Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 4857.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the women's volleyball team from my alma mater, the University of Washington, for winning the school's first NCAA National Championship in that sport in San Antonio on Saturday.

The Huskies finished a fantastic 32 and 1 season with the most dominating performance in the history of the NCAA Women's Volleyball National Championship Tournament, winning every game in their six tournament matches. I commend the athletes from the University of Nebraska for their excellent play in the final match, but the Huskies, led by Coach Jim McLaughlin, would not be denied this year.

I would also like to recognize the Tournment's Most Outstanding Player, Christal Morrison, for her exceptional play, as well as Courtney Thompson and Sanja Tomasevic, who deservedly made the all- Tournament team.

This talented and hard-working group of women have made this Husky very proud. So much so, that I am tempted to offer a rendition of the Husky fight song: Bow Down to Washington. But to the relief of my colleagues, I will not do so tonight.

I encourage all Members to join with me in congratulating the University of Washington's Women's Volleyball Team.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the conference report does not include the language from the House bill precluding procurements from companies that benefit from illegal foreign subsidies. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, for over 30 years various European governments have provided subsidies to the European civil aircraft industry. These subsidies helped the fledgling European aircraft industry get started in a highly competitive world market. Now $30 billion in subsidies later, Europe is the world's largest producer of commercial aircraft. Mr. Chairman, would you agree that the aircraft production industry is one of the areas that is of particular concern with respect to foreign subsidies?

And I thank Chairman Hunter for sharing his views on this important matter and urge support for this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider the FY 2006 Defense Appropriations Act today in the House of Representatives, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention the important contributions of the Ready Reserve Fleet of U.S. ships that helps to multiply the dollars we appropriate each year to the Department of Defense. The Military Sealift Command calls upon American shipping companies to assist in the deployment of forces overseas, providing a critical supplement to the military's cargo transportation capability. These arrangements are most essential at times when the defense equipment supply chain extends for 8,000 miles, as it does with our current deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Clearly we would not have sufficient capability within the Navy to accomplish the enormous task of keeping our troops supplied without the Ready Reserve Fleet. I mention this because I have recently received a copy of a letter from the Commander of the U.S. Transportation Command to a company in my congressional district, Totem Ocean Trailer Express, Inc. (TOTE), expressing thanks for the contributions made by one of the firm's ships to Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the letter, General Norton Schwartz commended the officers and crew of TOTE's ``SS Northern Lights'' for making 25 voyages and 49 port calls during its continuous deployment, which lasted longer than any other ship, government-owned or commercial. This is a tremendous accomplishment, Mr. Speaker, and as a strong and consistent advocate for maintaining our U.S. maritime shipping capability, I am proud to submit the TRANSCOM letter for the Record in order to document the contributions of the ``Northern Lights'' and of the entire U.S. Ready Reserve Fleet.

United States

Transportation Command,

Scott Air Force Base, IL, Oct. 26, 2005.

Robert Magee,

Totem Ocean Trailer Express, Inc.,

Federal Way, Tacoma, Washington.

Dear Mr. Magee: As we near the end of our charter for SS

Northern Lights, I want to recognize and thank you, your

company, and the officers and crew of SS Northern Lights for

your superior support.

Early in the Iraq deployment, the Military Sealift Command

(MSC) sought commercial support and your company answered the

call. Since 18 February 2003, six weeks after the start of

the deployment of forces to Iraq, SS Northern Lights was

under charter to MSC. She continuously operated in support of

U.S. forces since that time, never missing a commitment. No

other ship, government-owned or commercial, has operated as

long in support of these critical operations.

During the charter period SS Northern Lights made 25

voyages and 49 port calls. She carried 12,200 pieces of

military gear totaling 81,000 short tons and covering over 2

million square feet.

Those statistics clearly demonstrate the value that the

U.S. flag shipping industry brings to the Defense

Transportation System. At 200,000 sq ft of cargo space, this

ship has nearly the capacity of the Fast Sealift Ships, has

speeds approaching those of the Navy's Large, Medium Speed

RoRo Ships, and had a perfect record of reliability. Having

this asset enabled us to improve readiness by keeping ships

of the Ready Reserve Fleet available for other contingencies

as needed.

You and your team of professionals showcased the U.S. flag

industry at its best. Again, thanks for a job well done.

Thank you.

Norton A. Schwartz,

General, USAF, Commander.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the language to instruct conferees offered by my esteemed colleague from Pennsylvania, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Mr. Murtha.

Mr. Speaker, my support for this language hinges on three fundamental points: torture is not effective; torture does not further the security interests of the United States; and our use of torture adds to the risk that United States military and civilian personnel could be subjected to torture themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I served on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for eight years; four of those years as the ranking member. I appreciate the value of good, reliable intelligence. In fact, I expect that we all have a greater appreciation for good intelligence in light of what we have learned about the situation in Iraq since we toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. It was just this morning in an address at the Woodrow Wilson Institute that President Bush, in describing the decision to go into Iraq said that ``it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.''

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that torture was the root cause of our incorrect intelligence assessments in early 2003. My point is that our nation needs the best intelligence that we can get. The intelligence community and our military recognize that torture and abuse are not effective methods of interrogation. We must not allow cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to be used if for no other reason than that they yield poor results.

Mr. Speaker, my second point is that the use of torture does not advance the security interests of the United States. We are in a global war on terror. This is a war that is going to be waged on many fronts around the world. As much as it is a military conflict, the global war on terror is a battle for the hearts and minds of people around the world. If our nation is to remain the recognized leader in the cause of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, we must live and abide by the principles and laws to which we have committed ourselves. If we do not send a strong message to the world that we will not engage in torture, we undermine our very security by giving terrorists ammunition to use in furthering their aims.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, if we do not renounce the use of torture, we put our own soldiers and citizens at risk of being subjected to these very measures. We cannot allow any perception that we support torture, if we are to call for the world community to resist its use against our own people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the members of the House to support the language that makes it clear to the world that the United States will not use torture.

Mr. Speaker, the rapid growth in the production and use of methamphetamine is very serious problem that requires the full attention of Congress. In the State of Washington and in my Congressional district in particular, meth has rapidly become the drug of choice. The police chiefs and sheriffs in my district tell me that the percentage of criminals that are also meth users has grown astronomically over that last ten years, and now it is the most frequently used drug by both violent and non-violent offenders.

This drug is highly addictive and easy to make. As most of my colleagues are aware, meth can be made with instructions that can be found on the internet and using ingredients and equipment that can be purchased over-the-counter in virtually any community. Congress must do more, in my opinion, to fight this growing menace.

The by-products of methamphetamine production are highly toxic and can linger at the point of production long after the equipment and drugs have been taken away. These by-products, even in small amounts, can irritate, burn or even kill individuals coming across a lab site well after the drug producers have gone. As a result, state and local agencies often must take extreme measures to remove all traces of toxicity from a lab site. In my own district, state environmental clean-up engineers have had to remove entire hotel rooms--including the furniture, appliances, dry wall and studs--because contamination from routine production of meth has been so extensive.

Cleaning up these toxic messes is the issue addressed by the legislation proposed by my good friend from the state of Tennessee. This bill calls upon the Environmental Protection Agency, together with the National Institute for Standards and Technology to help provide some expertise and guidance to state and local agencies on guidelines for to follow to safely and effectively clean up meth labs. I commend my friend for offering this sensible and needed proposal, and I encourage my colleagues in the House to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 798, and I urge my colleagues to continue to work together to eradicate this extremely dangerous and locally produce drug.

Mr. Speaker, on this day, when our colleague and friend Congressman John Dingell is celebrating 50 years of service in the House of Representatives, I believe it is important for all Members-- however long they have served--to reflect not only on the number of years that he has served in this institution, but also on the contributions he has made and on the example that he continues to set for all of us.

In the finest traditions of the House, John Dingell remains a powerful force among us because of the commitment he made 50 years ago as he took the oath of office for the first time in this chamber. He took that oath very seriously that day and has lived up to it each day since, as he has represented the interests of the people in his district in the State of Michigan. His legislative accomplishments are legendary, and I know many Members today have praised him as a champion of health care reform, consumer protection, worker rights and environmental protection. He deserves all of that praise, and more, because he is truly one of the ``workhorses'' around the House of Representatives. Without a doubt, John Dingell is one of the hardest working Members of Congress I have seen during my tenure here, and I am sure he is one of the hardest working individuals who has ever served in the House. Largely because of that work ethic, most of the Members here have their own personal stories about the help or advice they have received from John on issues of importance in their own districts. Since I was elected to Congress in 1976, and certainly during his tenure as Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, John Dingell has helped me and has worked with me on a variety of issues that are important to me and to my constituents in the State of Washington. He fought hard for the creation of the Superfund and to sustain it so that harmful contamination at toxic sites in and around Puget Sound can be identified and cleaned up. He has demanded accountability from the Department of Energy, which is responsible for eliminating the waste that still remains from decades of nuclear production work on the Hanford Reservation. Through his leadership of the investigations subcommittee over many years, he exposed abuses and set a new standard for Pentagon procurement and contracting that helps us expand the purchasing power of our defense dollars today. And as an sportsman and wildlife advocate, he has strongly supported our efforts in the

House to increase funding for critical habitat protection and for acquisition of public lands for recreational purposes. I have appreciated his support and his leadership on these issues, and I have appreciated his friendship.

So as the House today recognizes Congressman John Dingell today for the chronological length of his tenure in this institution, I also want to remark that it is recognizing one of the legislative giants who has made his indelible mark on this chamber not just by his tenure but by the breadth and depth of his influence and his accomplishments here. I congratulate him, but I also look forward to continuing to work with him long beyond today's milestone.

Mr. Speaker, the debate over this fraudulent resolution is a sad comment on the level of debate in the House of Representatives and an insult to a colleague of ours who has dedicated his career in the House to improving our national defense and supporting American soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel. No one in this body can or should challenge the patriotism of Congressman Jack Murtha, who is a decorated veteran who spent 37 years in the United States Marine Corps and whose experience in uniform has helped to shape his informed views on national security here in Congress. When he expressed his personal and thoughtful views on the future of our Nation's involvement in the war in Iraq he was subjected to a barrage of personal criticism that was truly excessive, including an official statement from the President's Press Secretary that trivialized the very nature of our congressional debate over a very important subject.

Today the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, usually a thoughtful Member himself, took it upon himself to introduce a caricature of a resolution that totally ignores many of the important points that Mr. Murtha originally suggested, and it makes a mockery of the process of honest and open debate in the House of Representatives. It is difficult for me to remember a time when serious issues of national security have ever been treated with such disdain here in the House, and I am extremely disappointed in the Republican leadership of the House that has allowed this circus atmosphere to take place today.

Even more astounding to me is that the House is rushing through a rule to consider this Resolution today with the explanation that it is ostensibly a debate over the war in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have not had an honest debate on the war in Iraq here in the House even as we have seen more than 2,000 young American die in battle. We have not had an honest debate over the quality of information that we were given before the start of the war, or about the inability of Secretary Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration to give us any serious indication of our current objectives or a time line for the ultimate re-deployment of American troops out of Iraq. I would welcome such an honest and thorough debate, as I am sure all of my colleagues in the Democratic party would. But what we are doing today is a politically motivated exercise that insults that integrity and cheapens the reputation of the House itself.

There are many troubling aspects of our involvement in Iraq that we should be debating, including the discovery just this week that some of the Iraqi security forces that we are training--paying for--were engaged in the same type of torture of Iraqi citizens that characterized the reign of Saddam Hussein himself.

What we should not be doing is considering a disingenuous resolution that is merely intended to elicit sound bites for conservative talk radio shows and which is a thinly-veiled attempt to insult one of the most courageous and dedicated members of the House, Mr. Murtha. We can do better, Mr. Speaker, and we should resoundingly reject this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Everybody has been talking gloom and doom about the Endangered Species Act. Let me give my colleagues a few success numbers. This comes from the National Wildlife Federation.

According to the National Research Council, the Endangered Species Act has saved hundreds of species from extinction. A study published in the ``Annual Review of Ecological Semantics'' calculated that 172 species would potentially have gone extinct during the period from 1973 to 1998 if Endangered Species Act protection had not been implemented.

According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, 99 percent of the species ever listed under the Endangered Species Act remain on the planet today. That is not a failure. That is an enormous success.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, of the listed species whose condition is known, 68 percent are stable or improving, and 32 percent are declining. The longer a species enjoys the Endangered Species Act protection, the more likely its condition will stabilize or improve.

Now, I just want to say something. Everybody has been saying that H.R. 3824 has been this great effort in terms of collaboration, and I respect that. I respect the way that the chairman and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) have approached this thing.

I come from the State of Washington. No part of the country has been more affected by the Endangered Species Act than the State of Washington with the spotted owl listings and the marbled murrelet listings; but I believe that this legislation, H.R. 3824, is a step backwards. It is not going to help protect these species that we want. It will hurt them.

I think that the ESA should be reformed in a responsible manner. In fact, the substitute amendment that I have cosponsored with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and others that will be debated later today embodies those kinds of practical reforms which still provide us the kind of potent tools necessary to prevent extinction of species and to work towards their recovery.

There are some aspects of this bill that I agree with to a point. Over time, many supporters of the ESA have come to question the way in which habitat is designated as critical in order to help species recovery. While it is vitally important that habitat be set aside, these critical habitat designations have led to much controversy.

The substitute amendment also eliminates the critical habitat designation, but replaces it with the requirement that the Interior Secretary identify specific areas that are necessary for the conservation of species and then enforce these designations.

In addition, the substitute amendment will require that Federal land be considered first for designation as habitat necessary for a species' survival and recovery before private landowners are burdened.

Another provision of this bill is one offered by my friend from Oregon, but the idea that we are not any longer going to have EPA consult on pesticides is a tragic mistake. This is enough to defeat this bill in its own right. This is a terrible mistake. Sixty-seven million birds each year die because of pesticides; and if we let this pesticide provision be enacted, it will be the most damaging thing I can think of for birds and other wildlife.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, when the Contract With America was written, this provision was scored by CBO at $3.2 billion; $3.2 billion.

Mr. Chairman, the part that I have trouble with is that we did not authorize any new money to fund this. You just said, take it out of the Interior Appropriations bill. Well, I want to tell you, we have not funded the Endangered Species Act properly under this administration, and if there is not any money, it is going to have to come out of somebody else's hide. It is going to be the Fish and Wildlife Service, it is going to be the Park Service; somebody is going to have to fund this, and it is going to cost a lot more than $10 million a year. That is laughable.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

It has been my intent today to join with my colleagues from Washington State to offer two amendments to this bill. Two years ago, a terrible murder-homicide was committed in a parking lot in my district. This crime was particularly unusual in that it was committed by the chief of the Tacoma Police Department who murdered his wife, Crystal Judson Brame, while their two children sat in another car just a few yards away.

The investigation that ensued found serious problems with the Tacoma Police Department, which had led to the hiring and continued promotion of an individual with a history of domestic violence. Upon promotion to chief, violence committed by Chief Brame against his wife was not addressed by the department, even when police units had responded to a call.

The bottom line in this case is that the Tacoma Police Department did not have a strong and enforceable policy to address domestic violence committed by a member of the police force, and this was not a deficiency exclusive to Tacoma. Because of this, the Washington State legislature passed a law establishing strong standards for law enforcement agencies within the State to prevent and punish future incidents of domestic violence committed by law enforcement officers.

Our law enforcement officers work very hard to protect us and to keep our streets safe. All too often, our law enforcement officers are called upon to put their lives on the line to protect us and keep us safe. The strain this puts on individual officers is enormous, and I am deeply concerned by the anecdotal evidence indicating the possibility of a higher incidence of domestic violence among law enforcement officers than among the public.

To this end, I and my colleagues, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), sought to offer an amendment to establish a Federal study to determine if there is a direct link between the nature of the job and domestic violence.

I understand the majority had concerns with this proposal, and I look forward to working with the majority to try and devise a solution that can answer these questions. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there may be a possibility of it being included in a GAO study that the committee is going to ask for, and this may be one way to find out the information.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to point out the STOP Grants Program is available, and we believe that police departments and local governments can apply today for grants, and I would urge all of them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues today speaking in support of H.

Con. Res. 209, a Resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Domestic Violence Awareness Month and helping to raise awareness of the impact of domestic violence on families across the nation.

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence began to observe the concept of Domestic Violence Awareness Month in 1987--the year that the first national toll-free telephone line was established. In 1989, Congress passed the first legislative recognition of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, expressing the importance of awareness and education and encouraging preventative actions in every community around the Nation. And each year since that time, we have renewed the commitment of Congress and the Federal Government to those goals, as we are doing today in passing H. Con. Res. 209.

This legislation is also particularly timely because we are now in the process of renewing the Violence Against Women Act as part of the Justice Department reauthorization. That legislation, originally passed and signed into law in 1994, allocated a substantial amount of Federal funding for prevention efforts, and it broadened the range of services and counseling available to women who become victims of abuse. In 2000, Congress reauthorized the bill and strengthened it, as we must again this year, driven by the goal of eliminating entirely the scourge that still wrecks far too many families across America including, tragically, many innocent children who witness the violence.

One such tragic example occurred in my congressional district in April 2003, when the troubled Chief of Police of Tacoma, Washington, murdered his wife in the parking lot of a suburban shopping center just a few feet away from the couple's two young children. This man, Chief David Brame, ultimately took his own life that day, but he left those two kids with scars that will remain with them for the entirety of their lives. He also left the community questioning why and how such a tragedy could have occurred. An investigation later uncovered serious problems within the Tacoma Police Department which not only allowed the hiring of this individual with a history of domestic violence but continued to promote him despite serious and repeated violent acts against his wife, Crystal Judson Brame. Clearly, something was wrong here. The Tacoma Police Department lacked a strong and enforceable policy to address domestic violence committed by a member of its own-- in fact the Chief. And this was not a deficiency exclusive to Tacoma. As a result, the Washington State Legislature passed a law establishing strong standards for law enforcement agencies within the state to prevent and punish future incidents of domestic violence committed by law enforcement officers. We can and we should do more to call attention to the problems, to address the deficiencies that exist, and to stop these pernicious instances of domestic violence from ever occurring.

It is in this spirit that I am pleased today to join my colleagues in supporting H. Con. Res. 209, and in working later this week and this month to improve and strengthen the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act which expire at the end of this year.

Mr. Speaker, as a general principle, removing trade barriers and creating new opportunities for the export of American manufactured goods and services in today's global economy should be one of the highest priorities for those of us involved in setting national policy.

Economically, politically and strategically, our nation is better and stronger when there is a free flow of commerce, accompanied by the free exchange of ideas and information between the United States and the major economies of the world. Of course we benefit from the growth of potential markets for U.S. goods, but there is also an enormous mutual benefit when the people of other nations are exposed to the shining example of our democratic system of governance and the merits of a free market economy. Just look at the nations who trade freely and compare them--and the conditions their people endure--with the nations whose economies are essentially closed to external commerce such as North Korea. Just last week in this Chamber during the Joint Session of Congress we witnessed a major address by the Prime Minister of India, a nation whose relatively swift progression to an open economy has lifted millions of people in India out of poverty as they have become a major trading partner of the United States. Not only are we selling more and more U.S. goods to India today, but because of our enhanced economic influence in this area of South Asia, the strategic interests of the United States have been strengthened at a critical time in this region.

We have before us in the House today an opportunity to take another major step forward in promoting free trade and democracy: the U.S.- Dominican Republic-Central America

Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). It represents an opportunity to expand our trading relationships, to promote the spread of democracy and to reinforce the stability of the entire Central American region. In reviewing the specific provisions of this trade agreement, as well as the promise of expanding democratic influences in the region, my colleagues and I must consider what is best for our constituents, for American workers, and for workers and their families in the Central American nations affected by this agreement. I know there is opposition here in the House to this agreement, much of it from members of my own party. I respectfully disagree with them because I see the enormous positive mutual benefits of this agreement, and because I am convinced that rejecting DR-CAFTA would hurt our nation and our workers, as well as the people in these Central American nations. And I am convinced that rejecting DR-CAFTA will leave our hemisphere less secure.

Certainly for my constituents and my home state of Washington, this agreement will mean more and better paying jobs. Washington continues to be the most trade-dependent State per capita in the country, with more than one in four jobs dependent on trade. And CAFTA markets are becoming more important to producers in my State. Since 2000, trade with these countries has grown more than 250 percent, with Washington State exports exceeding $110 million last year. Reducing tariff barriers in these countries will significantly boost the attractiveness of Washington State exports to these countries, which includes high tech products, machinery, agriculture, and paper products.

But the benefits of DR-CAFTA do not accrue solely to the workers in my State. There will be positive benefits for working people all across America. While these six nations alone--Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic--may not be huge markets, the DR-CAFTA countries make up America's 12th-largest export market worldwide, importing about $15 billion in U.S. goods and services last year. Together, these countries represent a larger U.S. export market than Russia, India and Indonesia combined. Because of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, these nations already have preferential treatment in our markets; it is time for us to gain the same benefits in their markets. According to an analysis conducted by the Progressive Policy Institute, textile firms, high-tech companies, and many service industries stand to gain immediate benefits from the approval of the agreement.

The benefits for workers from these Central American countries will be more pronounced. Competition from Chinese and Indian garment manufacturers is already intense and is growing. There are provinces in China and India that have greater populations than all six CAFTA nations combined. Currently, the temporary duty-free treatment CAFTA nations enjoy under CBI--nations that use U.S. textiles in their garment production--is keeping these Central American countries competitive. Without CAFTA, this treatment will expire, likely devastating the garment industry in Central America, potentially throwing half a million people out of work. With CAFTA, exports of garments from Central America, using American-made materials, is expected to increase, building jobs on both sides.

The economic arguments for the agreement are strong. But in my opinion, CAFTA is more critical for promoting regional stability. Over the last 20 years, these nations have struggled out of chaos and civil war to establish fragile democracies, developing critical institutions designed to safeguard freedom and to promote the rule of law. But the ultimate success of these governments is predicated upon economic security. I believe that CAFTA will help to do just that, spurring U.S. investment and promoting the growth of a middle class in each of these nations.

The failure of CAFTA would mean just the opposite, in my judgment. Competition--particularly from China and other Asian nations--is fierce and growing. Without CAFTA, the largest manufacturing sector in Central America may fail, leading to a significant rise in unemployment, economic stagnation, and potentially civil unrest. It is certainly in our nation's best strategic interests to assure that this does not happen. With greater economic stability promoted through increased trade and investment, I believe that the nascent institutions of democracy in these nations will thrive and flourish. I am not alone in believing that freer trade will help the workers in Central America. Former President Jimmy Carter and former Costa Rican President Oscar Arias--whose dedication to the people of Central America and to alleviating the plight of the poor is unquestioned--strongly support the agreement. In the words of President Arias, ``CAFTA would allow Central America to thrive by exporting goods through trade rather than exporting people through migration. Opportunities would open for consumers to acquire better and cheaper goods; for small and medium businesses to expand and diversify; for more private investment, access to new technologies and educational opportunities; for a qualitative and quantitative improvement in the job market; and for higher economic growth, government revenue and increased social spending.''

I also understand the concerns of those of my colleagues here in the House who have joined together with our friends in organized labor in opposition to this agreement. I share their mistrust and disdain for the domestic labor policies implemented by the administration that negotiated this agreement. In the end, however, I believe that our shared cause will be furthered, not hindered, by the labor provisions of this agreement.

The editorial board of The News Tribune in Tacoma, the largest newspaper in my congressional district, summarized the view I have held in a recent editorial in support of the agreement. The editorial said: ``CAFTA is probably the single best thing this country could do for those workers (in Central America). If markets were to expand for Central American goods, Central American labor would be worth more, paid more and treated better. Workers would gain more leverage and find it easier to unionize. . . .''

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this agreement is good for the country, good for the state of Washington, good for workers in all the participating countries, and good for the security of the Western Hemisphere. I intend to support the agreement. I would like to thank the gentleman again for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule to allow for the consideration of the conference report on the fiscal year 06 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. And I intend to intend to vote for the conference bill.

Although I am critical of several aspects of this bill--including the low overall spending level--without a doubt this process has been fair and open. Because of the low allocation, there are some problem areas.

But the overall conference report is well worth supporting. With the addition of $1.5 billion in spending for Veterans health care attached to this bill, I believe that this conference report will get widespread support in both the House and the Senate.

The conference agreement contains another year of healthy increases in National Park Service operations funding. I do wish that the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund was higher. I also wish that the Conference Report had retained the extra $10 million in NEA funding that the full House approved in a floor amendment last May. It is important to point out that this agreement contains successful compromises on the issue of pesticide testing on humans and on federal funding for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial to be built on the National Mall.

Again I want to reiterate my strong support for this rule and the conference report on the fiscal year 06 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. And I want to thank Chairman Taylor and his staff for including the minority throughout this process.

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

I support this conference report on the fiscal year 2006 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, and I will vote for it, in just a few minutes, I hope. With the addition of $1.5 billion in spending for veterans health care attached to this bill, I believe that this conference report will get widespread support in both the House and the Senate.

After we made a decision to add this $1.5 billion, I contacted back in the State of Washington the veterans hospital in Seattle and the one at American Lake to find out what the backlog was, and I was shocked to find out that there is a backlog of some 2,000 veterans who are waiting to get an initial appointment at those hospitals. So this money clearly is needed, and I am pleased that the other body selected the Interior appropriations to add this $1.5 billion to and that we were able to present it here today to the House.

There are several areas of this bill that I believe are underfunded; however, I believe these funding decisions were the result of an inadequate allocation. Although the majority cannot escape responsibility for this allocation, I believe that we here in the minority have been treated fairly during the process of developing the 2006 Interior appropriations.

First of all, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), for the decision to provide the Park Service operating budget another year of healthy increases. Over the last 2 years, we have provided more than $100 million in increases for the parks operating budget, and I am very proud of that accomplishment. We really were seeing a decline in some of the parks because they were not able to cover their fixed costs on an annual basis and had to lay off people and were unable to provide the American people with the services that they needed.

However, I am disappointed with the overall amount for the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund. I had hoped that the conference report would end up closer to the Senate mark of $1.1 billion, rather than at $900 million, which is only $50 million above the House mark. Over the last 2 years, this funding has been cut by 33 percent.

I am also disappointed that we could not retain the full $10 million increase for the National Endowment for the Arts, which was approved on the House floor in an overwhelming vote, but I am gratified that we could agree to some increase for both the NEA and the NEH.

I am glad to see this conference report contains increases over the House mark for both land acquisition and the State grant program. Although these programs are cut from last year, I agree with the decision to restore some of the funding; and I am sympathetic to the argument that, during a year with such a low allocation, it is most important to protect core programs and make land acquisition a more secondary goal.

I am deeply appreciative of everyone's efforts to resolve the issue concerning the use of humans during pesticide testing. I think the conference report reflects the will of both the House and Senate to stop such tests until the EPA develops regulations reflecting the recommendation of the National Academy of Science and follows the Nuremburg protocols. In addition, these regulations will prohibit such testing on pregnant women, infants, and children.

I also want to praise the compromise contained in this conference report on the Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial to be built on the National Mall. The conference report contains $10 million that must be matched by private donations. This matching requirement will spur increased private donations and reflects the thinking of the chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), who felt very strongly that we should try to raise as much money for the memorial from the private sector.

Again, I want to say that the chairman has been very fair and his staff, led by Debbie Weatherly, has done an outstanding job in putting together this bill. I want to congratulate Mike Stevens and Pete Modoff of my staff for the exceptional work they did on this bill. I think this is, in a very difficult year, I think this is a bill that deserves our support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who is one of the leaders in this House on budget matters.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), who has been a real leader on the issue of dealing with pesticides and their effect on humans.

(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman on her hard work on this. I can remember when we had the amendment on the floor. It was adopted here in the House unanimously. And I think your work and the work of your colleague from California in the other body on this matter, where they also won a vote there, too, was very impressive.

And, you know, this is the first year our committee has had jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency, so we are all learning about these issues. I want to congratulate you on your real leadership. And I think what you did will be something that will protect children and pregnant mothers and will bring better standards at EPA on this issue. I congratulate you on this effort.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important moment today that we are passing this conference report before the August recess. And I want to congratulate the chairman and ranking member, who has really worked tirelessly to work with the chairman to get these bills enacted.

But I think there is absolutely no excuse not to try to do this and try to pass the rest of the bills in September and show the American people that we can get the job done before the start of the fiscal year.

And I think every time we have a new chairman, we do better in this regard. The previous chairman, of course, had to deal with other problems. But I think the chairman has made this a big priority. I think it is important that we do this, and I want to congratulate him for his leadership as the new chairman of the full committee.

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