Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, over 90% of people with Medicare, that's 38 million Americans, get their prescription drugs through Medicare Part D. These seniors are satisfied with their coverage and are finally receiving the drugs they need at costs they can afford.

Consistently, 80% of beneficiaries report they are satisfied with their current coverage and drug plans. Those include seniors known as dual-eligibles, the poorest seniors eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, because they are seeing more choices and paying less money for quality care.

My constituent, Nancy Santheson of Roswell, New Mexico, was spending almost $800/month on one drug to treat osteoporosis. She had zero coverage the first year her doctor prescribed it. Once she signed up for her Medicare Part D plan, it went down to only $60/month. This drug is not listed on the Veterans' Administration's national formulary. Had Nancy been dependent on the price negotiations the VA administers and the Democrats have proposed, she would not have had coverage of this drug, a new treatment that has shown great promise in reversing bone loss.

Democrats say they will fill in the donut-hole, a cost estimated to be $450 billion over 10 years, with the savings they claim will incur through government interference in price negotiations. Yet the non- partisan Congressional Budget Office and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have stated that they predict government involvement in price negotiations will not lead to lower costs for taxpayers or seniors.

Seniors want choice, not government controlled access to their vital prescriptions. The leverage needed to negotiate low prices is volume buying and the ability to walk away from a deal the government decides is too expensive. This means the government will have to walk away from a deal with a drug company, and seniors would not have access to those drugs. Negotiating low prices will take priority over getting the most quality, effective drugs in our seniors' medicine cabinets.

But seniors are already getting negotiated discounts. Private insurance plans already have a strong incentive to negotiate low prices for seniors: they want to control their own costs and compete for new enrollees to choose their plan. Premiums for the drug basic benefit are offered at an average of $22/month for seniors in 2007, down from $23 in 2006. This is $15 less than the $37/month coverage premiums were originally projected to cost. In fact, Democrats wanted to set premiums on seniors at a static $35/month, $13 more than average beneficiaries will pay next year. This proves that competition is working and our seniors are receiving benefits cheaper than ever imagined.

Democrats point to the Veterans' Administration as a model for this government price controlled plan. But the latest information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services suggests that almost 40% of veterans eligible for both VA and Medicare benefits choose to get their prescriptions through Medicare Part D, the plan with more choices.

Time and again, veterans in my district have been frustrated that in order to receive the best benefits, they must get their drugs through an impersonal mail order program. In fact, 76% of veterans' prescriptions are distributed through mail order. And year after year efforts are made to encourage more veterans to get their prescriptions through mail order. Why put seniors in this position when we do not have to? Our seniors will face threats to their ability to purchase drugs from local pharmacies, just as veterans face, and may have to retrieve their drugs through an impersonal mail-order program, not their trusted pharmacist.

Mr. Speaker, our seniors deserve to have access to the drugs they need at the lowest costs possible. They are getting both now, and Democrats want to take that away. We must continue to fight for our seniors and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: I fully support stem cell research and its potential to solve many of the world's most complex medical mysteries.

Many scientists have concluded that certain types of stem cells, called pluripotent stem cells, may one day be used to develop treatments for debilitating diseases.

Some of these types include cells derived from adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid and finally, human embryos.

Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research began in 2001 when President Bush announced a policy that allowed researchers to destroy and conduct research on stem cell lines that had come from human embryos already destroyed prior to August 9, 2001.

This policy did not encourage or offer incentives from the government to destroy human life for research.

Yet the newly elected Democratic majority chose to bring a bill to the House floor today that forces taxpayers to encourage and fund the destruction of human life for embryonic stem cell research.

This legislation also has no protections to ensure human embryos can not be cloned by researchers who receive this funding and access to destroyed human embryos.

It is disheartening that the Democratic leadership wants to force all taxpayers to fund the destruction of human embryos for research, regardless of any moral and ethical concerns they may hold.

Stem cell research is currently legal in the United States. In fact, nothing in any past federal legislation or policy would ban privately funded embryonic stem cell research.

Yet private investors are reluctant to fund embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life and many have chosen to look for alternatives that offer better results.

In this world, we are measured by our treatment of the most delicate and weak among us. And in the world of science, there are lines that must be drawn when the destruction of innocent human life is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and thank the colleagues across the aisle for this important debate.

I think one of the things that should be brought to our attention is that the debate is not subject to amendment. We are not able to really consider and take action based on our considerations.

We received a communication from Rebecca Dow, who is the founder and executive director of Apple Tree Educational Center, a nonprofit institution serving low-income/at-risk children in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. She stated that if a Federal or State minimum wage passes, the reimbursement for child care assistance is going to be so low that providers cannot continue providing service for low-income families. For programs like Apple Tree, it will mean closing. There are going to be unintended consequences.

As a small business owner myself, I will tell you that we are not talking about the middle class working for minimum wage. I will tell you that we are not talking about people who are right in the midstream of the employment force. I will tell you that we are talking about giving jobs to people who are not and have not in the past been hirable.

We brought one man in who was 40 years old, tattoos from one end to the other. He told me after working 6 months he had never had a job, a full-time job, in his whole life. Because we could bring him in at a lower level, we did not have to have productivity, he was allowed to learn on-the-job training. That gentleman is still employed at the company which my wife and I sold after we came here because we were able to give him an entry level wage at an entry level job without much demand for performance.

In the last session, the last Congress, I voted to increase the minimum wage when the protections were there for small businesses. It is the small business people who get caught in the middle.

We heard from our colleagues on the other side that many small businesses support minimum wage. If that is so, they have got the instrument to do something about it. They simply increase wages. But it is those small businesses, family owned businesses, where the decisions are made, on the living room sofa and the dining room table. Those are the people that you are going to put up against very hard economic circumstances, people like Rebecca Dow, who is going to have to close her institution that provides child care assistance for low-income families in an area that has no other provider for this sort of service. I think these are the things that we should be talking about and should be making allowances for, rather than rushing this bill to the floor in the manner that it is today.

I appreciate your concern for the working families and for the businesses of the country. There are changes that we need to make.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that, due to a doctor's appointment yesterday, I was unable to vote on H.R. 6314, a bill extending certain authorities to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out important services that assist America's veterans, and H.R. 864, the Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to both H.R. 6314 and H.R. 864. Veterans who have fought to preserve the freedom and liberty enjoyed in this country deserve our relentless support and commitment. I will continue to show this commitment and pursue legislation such as my bill, The Healthy Vets Act, which would require the VA Secretary to contract with local doctors and hospitals on a case-by-case basis to provide medical services including primary care for those veterans who live far away from VA facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position regarding H.R. 6314 and look forward to fostering efforts to improve the lives of veterans and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce ``The R.S. 2477 Rights-of-Way Recognition Act.'' I am introducing this legislation to advance the dialogue on an issue very important to my constituents and many other stakeholders, particularly in the western United States.

R.S. 2477 Rights-of-Way were originally granted by the 1866 Mining Law. However, in 1976 with the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act or FLPMA, the R.S. 2477 statute was repealed while grandfathering in existing claims. Since the passage the FLPMA and its repeal of R.S. 2477, a long-standing dispute regarding these grandfathered claims has persisted with the validity of these rights- of-way remaining in doubt.

The purpose of my bill is to remove this cloud, once and for all, by declaring that State and local governments hold valid rights-of-way for all public roads that were documented on government maps and photographs at the time the FLPMA's grandfather clause was enacted.

Everyone must clearly understand the scope of this legislation. It does not establish new claims or to provide a method by which any party may to build roads or improvements on claims not valid under FLPMA. Instead, this legislation intends to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of State and local governments to the rights-of-way that Congress intended they retain when passing FLPMA.

Thus, any attempt to construe this legislation as an endeavor to create a system of superhighways through public lands is just plain

wrong. This bill draws from the landmark decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit concerning the nature of an R.S. 2477 right of way, the meaning of unreserved federal land for R.S. 2477 purposes, and the principles governing the creation, nature, extent, use and maintenance of R.S. 2477 public roads.

Supporters of this legislation should keep in mind that the bill I am introducing today is not the conclusive end this controversy. Today's introduction marks the start of a dialogue that I hope leads to a comprehensive solution and eventually a victory for all the stakeholders; a victory that protects our public lands, the rights of property owners, and the legitimate interests of Federal, State, and local governments.

As we close the 109th Congress, let us each strive to work together to solve some of our most divisive public lands issues. Doing so requires engaging all parties through dialogue, creativity and persistence so that we may find common sense solutions that will meet the needs of the American public.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act of 2006 (H.R. 4766). I would like to congratulate my colleague from New Mexico, Mrs. Wilson, for bringing this issue forward.

This is important legislation to preserve the culture and increase fluency in Native American society. Sadly, all across America, Native American languages are in rapid decline; estimates are that there may be only 20 Native American languages remaining by the year 2050. These languages are unique to our country and unique to our history. If we do not preserve them, they will disappear forever.

This bill will establish a series of grants to help preserve the language and culture of our Native American people. This will help create programs that will teach our young people of the importance of learning the language of their ancestors and continuing to preserve the history and culture of their people.

Finally, the language programs created in this bill are locally based educational programs that will help both children learn and preserve languages in households all across America.

My constituent Dr. Christine Sims, a professor of language at the University of New Mexico, and Pueblo of Acoma tribal member says, ``The future of America's first languages, those that are indigenous to this country hang in the balance of what we do as a Nation to help tribal communities preserve them. Much has been given up by countless generations of Native people in the wake of this country's expansion and growth into the great nation that it is today. It is only right and just that Congress consider the tremendous price that America's first people paid in terms of losing so much throughout the course of this nation's history, including the loss of native languages. Among America's Native language communities remaining today, the hopes and the dreams that Native elders, parents and tribes hold for their children are those which include the maintenance and revitalization of tribal heritage languages. We can do no less in this country, therefore, than to ensure that tribal communities have the opportunity and the funding resources that will help make these hopes and dreams for their children a reality.

``Today's education for the American Indian student must open the doors for youngsters to have more opportunities to learn their own languages as provided in the provisions of H.R. 4766. This bill, so aptly named for one of New Mexico's tribal elders, Mrs. Esther Martinez from San Juan Pueblo ( who tragically died in a car accident this past week), would not only honor the memory of this renowned Native language advocate and leader, but as well, demonstrate the commitment that Congress is willing to make in support of the intent and purpose of the Native Languages Preservation Act.''.

Again, I want to thank my New Mexico colleague, Mrs. Wilson, for bringing this bill forward, her hard work and dedication are a credit to her and she is a credit to our State.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5946) to amend Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to authorize activities to promote improved monitoring and compliance for high seas fisheries, or fisheries governed by international fishery management agreements, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5946 is an important tool for the United States to use to take action against those vessels that participate in illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing practices. This legislation is vitally important for the health of the world's fishery resources and for the economic well-being of the U.S. high seas and domestic fishing fleets. The provisions in H.R. 5946 have already been passed the Senate by unanimous consent as a part of S. 2012.

I will submit into the Record an exchange of letters with Chairman Thomas of the Committee on Ways and Means on the bill, and I thank him for his cooperation.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 5946.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, September 20, 2006.

Hon. Richard W. Pombo,

Chairman, Committee on Resources,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Pombo: Thank you for your letter regarding

H.R. 5946, the ``Stevens-Inouye International Fisheries

Monitoring and Compliance Legacy Act of 2006,'' which was

introduced on July 27, 2006.

As you noted, the Committee on Ways and Means maintains

jurisdiction over trade sanctions. H.R. 5946 includes text

which falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways

and Means. However, in order to expedite this bill for floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill.

This is being done with the understanding that it does not in

any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the

appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives

on this or similar legislation.

I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and agree to

your offer to include this exchange of letters in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6014) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to improve California's Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta and water supply, as amended.

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

H.R. 6014, sponsored by Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assist in protecting and improving California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The delta is one of the most flood-prone areas in the world and is currently protected by a series of deteriorating 80-year earthen levees. After Hurricane Katrina, we all know the devastating effects of levee failures. The funding in this bill helps prevent future failures that could have far- reaching impacts on the entire State of California. It is simply an ounce of prevention for a pound of cure.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I urge support for this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1711) to provide assistance to the State of New Mexico for the development of comprehensive State water plans, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1711, sponsored by Congresswoman Heather Wilson, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assist the State of New Mexico in developing comprehensive water plans.

New Mexico is experiencing record drought, and limited Federal assistance will help provide a water-use roadmap to overcome this and future droughts. This legislation specifically authorizes water resources mapping assistance in the State and allows for a comprehensive study of New Mexico's groundwater resources to assess the quantity and quality of the groundwater. Ultimately, the State and local entities will make the water-use decisions, but this bill helps provide the scientific data needed to make such decisions.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5160) to establish the Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative, as amended.

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

I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation, sponsored by Congressman Rob Simmons, which would establish the Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative. This initiative allows the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to provide grants to protect and restore land around the Long Island Sound in the States of Connecticut and New York. This bill acknowledges the collaborative efforts among the many public and private partners in the region and allows for a ground-up approach to managing and maintaining the long-term ecological health and public enjoyment of Long Island Sound.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 5160.

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

Mr. Speaker, understanding the full risk of filibuster, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut, the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Simmons.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2069) to authorize the exchange of certain land in Grand and Uintah Counties, Utah, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Utah Regional Land Exchange Act is the culmination of years of analysis and negotiations among representatives of Utah's State School Trust Lands, the Department of the Interior, locally elected officials, environmental groups and Members of Congress.

Congressman Chris Cannon should be commended for crafting this bipartisan legislation that will convey and exchange of over 80,000 acres of State and Federal lands for recreation, scenic and development purposes. This creative and significant exchange will be of great benefit to Utah's schools, recreationists, communities, and to all Americans who care about the proper care and management of Federal lands and in protecting important natural and scenic areas.

I urge passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5842) to compromise and settle all claims in the case of Pueblo of Isleta v. United States, to restore, improve, and develop the valuable on-reservation land and natural resources of the Pueblo, and for other purposes.

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

H.R. 5842 authored by myself ratifies a settlement agreement pending between the Isleta Pueblo of New Mexico, a federally recognized tribe, and the United States.

This settlement agreement is the result of many years of environmental damage to certain reservation lands by the United States Government. H.R. 5842 would establish a land restoration fund for the Pueblo to acquire, restore and improve the land and natural resources within the exterior boundaries of the reservation.

Passage of this legislation settles all claims by the Pueblo pending in the United States Courts of Federal Claims. We understand that both the administration and the entire New Mexico delegation fully support this settlement and the corresponding legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the passage of my bill, H.R. 5842, the ``Pueblo of Isleta Settlement and Natural Resources Restoration Act of 2006.'' I jointly introduced this bill with the support of the entire New Mexico Delegation. While this bill is a settlement of claims against America by a tribal government, the result of this settlement will benefit the Pueblo, the State of New Mexico and all of America. By passing this bill we fulfill our responsibility for the trust and management of these tribal lands.

This bill will settle the Pueblo's claims against the United States for mismanagement damages of the Pueblo's tribal lands. The final settlement to this case was reached in June between the U.S. Departments of Interior and Justice and the tribal leaders and will expire at the end of this session of Congress unless we act.

H.R. 5842 in settling the claims will result in a tremendous victory not just for the Pueblo of Isleta but also for the whole of New Mexico. Specifically, the legislation provides $32.8 million from the Department of Justice judgment fund and an additional $7.2 million to be appropriated.

The victory in the bill is that these funds will be used for the acquisition, restoration, improvement, development and protection of the land, natural resources and cultural resources of the Pueblo. The measure also calls for the Pueblo to invest $7.1 million of its own funds for the drainage and remediation of agricultural lands and the rehabilitation of forest and range land.

This commitment of the tribe shows their willingness to work to restore not just their lands but also a key portion of the Rio Grande Watershed bringing environmental improvements to every water user on the Rio Grande River.

If this bill isn't passed all we will have is more delay, more cost and a situation that benefits no one. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to join me and help get this settlement agreement completed today. This bill benefits New Mexico, and protects the American taxpayer through a fair comprehensive settlement of the Pueblo's claim.

I want to thank many people for their hard work on making this bill a reality. Specifically, I want to thank Governor Robert Benavides of Isleta for his hard work and leadership in making this settlement such a success for not just his citizens but all of New Mexico.

I want to thank my colleague, Mrs. Wilson for her help and my Chairman Mr. Pombo for his leadership. Finally, I appreciate the hard work of the House Resources staff, Chris Fluhr, Matt Miller, and Todd Willens for helping bring this legislation to the House floor today.

Again, this settlement is good for America and should be passed here today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no additional Speakers, and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4789) to require the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain public land located wholly or partially within the boundaries of the Wells Hydroelectric Project of Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington, to the utility district, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4789 would convey nearly 400 acres of small isolated Bureau of Land Management parcels of land to the Wells Hydroelectric Project located in Anzwell, Washington. The project provides power to large parts of Oregon and Washington.

The small parcels being conveyed are difficult for the BLM to manage and makes management of the Wells Hydroelectric project area difficult for the utility company which manages its area not just for power generation, but also for a variety of public recreation uses.

The land would be conveyed for fair market value and the legislation ensures that recreational opportunities would continue.

I urge passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers and yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3626) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of enlarging the Arthur V. Watkins Dam Weber Basin Project, Utah, to provide additional water for the Weber Basin Project to fulfill the purposes for which that project was authorized, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3626 introduced by our colleague the esteemed Rob Bishop from Utah begins the effort to expand water storage in northern Utah to meet growing demands.

This legislation authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to look at the feasibility of enlarging the Arthur V. Watkins Dam for this purpose. I commend Mr. Bishop for introducing this forward-thinking and bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the author of the legislation.

(Mr. BISHOP of Utah asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4750) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of implementing a water supply and conservation project to improve water supply reliability, increase the capacity of water storage, and improve water management efficiency in the Republican River Basin between Harlan County Lake in Nebraska and Milford Lake in Kansas, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4750, sponsored by Congressman Tom Osborne, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of a water supply and conservation project in the Republican River Basin.

This legislation would enact into law one requirement of the Republican River Compact Settlement negotiated between the States of Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado, and approved by the United States Supreme Court in 2003.

The feasibility study would help clarify the opportunities to increase water storage in the river basin, and is needed to increase water availability and encourage more efficient water use.

I urge my colleagues to support this needed legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the author of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Madam Speaker, I would remind the Members that this is a very bipartisan bill, everything being bipartisan except the name of the river basin being studied. I would urge passage.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.