children.

But Millie was more than merely the wife of a well-known politician. In addition to her dedication to her children and her husband, she very ably served many worthwhile causes. Mrs. O'Neill was chair or a member of the boards of the March of Dimes, the Congressional Wives Club, the International Club, and So Others Might Eat. She led a $4 million fundraising effort as chairwoman of the historic Ford's Theatre in Washington, DC, which earned her a prestigious Lincoln Award in 1984.

In addition, she was active in many causes back in Massachusetts, including the St. John's Church Rebuilding Fund, and the St. Coletta's School for Exceptional Children.

Mr. Speaker, Millie was a lovely, charming woman who will be missed. Her warmth and her sense of humor were radiant. Story has it that Tip, always mindful of the rule that all politics is local, would make a point of asking her personally for her vote every election day as they left for the polls. Fitting her good nature, her typical response was to acknowledge the request by replying only, ``Tom, I'll give it every consideration.''

During the awards ceremony at which she was presented with the Lincoln Award, another well-known American, President Ronald Reagan, noted her marriage to Tip, by remarking ``he's lucky, mighty lucky, to be the man in your life.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call once again for reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA 21), which will expire in just over one week.

Today, the House considers a five-month extension to TEA 21. But it ought to be passing a meaningful surface transportation bill that will address measurable needs in our infrastructure, provide desperately needed jobs, and bolster our economy.

Several weeks ago, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) said that we are failing to maintain even the substandard conditions of our transportation infrastructure. It described our national roads system as ``poor,'' and our national bridges and transit systems as ``mediocre.'' For my home state of West Virginia, the ASCE report said more than a third of state roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and one-fifth of the state's bridges are deficient or functionally obsolete.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The United States is in need of infrastructure reinvestment. The Federal Highway Administration, the General Accounting Office, and industry trade groups have clearly communicated the shortcomings in our Nation's infrastructure since last year.

Almost 30 percent of our bridges are structurally or functionally deficient, and half our interstate bridges are over 33 years old.

Of the 102,859 bridges that are part of our Strategic Highway Network, which the Department of Defense would use to mobilize against global and domestic threats, over 20,000 of them are rated as deficient.

Twenty-four percent of both our Urban Bus and Urban Rail maintenance facilities are substandard.

Highway congestion in cities with less than 500,000 in population experienced an increase of 217 percent in the years 1987 to 2000. It is worth noting that most of America resides in cities with less than 500,000 in population.

Traffic delays in rush hour traffic increase travel times by 63 percent in urban areas.

Estimates place the loss of productivity and motor fuel at $68 billion currently, and it is expected to near $100 billion by 2009.

Importantly, the FHWA has also noted the benefits of economic investment in our infrastructure. Every $1 billion we invest in our highways creates 47,500 good-paying jobs at a time when unemployment levels remain unsteady, and it provides $6.1 billion of economic activity in return, which would help restore our uneven economy.

Mr. Speaker, the FHWA said that we need to invest $375 billion over the next six years to sustain our surface transportation system in its current condition to maintain economic growth.

However, many in Congress and the President say that we cannot afford this investment in our infrastructure, which is an investment in our present and in our future. For this reason, efforts to craft a meaningful surface transportation bill as the successor to TEA 21 stalled months ago.

Congress should not oppose investment in our infrastructure to ensure our future. We know what needs to be done, yet we are being delinquent in our responsibility to the American people by not doing it. Congress should enact a surface transportation bill as a worthy successor to TEA 21.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration tells Congress that what is needed is $87 billion for Iraq. Furthermore, a House Budget Committee study indicates that the cost of the Iraq war and occupation could easily reach $417 billion over the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, this reflects skewed priorities. Moreover, it raises concerns for what programs may be cut to pay for the Iraq funding.

My support for our brave troops is total, and that means they must have every resource made available to them. However, the task of rebuilding Iraq cannot be America's responsibility alone. We should draw upon the support and aid of the world community.

However, we have needs at home as I have suggested. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1789, the American Parity Act, which would require that America's priorities be addressed with the same urgency that the administration is giving to rebuilding Iraq.

In addition to the infrastructure needs I mentioned, we suffer from having 42 million uninsured Americans and rising health costs for insured individuals, proposed reductions in Medicaid funding, insufficient funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant of the National Health Service Corps, a national nursing shortage, the most far-reaching energy blackout in U.S. history, attempts to buy homeland security on the cheap, and record-level deficits.

Americans need and deserve affordable health care, capable schools, quality education, sufficient homeland security, safe and reliable roads and mass transit, modern water infrastructure, and jobs, jobs, and jobs. We won't get these things by ignoring our problems here at home.

We need to reinvest in America, first and foremost.