Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, Members of Congress, leaders of our armed forces and, of course, our treasured Medal of Honor recipients. Thanks to all of you all for joining me in remembering the extraordinary achievements of our combat veterans-- particularly those who wear the Congressional Medal of Honor. It's also a real pleasure once again to have the chance to be with Bruce Crandall, who received his Medal recently at a White House ceremony that I attended earlier this month. When the President read the citation detailing the amazing heroism that Bruce displayed in Vietnam, it was again a reminder to me of how special each of these individuals are and how important it is that we provide adequate recognition to those who achieve this highest military commendation.

Out of more than 3,400 individuals to receive this medal in our nation's history, just 112 remain with us today.

Their actions in battle, and their continued efforts now as shepherds of patriotism, remind us all how fortunate this Nation is to have men as brave as these among us. Your legacy and lessons of sacrifice continue to inspire us to act with loyalty where we work, live and serve; to walk with courage when obstacles hinder us from the right path.

I am honored to be able to serve in my capacity as a member of the United States Congress, and am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this resolution creating the National Medal of Honor day. You have been recognized by your Nation's leadership with the highest medal of military distinction. Now your fellow citizens will always recognize you with a day in your honor.

Thank you for your bravery that brought America to where she is today, and thank you for all that you continue do to demonstrate the values of loyalty, sacrifice, integrity, and courage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join the other members of the Washington congressional delegation today in expressing my sadness at the passing of our former colleague Jack Metcalf, who represented the Second Congressional District of Washington from 1995 to 2001.

Jack came to Congress later in his career, having served for 4 years in the State house of representatives and 20 years in the Washington State Senate. And throughout his career in Olympia, he continued to teach in the Everett area at the high school, as he campaigned twice for the United States Senate against a very popular Warren Magnuson and as he built a cabin retreat that became a bed-and-breakfast business that he and his family operated, which was a special place for Norma and him.

He campaigned in 1994 for an open seat in Congress and promised to be an independent voice for constituents in the Second District. Having served with Jack during his 6 years in the House, I am able to confirm that he was every bit as independent as he said he would be. He came here as a well-established politician with well-established views, and he freely expressed those views with vigor and conviction. But along the way he also did two things that distinguished him, at least from my viewpoint as a colleague of his in the Washington delegation. First he established a high priority for constituent service, which I believe was critical to his job as Representative. He fought hard to help individuals who couldn't get responses from a Federal agency.

He supported veterans' causes. And even when it came to voting against party positions in his own caucus, he was for the veterans. Jack also cared deeply about natural resource issues, particularly salmon issues. He worked with Senator Murray on the Northwest Straits Commission.

Second, he valued friendship, and he always sought to keep the often- heated debate from becoming personal. When he spoke against a position another Member espoused, he would often cross the aisle and speak with that person personally, so you never took any of his comments directly as a personal affront.

Consequently, he was well regarded within our delegation, and I appreciated his friendship and his willingness to help on major State issues whenever he was asked. He will surely be remembered for the independence he demonstrated as a Member of Congress, but I can assure my colleagues in the House today that I will remember him as a real gentleman and a good friend.

He will be missed, and our hearts go out to Norma and his family.

I would like to yield to my colleague Mr. McDermott, who served with Jack in the Washington State Legislature before he came to Congress.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kindness.

The resolution that is being considered in the House of Representatives today expresses a very clear message to the American people that it is time to change the direction of our policy in Iraq.

The meetings and communications that I have had with people from the Sixth Congressional District from the State of Washington have made it clear that the people I represent want to hear from Congress. My resolve in this is strengthened by the loss and grief I have heard from families in my district whose loved ones have been lost or injured in this conflict.

I also deplore the mistakes by this administration: failing to deploy enough troops to stabilize Iraq, disbanding the Iraqi Army, failing to provide jobs and economic restoration. Those are but a few.

It has been 4 years since U.S. and Coalition Forces invaded Iraq based on what was faulty intelligence. The premise for our military action against the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq was that he had weapons of mass destruction, and even the President has now acknowledged that this determination resulted from an incorrect interpretation of intelligence information.

With more than 3,000 U.S. military personnel killed and thousands more wounded, people across the Nation, including many Members of Congress, are questioning our continued involvement very seriously and very legitimately, especially since the President has now ignored the advice we know he received from many senior military advisors and has decided to increase the number of military troops deployed to Iraq. It is time for this Congress to speak clearly and forcefully in opposition to this escalation and in support of changing course in Iraq.

In this resolution we are clear that our determination that American forces have accomplished everything they have been asked to do in Iraq courageously and with the professionalism the Nation expects of the best-trained and best-equipped military in the world. These troops have not let us down, to be sure; but in many ways they have been let down by a policy that ignores the reality of their situation, and by a Commander in Chief whose only response to what is unmistakably a civil war in Iraq is to place more American troops in harm's way while sectarian violence plays out in the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities.

Day after day, U.S. service people are being killed and injured by bullets and bombs traded by Shiite and Sunni zealots for reasons that predated our involvement and which will likely endure long beyond the time we finally leave Iraq.

For the past 4 years, I regret that the Republican leadership of Congress has abdicated much of its oversight responsibility for the Iraq war and its funding. To date, the Bush administration has not adequately explained to Congress or the American people the reasons for our continued military involvement in Iraq. In announcing his intention to send more than 21,000 additional troops to Iraq, last month the President said it is time for the Iraqi Government to act, to take charge of their security and to begin to govern themselves.

What we in Congress are saying now is that we believe the Maliki government in Iraq will be more apt to accomplish that goal if we do not send more American troops into Baghdad and if we signal to Iraqis that we are planning for a phased withdrawal from their country. That is what we must do to change the policy that keeps our forces acting as the local police officers on the streets of Baghdad, and to give the Iraqi people greater incentive for taking charge so that our troops can begin to come home. This was a view of the bipartisan Iraqi Study Group, which pointed to a compromise recommendation calling for gradual drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq.

It is instructive to recall the views expressed by many of the generals on the ground, including General Abizaid, General Casey, General Petraeus, that this conflict cannot be won militarily; it will require a political solution. That political solution requires the involvement of other regional governments, including Syria and Iran.

All Americans, certainly every Member here in the House of Representatives, wants the Iraqi Government to succeed and to become the stable democracy we had hoped to achieve at the outset of our involvement. None of us want Iraq to fall into chaos and to become a haven for terrorists, including al Qaeda. But the current U.S. policy and the proposed escalation of a number of American troops offers little promise, I am convinced, of accomplishing those goals.

Even the recently completed National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which the President presumably relies upon, concludes that the war, as it is currently being prosecuted, will not or cannot bring about these results. My colleague, Mr. Murtha, has also suggested that it will be up to the Iraqi people themselves who will expel what remains of al Qaeda in the country, and I believe there is merit in his argument.

This is an important debate, Mr. Speaker, and one that is perhaps long overdue. We as a new Congress, led by a new Democratic leadership team, must communicate that we are placing a firmer hand on the tiller of this ship of state and that we are demanding greater accountability for both the policy and funding of the Iraq war. This new direction starts with a brief and declarative statement, that ``Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq,'' but it must be followed by that harder task of guiding our military policy through aggressive oversight and more careful direction of our political and military leadership by all of the relevant committees here in Congress.

That is our task ahead, Mr. Speaker, and as a member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee, I am prepared to do my part.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I think it is the Ways and Means Committee. Is it Agriculture or Ways and Means?

And if the gentleman will continue to yield, then, of course, under PAYGO, we have to find an offset; isn't that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to tell the gentleman I want to work with him as well because this is a major concern in our whole area out there in the Northwest, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield again just briefly.

Mr. Speaker, when we first had the forest plan, the major reduction in timber harvesting, we worked on a bipartisan basis to get an offset. I think it was like $250 million, something like that, and a phase out over a number of years. But I realize some of the schools, especially in Oregon, get a very substantial amount of money for this program, and I hope we can find an offset.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Obey, for the work that he has done on this bill. I had some reservations, I must say, when we started down this road. But I now realize that Chairman Obey and our counterpart chairman in the Senate had a good plan to put this thing together.

I regret that last year we did not pass 9 of the 11 appropriations bills. Thank goodness, we passed Defense and Homeland Security. And I do think it is important to point out, and I am sure Mr. Obey did this, that we passed most of the bills except for HHS in the House.

So I do not blame our colleagues here for what happened. It was the other body that refused to bring the bills up in a timely way.

Now, we have, you know, we had a difficult hand that we were dealt. There is some very good programs like rural water development and some very important school money that we could not include because they were earmarks.

But I do think it is important for everyone to recognize that, for Indian Health Services, we were able to increase that by $125 million. If we had not done that, hundreds of thousands of members of the tribes would not have been able to get health care.

We were able to take care of the LANDSAT for the U.S. Geological Survey, plus $16 million; U.S. Forest firefighting costs, plus $70; EPA Homeland Security hazard, plus $9.5; and operational shortfalls.

One of the biggest problems we have with our land management agencies is that they do not have enough money in the President's budget to cover fixed costs, and 80 to 90 percent of their costs are employees. So when that happens they have been, over the last 7 years, forced to cut employment, not fill vacancies. This has affected the Park Service. This has also affected the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service. They are all hurting. They do not have enough resources. So we have some very major issues that we have to deal with.

Conservation has been hit by this administration. From 2001 to 2006, the Interior budget has been reduced by 1.2 percent in real terms. EPA has been cut by 6.6 percent. We put these two agencies together in this bill.

So this is a question of priority; and what I am hopeful of, with the new majority and with a new budget and with a new allocation, we will be able to stop the bleeding in these conservation agencies. No one has been a bigger supporter of these agencies than the chairman of the committee who has worked with me on a series of conservation initiatives over the years, but this is a serious problem that we have to face up to.

You know, we may have to work to get new legislation enacted in order to increase the amount of money. The land and water conservation money, the amount of money that the administration proposed, has never shown up in the budget. So it is time for us to find some new solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Skelton and Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to continue the work of the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. Our Nation is committing substantial taxpayer funds to reconstruction in Iraq. The most recent report of the special inspector general states that over $18 billion has been obligated as of the end of September. Further funds have been appropriated to continue reconstruction and assistance to Iraqi security forces in the current fiscal year.

We know that the situation in Iraq is difficult and there is a vigorous national debate about how to best proceed. The security environment is extremely dangerous. Iraq's government institutions are not working well, and the economy is struggling. For as long as we continue to expend our resources there, it is important that we, including the Congress, Department of State, and Department of Defense, get the best oversight and accounting that we can of how these resources are being applied. This not only provides accountability for us; it also helps us demonstrate to Iraq's government ministries what we believe to be necessary practices of good government and accountability.

I am very encouraged that Dr. Bob Gates, the incoming Secretary of Defense, endorsed continuing the work of the special inspector general. And further, that recommendation No. 69 of the Iraq Study Group specifically calls for sustaining the special inspector general.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill to ensure that this important oversight and accountability function continues for as long as we are committing significant resources to Iraq's reconstruction.

There is no doubt that there is very significant problems of corruption and criminality in Iraq. It is regrettable that we have to say that, but I think this inspector general has done an outstanding job and we should overwhelmingly pass this bill and indicate our support for this legislation

Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has made a diligent and sincere effort to seek a compromise position on the estate tax issue, and he should be commended here in the House today. Many of the Members of the House have conceded that the threshold at which estates are subject to the tax is not realistic in today's economy, considering the assets many small businesses routinely accrue in this country. While I believe the full repeal of the tax is unjustifiable, because it would mean such a huge loss of revenue to benefit primarily the wealthiest portion of our population, I believe there is interest in making some adjustment, if the cost in terms of lost revenues is reasonable. So I applaud the effort that was made to seek this compromise, however I rise today Mr. Speaker to oppose the unfortunate result, H.R. 5638, because I believe it doesn't meet the test of being reasonable.

At a time when the annual budget deficit is now approaching $400 billion and when there are so many urgent issues in our society that we simply cannot afford to address, I believe the compromise that has been reached raises that threshold far higher than it should be and thus it relinquishes far too much revenue in order to assist a very high-income sector of our population. When fully implemented, and assuming that the current capital gains tax rates are extended permanently, this bill will reduce revenues by an average of $82 billion a year for the first ten years that it is fully implemented. To provide my colleagues with a frame of reference, $82 billion is well more than twice as much as we appropriated earlier this month for the entire Department of Homeland Security. It is nearly four times as much as the appropriation we will consider for the entire Department of Justice for the upcoming fiscal year.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the nation is now engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--for which too few Americans are being asked to sacrifice--and we face a compelling need for substantial federal investments that are required to secure our homeland from the threats of terrorist attacks. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is neither prudent nor fiscally

responsible to be adding such a large annual increase--another $82 billion--to the national debt at this time. We are cutting back on programs that benefit seniors, poor and middle-class Americans, and we are reducing our investment in education, health care, infrastructure and the environment. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience support a bill that, by its very nature, provides such a large share of its tax benefits to the least-needy people here in the United States.

I regret that we could not reach a compromise position that was more fiscally responsible, because the Chairman did accede to our request to accelerate the passage of another important piece of legislation, H.R. 3883, by adding it to the compromise package. I appreciate the Chairman's personal interest in the passage of the Timber Tax bill, which I have cosponsored, in order to restore fairness to the tax code and allow regular corporations in the timber industry to compete on a level playing field with other ``pass-through'' entities that currently receive better tax treatment. Again, it is with great regret that I urge the House to defeat the entire estate tax bill, because I believe the Timber Tax language represents a modest and deserving provision that should be passed no matter what becomes of this legislation. We can defeat H.R. 5638 today and return to the attempt at reaching a reasonable, prudent and fiscally-responsible compromise that addresses the legitimate needs of small business owners and that includes that Timber Tax provision. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5638.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am also one of those who have not been briefed on this particular program. But I would like to ask the gentleman, is the gentleman suggesting that the administration is not complying with

Well, you know, that would certainly clear it up without getting into any classified information if somebody here, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee or the chairman of the Full Committee or someone can say, yes, the administration is complying with FISA, and they have taken this program to the FISA court for clearance. That is what people who support this amendment are concerned about, that Congress enacted legislation here saying that if you want to go out and gather this kind of information, you have to first go to the FISA court to get approval and to show cause. I think that is what this really all gets down to.

So that is the question we have here, Mr. Chairman.

I was on the committee for 8 years and served as the ranking member.

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

Mr. Chairman, when President Carter signed the FISA into law, he said in his signing statement: The bill requires for the first time a prior judicial warrant for all electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States in which communications of U.S. persons might be intercepted. It clarifies the executive's authority to gather foreign intelligence by electronic surveillance in the United States. It will remove any doubt about the legality of those surveillances which are conducted to protect our country against espionage and international terrorism. It will assure FBI field agents and others involved in intelligence collection that their acts are authorized by statute, and, if a person's communications are concerned, by a court order, and it will protect the privacy of the American people.

In my reading of FISA, and I served for 8 years on the Intelligence Committee, 4 years as the ranking member, I do not think there is an exception here. I do not think the President of the United States has inherent authority to violate FISA.

If you took Mr. Lungren's approach to this problem, he can comply with

FISA when he wants to. He does not have to do it ever. That simply cannot be the reason Congress enacted this statute.

I think President Carter had it right when he signed this into law. There is one way and only one way to gather foreign surveillance information domestically, and that is you go and get a warrant and go to the FISA Court first. First. And maybe you have 72 hours to do that. That is certainly understandable.

But in my mind, if you want to change FISA, change FISA. But I cannot accept an interpretation that says the President can comply with FISA when he wants to, and he does not have to comply with it when he does not think it is in his best interest to do so. He is not a king. He is a President.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to ask the author of the amendment.

Both of you are the authors of this amendment.

There is no restriction on the utilization of money if the President has complied with FISA; is that not correct?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think President Carter had it right. He said all electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States has to come under the FISA Court. That makes sense. That is, I think, the purpose of this amendment, is to make certain that the money is being expended in compliance with FISA.

The gentleman is a cosponsor of this amendment. Is that your understanding?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, all of the articles in the Washington Post that talked about this said that it wasn't, in some cases. None of us get in trouble for disclosing that fact. Your amendment doesn't restrict money if it does comply with it.

I just want to say to the gentleman, I agree with that. I also think that the American Bar Association looked at this. They came to the conclusion that the President had to comply with the FISA law.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the major point here that the opposition to this makes is the President has inherent authority. That has not been tested at the Supreme Court because once FISA was enacted, that was enacted to limit unbridled Presidential authority. I believe FISA is the only way that you can proceed; that the President must go to FISA if he is going to conduct these kind of foreign intelligence activities.

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

Based on the actions of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, it is clear to me that it is time for Congress to send a message to the Administration about the importance of preserving bedrock principles of labor relations.

In making my case for this amendment, I want to recount a few key points leading up to where we are today.

In 2002, Congress enacted legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. This legislation provided the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management with the authority to develop a separate human resources management system for the employees of the Department of Homeland Security. Subsequently, in the FY2004 Defense Authorization Act, the Department of Defense was authorized to develop and implement the National Security Personnel System.

In August 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Colyer ruled that the proposed Department of Homeland Security personnel rules ``would not ensure collective bargaining, would fundamentally alter [Federal Labor Relations Authority] jurisdiction . . . and would create an appeal process at MSPB [Merit Systems Protection Board] that is not fair.'' This federal court ruling should have been a wakeup call to the Department of Defense to take care in pursuing changes to labor relations regulations. However, DOD chose to ignore it, proceeding with plans to implement regulations that would make substantial changes concerning collective bargaining and review of appeals of adverse actions.

In February 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that specific sections of DOD's NSPS regulations were unlawful. He ruled that NSPS ``fails to ensure that employees can bargain collectively,'' that the proposed National Security Labor Relations Board ``does not meet Congress's intent for independent third party review,'' and that ``the process for appealing adverse actions fails to provide employees with fair treatment.''

To their credit, the labor organizations that represent many federal government workers have been vigilant in protecting the rights of their members by appealing to the courts. I believe that it is time for Congress to reinforce the ruling of the federal court to ensure that the Administration gets the message: Congress does not intend that core principles of labor relations are to be eroded by DOD, and we are prepared to make that crystal clear by prohibiting the expenditure of funds on steps that violate the intent of the law.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my honor to serve as a member of the Defense Appropriations Committee for 28 years here in the House of Representatives and to often engage in debates over important issues of national defense and national security here on the floor of this Chamber. It has always been my view that partisanship should end at the water's edge, and that all of us here in this body have a solemn obligation to consider the best interests of the Nation as we debate military involvement, especially at times when U.S. troops are involved in ongoing military actions.

With that said, let me make two points about this debate today over H. Res. 861. First, the House Leadership has brought this Resolution before the full membership of the House with the assertion that it will launch a full and open debate on U.S. policy in Iraq. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the process of drafting the Resolution we are to consider today was totally closed to members of the Democratic party, and that the expressed intent of the Republican Leadership, as betrayed by the memorandum that was sent to Republican members by the Majority Leader, was to demonstrate that the Democrats are interested in ``conceding defeat on the battlefield'' and that we as a party ``sheepishly dismiss the challenges that America faces in a post 9/11 world.'' Mr. Speaker, no political party has a monopoly on patriotism, and I can state with certainty that no member of either political party has any interest in conceding defeat or in ignoring real threats to our national security. This type of partisanship is unnecessary at any time, but especially in this debate today.

Secondly, if we are to have a full and open debate over U.S. policy in Iraq, it should be an ongoing activity here in the House, where we legitimately share the constitutional responsibility to ``provide for the common defense'' and to provide the funds necessary to adequately defend our Nation against aggression and any threats to the security of our people. As any observer of the House of Representatives knows, since the start of the war in Iraq we have rarely debated the merits of our policy in Iraq, and we have conducted very little oversight as we have spent $318 billion, as 2,500 American soldiers have been killed, and more than 18,000 troops have been wounded in battle. On the eve of the 2002 elections we were pushed into a premature debate and vote authorizing the use of force, based on what we now know was inaccurate or overstated information about the capability and intentions of the Iraqi government. Since the start of the military action in Iraq three years ago, we have been called together in this Chamber to debate resolutions commending the abilities and the bravery of our troops, which all of us in this Chamber were united in approving. But we have not, Mr. Speaker, conducted what I believe is the proper level of oversight of the decisions that took us to war, the decisions about troop levels at the outset of the conflict, the post conflict mistakes that were made, the handling of the insurgency and the overall plan for victory and redeployment of our troops. It is not sufficient to bring these occasional resolutions to the floor, drafted by the Republican caucus, intended to express political talking points rather than stimulate genuine discussion about our policy in Iraq.

So as we debate this particular Resolution today it must be said that all Members of this House support the troops who have been engaged in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that we are all encouraged when terrorists such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are brought to justice. To imply any different in today's debate would be an injustice.

But that is not all that this Resolution states. Nor is it all that it implies by the words that are printed in it or, even more revealingly, by the things that are omitted from it. Again, this is why it is inappropriate to draft a Resolution of this importance without any input or consultation with Members of the Democratic Party, and why this exercise today is not, in my judgment, worthy of the trust that the American people put in their Representatives here in the House.

The Resolution we are debating today, Mr. Speaker, misstates the mission of the United States actions in Iraq--implying very directly that there was a direct relationship between the 9/11 attacks and our invasion of Iraq, in addition to ignoring the use of the WMD threat in justifying the invasion to our coalition partners and to the American people. Beyond that, the only actions it says that we, as the House of Representatives, resolve to promote are actions that support the status quo, inferring that the Members of this Chamber are clearly satisfied with the status quo and believe the Administration's policy is headed in the right direction. I would contend, Mr. Speaker, that very few of the Members of this Chamber actually are satisfied with the status quo, and certainly it is clear that the American people, whom we represent individually and collectively in this House, believe we need to change course and adopt a new strategy in Iraq.

That is precisely what I believe the House should be doing today, instead of debating the merits of a partisan measure that effectively congratulates Secretary Rumsfeld for pursuing a responsible course of action. We need to change direction. Our strategy in Iraq is not working. It will not produce the victory we all say we believe in. Nor will it allow us to see far enough ahead to the time when we can legitimately redeploy our troops and bring them home. What has been needed, and what is still required, is accountability, and we can only accomplish that, Mr. Speaker, by greater oversight, more thoughtful questioning of the decisions that are made at the Pentagon and in the field, and more openness in considering new directions and new strategies, even if it risks conceding that some of the actions this Administration has taken have been wrong. The Resolution we are addressing today, Mr.

Chairman, allows for no such questioning and it only assumes that we are all committed to a strategy that has put us in a position from which no one can say how long it will be . . . a year, two years, five years . . . before our mission is accomplished and our troops can return home.

It is not irresponsible for us to suggest that other members of our coalition in Iraq should be assuming a greater share of the burden. It is not irresponsible for us to suggest that we should be scaling back our role, accelerating the training of the Iraqi forces and encouraging the new Iraqi leaders to understand that they need to take charge of their own government, their own security and their own economy. We are helping, and should continue to help, restore the power grids, the water supplies and the oil production facilities so the Iraqi people will see signs of progress that thus far have disappointed them. We must continue to encourage the new Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki and his government in its campaign for national reconciliation and in its effort to disarm the militias, reduce the sectarian violence and bring social and economic stability to the nation. I remain hopeful about the future of a Democratic Iraq, but as we work with the new government to accomplish these objectives, Mr. Speaker, I believe it may be time to take the training wheels off, and to communicate directly to the Iraqis that they are running their own nation, as unsteady as it may seem in the near future.

But above all, what we should be doing today in the House of Representatives is sending a clear signal to the American people and to the international community that we are in favor of changing course . . . of moving beyond the status quo and adopting a new and more successful strategy to achieve a peaceful and stable Iraq.

This Resolution, Mr. Speaker, unquestioningly endorses the status quo, and for that reason I cannot and will not support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and pay tribute to a friend who, today, is marking his 25th anniversary with the United States Capitol Historical Society. Dr. Donald R. Kennon is the Society's Chief Historian and Vice President of Scholarship and Education.

A humble man, Dr. Kennon's career has been marked by accomplishment. He is the author of two books for the Society, including The Speakers of the House of Representatives: A Bibliography (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), and The Committee on Ways and Means: A Bicentennial History, 1789-1989 (Government Printing Office, 1989), and has edited more than a dozen volumes of the Society's symposia publications.

He has been Chief Historian since 1987 after joining the Society in 1981 as an Associate Historian. He holds a Ph.D. in American History from the University of Maryland and has taught as a visiting professor at the University of New Mexico. His doctoral dissertation focused on antebellum reform in a changing society, both legally and morally in the years surrounding the Civil War.

He is treasurer of the Abraham Lincoln Institute, a scholarly organization founded in 1998 to garner public attention on writings and research regarding our nation's 16th president.

Dr. Kennon has also very ably directed educational symposia, publications and outreach programs, while writing and lecturing about the history of this body, Congress, and the Capitol.

An avid collector, Dr. Kennon has one of the area's largest collections of antique stereo graphic images, including many of the Capitol building and Congress. He has a keen sense of humor and loves baseball. When he's not at games, he collects antique radios and vintage slot machines.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to honor Dr. Kennon and I ask my colleagues to rise and join me in congratulating him on 25 years at the United States Capitol Historical Society and in wishing him continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for the consideration of H.R. 5386, the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Environmental appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate that this is an open rule, I am deeply disappointed that the Rules Committee did not protect a provision for which I specifically asked for such protection. I also strongly oppose the self-enacting clause which puts into place the cuts contained in the budget resolution passed on a strictly partisan basis last night.

Mr. Speaker, the provision I sought for, section 425 of the bill, results from an amendment I successfully offered in the Appropriations Committee that simply expresses the sense of the Congress that global climate change is in part due to human activity. I think that is pretty self-evident.

The provision also stated that this reality of climate change may result in a comprehensive and mandatory program to reduce the impact of human activity on global warming.

Let me repeat. The provision was nonbinding. The provision would have resulted in no change in spending by the agencies funded by the Interior and Environmental Appropriations Subcommittee. This provision authorizes nothing. In fact, it was the same language that the other body adopted last year during consideration of the energy bill that was dropped during conference.

I still think it is important that the House go on record as acknowledging that we are in part responsible for the recent increases in global air and ocean temperatures. And I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland. Although the amendment I offered and the Appropriations Committee accepted would not lead directly to any actions by the Federal Government, it remains an important first step. At least the House Appropriations Committee is on record as facing the truth on climate change. I see that as a victory. But we still have the responsibility to go beyond a sense of the Congress resolution and launch the necessary comprehensive program the United States must take to lead the world in reversing the threat of global warming.

I am also let down that the Rules Committee chose not to protect the provision accepted by the Appropriations Committee that seeks to correct an undue windfall being reaped by the oil and gas industry due to erroneously written contracts by the Mineral Management Service. These faulty contracts could cost the Federal Government $7 billion in royalties between now and 2011. Because of these shortcomings in the rule and the self-enacting clause, I will have to vote ``no'' on its passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I want to thank Interior Subcommittee Chairman Charles Taylor and his staff for the fairness with which the minority has been treated in the development of this bill. We have been consulted throughout the process. As a result, the bill reflects our input in a number of places.

From a process point of view, this bill is a model for how the majority and minority should work together to produce legislation. Unfortunately, as Chairman Taylor and I have discussed throughout the year, a fair process cannot produce a good bill when the Interior Subcommittee is given an inadequate allocation. What we were given to work with for 2007 is, once again, inadequate.

The $25.9 billion allowed by the full Appropriations Committee for Interior and environment programs is essentially a hard freeze at the FY 2006 enacted level. This is roughly $800 million below the level necessary to maintain current services for the programs funded by the Interior Subcommittee.

The result is a bill in which our parks, refuges and forests are again to be squeezed to cover fixed costs. It means funding for clean water and clean air programs at the EPA are going to be substantially reduced. It means critical new investments requested by the President in areas like homeland security and diesel emissions reductions are dramatically reduced or in some cases not funded at all. Assistance to our States with their environmental and conservation programs is dramatically reduced.

It means the very real problem of global warming will not be adequately addressed. And I assume that when consideration of the bill is completed, the provision approved by the Appropriations Committee acknowledging the existence of global climate change and the human involvement in that change will no longer be part of it. I will talk about my disappointment over that later.

I won't go through all the numbers today, but I think it is important that Members are aware of some of the most troubling recommendations. Despite facility maintenance backlogs of at least $15 billion in our parks, refuges and national forests, funding for construction projects throughout the bill are cut by $216 million below last year and more than $400 million below the level in 2001. There is no funding at all for new schools on Indian reservations. Park Service construction is cut by $100 million.

In most cases, this bill has only been able to fund 70 percent of the increases mandated by law for Federal pay and for other fixed costs. As our recent GAO report on the parks made clear, this inevitably will mean cutbacks in staff and cutbacks in visitor services for people who visit our parks, refuges and other Federal facilities. Staffing in our wildlife refuges has been cut by more than 700 FTEs over the past 5 years.

Funding for the Clean Water Revolving Fund is cut by another $200 million below the 2006 level. Over the last 3 years, the Clean Water Program, which EPA cites as one of its most effective, has been reduced by $662 million, or nearly 50 percent. This means either that essential infrastructure repairs for this country's aging water infrastructure won't occur, or that local water and sewer rates will increase as communities pick up the Federal share of these costs.

Other State grant programs broadly supported in the House are cut below the current rate. This includes a $14 million cut in PILT, as well as a significant reduction in State Wildlife grants and the North American Wetlands programs. Stateside Conservation grants are completely eliminated. Over the past 5 years, assistance to States for these environmental or conservation programs have been reduced by more than $750 million.

Funding for Federal land acquisition and to help States preserve open spaces is cut by $98 million in this bill and by more than $400 million since 2001. Funding in this area has been cut by more than 80 percent in the last 4 years. These are not vast stretches of new land for the Federal Government to manage. Unfunded acquisitions include smaller parcels in icon parks such as Valley Forge, Grand Teton, and Acadia. These purchases are the highest priorities of the Bush administration and are ready to go in 2007 if we had funding.

I want to express my strong support for the cuts totaling $20 million to the Smithsonian contained in this bill, which Chairman Taylor and I believe is the best way for the Interior Subcommittee to express our extreme displeasure with recent actions taken by the Smithsonian. This situation involves the recently negotiated commercial venture with Showtime, the details of which have been kept from Congress by the Smithsonian.

On a more positive note, and one our constituents who visits D.C. certainly will appreciate, the bill makes an important down payment towards the much needed improvement of the infrastructure at the National Zoo. This will be a multiyear task to upgrade the zoo's facilities to a level where they should be. In a smart move, tackling the most important tasks first, this bill has placed significant emphasis on replacing and upgrading the fire protection and suppression systems.

As I mentioned earlier, Chairman Taylor and I have discussed previously the problems with the Interior subcommittee repeatedly being given inadequate allocations to meet the needs of this country in terms of taking care of our Federal lands and protecting the environment. This is not a pretty picture.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we can improve the bill as it moves forward, but this is not a bill in my opinion which adequately addresses our country's needs.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that this restriction, which has been in the law since 1981, was also in the President's budget. This was part of the President's budget.

So we are not only overturning this congressional restriction, but we are also doing it in the face of the Bush administration's budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlemen from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I want to commend the gentleman on his statement. This is not an issue that should be partisan in any way. We have had six former EPA administrators in both parties say that this is the issue of our time. A former Member, former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, has made a national issue out of this. I would like the gentleman to repeat what he said about Greenland. I thought that was very dramatic. I would appreciate it. I think we have more Members now. If you would repeat that, I think that would be important to the debate.

I want that to be repeated: 23 feet. I want my colleagues from Florida who are sitting here on the floor to think about what that would mean in Florida, what that would mean in the coast of California, the coast of Washington.

This could be a catastrophic event. Yet we are not even willing to have a sense of the Congress resolution that says that human activity may be part of the problem. I mean, we have got to wake up on this. It is time to wake up.

The former Vice President has been out making speeches all over the country. There was a movie which opened last night on this issue. This could be the issue of all time. If we don't get busy and start realizing we have got a role and a responsibility to play here, it may be too late. For every one of us who either has grandchildren, or may have grandchildren, we have got to think about this. What legacy are we leaving if we don't face up to this reality?

The authorizers simply haven't done it. That is why the chairman, I thought, was very kind to accept this amendment. But now I understand they are going to knock it out on a point of order. This is like putting your head in the sand. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, who is one of the more enlightened Members of this body, for all the facts that he has brought to this debate today. I hope somehow working together we can resurrect this at some future point. I would hope even that maybe the chairman of the Commerce Committee might rethink his opposition to this sense of the Congress resolution.

I want to commend the gentleman from Florida who has been a leader on this issue. We all know the sincerity of Congressman Peterson on this issue. It is a very important issue. But I want to say, I agree with you. I think to do it in an appropriations bill, and especially when it is part of the President's budget and the plan, to me this isn't the right way to proceed. I realize that there is some history here but it is 25 years since this was done and I think this has worked very effectively. Let's try to work together to maintain this provision.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I want to rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment. She has been a leader and a valued advocate on this issue for many, many years; and I am very proud to be associated with her on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge support for this amendment offered by Mrs. Slaughter and myself to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

The amendment would provide an additional $10 million to be split equally between the two Endowments. The increase would be offset by a series of small cuts to several Interior Department programs.

I am gratified to note that the debate over the last few years has calmed down. The votes in favor of this annual Arts and Humanities amendment had been growing by an increasing margin. And last year, Chairman Taylor accepted this amendment without the need for a rollcall vote.

Although we offer this amendment each year, it is important that we again discuss the

importance of how this rather modest Federal support can have such large impact on our home districts. Most importantly, this seed money spurs private donations to the arts and humanities.

I still wish that we could restore the funding levels for the NEA and NEH back to their level 12 years ago but this amendment will get us closer. I urge your support on this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, even from Washington State we understand the severity of this problem because we have seen it on national television, but I want him to know we are very willing to work with the gentleman on this issue before the conference and during the conference.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Are you suggesting a public hearing?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment. We have not seen the amendment. The gentleman has not shown us the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the chairman's remarks and the gentleman's remarks. These are very serious issues. I would just say one thing: also in this bill is a sense of Congress on global warming, on the warming of our climate; and one of the things that the scientists talk about is more severe droughts. And this warming will exacerbate this problem if we don't do something about it.

So I just would say to the gentleman, because I know he is extremely sincere in his efforts to deal with protecting and allowing the clearing out of this understorage, you have got to also think about the severity of these droughts which is being made worse by the warming of the climate. So they are interrelated.

I just want to rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the position taken by the chairman and the committee.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentlemen, our committee has been a great advocate for money for fire. There is $2 billion, 579 million, for fire in the bill. $500 million of the fire emergency funds are still available.

We just increased the NEA by $5 million to $129.4 million, and NEA still is $40 million below its high point back in 1994. We fund programs in all States. This would be a devastating cut, and we do not need the money for fire. And I have offered amendment after amendment after amendment to put emergency fire money in when it is necessary.

Also, the agencies can borrow money internally if necessary to deal with the problem. So I urge a no on this amendment. I think it is well intended, but simply not necessary and would do great damage to the

Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order. This is my amendment, and I want the gentleman to understand that this doesn't have anything to do with authorizing language either for Interior or for Agriculture and that this amendment is a sense of the Congress.

Now, I don't see, and it would seem to me that the gentleman from Alaska would be more concerned about the global warming issue because of the consequences for his State. So I am very surprised that he is offering this point of order against my amendment, and I would hope he would reconsider.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief here.

The reason I offered this global warming amendment is because I believe this is a serious problem. When

you have six former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency saying this is a reality, when you have just heard Congressman Gilchrest talk about the increases in parts per million of carbon dioxide, and when you have the visible evidence of our glaciers melting, the Greenland ice sheet is melting at a faster rate, the polar bears are dying because there is not enough ice. I mean at some point can the majority here not figure out we ought to have some study, we ought to look into this, that this is a real issue that affects everyone on the Earth?

While Alaska melts away, their Congressmen will be down here in D.C. and everybody will be wondering whatever happened to Alaska.

All I am saying is this is a serious problem, and it is time for serious people to get serious, including the gentleman from Alaska.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think you and I will be here to figure out who was right. I would rather do some serious research about it now than wake up 10 years from now and find out if we would have acted back in 2006 and done something about this, we might have been able to save all of humanity.

I mean, this is real and it is an important issue, and I hate to see it be treated so frivolously by the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment.

As I understand the situation, because of the price of crude oil, energy companies have made profits over the last three years totaling more than $125 billion. Exxon alone had profits in one quarter last year of $9.9 billion and are estimated to have had a profit of $36 billion in a single year.

A portion of those profits--about $7 billion according to the New York Times--came because of an administrative error made by the Mine and Minerals Service. At issue is a set of oil and gas leases entered into during the 1990's when oil was selling for $10 a barrel. As an incentive for oil companies to drill, the U.S. government said it would waive its right to royalty payments if oil prices remained low. These royalty forgiveness leases also, however, typically had a clause that said if oil exceeds $35 per barrel, the deal is off and you have to pay the royalty.

The error occurred in about 1000 leases when, evidently by accident, the $35 cancellation clause was not included. This small clerical error has created an enormous windfall

estimated at, as I said, $7 billion over the next five years. GAO estimates that this problem could result in the loss $60 billion over the next 25 years in lost royalties.

This amendment merely calls on these companies to renegotiate in good faith to include the proviso included in all other leases. It does not actually void any lease. On the other hand it does say that if a company does not want to be a good citizen, the government may not want to do business with you in the future.

I don't know all the legalities of contract law in this case or the issues of constitutionality. But I think the amendment does nothing more than try to recover $7 billion of excess profits which this country needs and--the oil companies don't. I urge adoption.

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

I yield to my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with him, with the chairman, and with the authorizing committee to ensure that a new contract is in place as soon as possible and those responsible for the current delay are held to account.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I agree that there is still some confusion over this, but for the sake of moving the process forward, we will cooperate with the gentleman. But we need to be able to work this out.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate an important fact that was made in the full committee. Federal offshore lands already open to exploration is 80 percent of potential gas reserves offshore. Of the most current mean estimate of undiscovered, technically recoverable gas: offshore non-moratoria reserves, 328 trillion cubic feet; offshore moratoria reserves, 77 trillion cubic feet.

There is a lot of offshore drilling that can be done that is legal, as the gentlewoman said, from the Minerals Management Service's most recent report. So let us go drill there and protect our beaches. That is the best way to move forward and let the authorizers go forward and try to come up with a responsible end to this. But to precipitously move out tonight on this Peterson amendment would be a mistake, and I support strongly the Putnam-Capps amendment.

If the gentleman will yield, we do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands for recognizing me. I want to thank the chairman and the others who presented the bill.

I rise in strong support of this bill, S. 1382, which would require that reservation land be put into trust on behalf of the Puyallup Indians. I introduced similar legislation in the House, which was approved by the Resources Committee in March.

Passage of the Senate bill today will clear the legislation for the President's signature. I want to thank Resources Chairman Pombo for his support of this legislation and the action of the Resources Committee took to move the bill forward. I also want to extend my gratitude toward ranking Democratic Member Rahall for his assistance. The staff of both of these Members have been very helpful.

The legislation is consistent with previous actions that Congress has taken on behalf of the Puyallup tribe. After many years of negotiations, the tribe and the local community came together to settle the serious and long-standing land claims that affected a large portion of what is now the Port of Tacoma.

When the settlement agreement was reached in 1989, Congress approved specific legislation authorizing the terms of this landmark settlement, which has now led to robust development in the Port of Tacoma. The creation of a substantial number of new jobs in shipping and trade- related businesses and to the development of many new tribal enterprises that will sustain the current and next generation of Puyallup tribe members really was a win-win situation for the tribe, the Port of Tacoma, the city of Tacoma, the city of Fife and for Pierce County.

With the support of Congress, it has resulted in a very productive working relationship between all of those parties. A prime example of this improved relationship is the mutually beneficial situation that led to the legislation we are considering today.

A few years ago, the Port of Tacoma was presented with the opportunity to build a large new container terminal that would lead to the creation of many new family wage jobs if it could build on tribal- owned land in the port. After some negotiation, the tribe agreed to relocate a casino that was situated on this land in order to allow for the type of cargo-handling development to occur at the waterfront, consistent with the goals of the settlement agreement.

This is another case in which everyone wins. The State of Washington and

all local governments have recognized the tribe's cooperative spirit and have actively supported this relocation. Thus, this legislation would simply allow for the alternate parcel of reservation land in Fife to be put into trust status in order to meet the requirements of the State of Washington.

Again, I want to thank the chairman, the ranking member and the Resources Committee for their assistance in moving this piece of legislation that will result in further job creation and economic development in the Port of Tacoma, not only helping the tribe in the local community, but positively affecting our Nation's balance of trade.