Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, today we vote on one of the most critical bills that will come to the floor during the 110th Congress. While essential to farmers and ranchers across the Nation, the Farm Bill also impacts each one of us. Its provisions directly affect school children in this Nation and others, seniors and families struggling to live on fixed incomes, wildlife and wilderness, and international farmers struggling to become viable participants in a global marketplace.

I applaud Chairman Peterson and the Agriculture Committee for their tireless efforts to produce a compromise bill that dissolves partisan boundaries, and improves upon the 2002 Farm Bill authorization. The bill takes modest steps towards improving commodity programs, by preventing the most wealthy from exploiting this safety net meant for assisting ranchers and farmers whose livelihoods precariously teeter at the mercy of climate and market fluctuation.

The committee's bill extends and modestly increases funding for effective conservation and food security programs. Conservation programs help farmers to manage their lands in a sustainable manner that positively impacts wildlife, watersheds, and open spaces. Nutrition programs included in the bill bolster the fruits and vegetables industry, by increasing fresh food supplements for schools, children, families, and seniors.

The 2007 Farm Bill also takes initial steps towards redistributing commodity programs to those who need them most. The bill's authorization of new funding for organic farmers, specialty crops, and farmer's markets will assist small farmers in meeting organic standards and in getting their products into local markets.

I applaud the committee for initiating this redistribution of commodity programs and taking unprecedented steps towards expanding funding, outreach, and technical assistance for socially disadvantaged, beginning, and minority farmers. The committee's effort in this area brings the issue of the 2002 Farm Bill's exceptional lack of support for socially disadvantaged, beginning, and minority farmers to light. While an improvement, the bill could do more to affect real change in this area.

One quarter of all farmers participate in commodity programs. Of these, just 10 percent receive 75 percent of all commodity subsidies. Congress must readjust the reach of the farm bill. Too many minority farmers lack access to USDA programs, too many farmworkers transitioning into farm owners lack access to federal safety nets that would help them get on their feet, and too many socially disadvantaged farmers lack access to the tools that would help them maneuver through the maze of commodity programs.

With the reauthorization of the Farm Bill, Congress has the opportunity to make monumental changes to the distribution of agricultural and conservation programs. The Kind amendment would have brought such monumental changes to our Nation's agricultural sector and to the world economy. By gradually removing depression-era subsidies that have turned from a safety net into a security blanket, the Kind amendment would have lowered the federal deficit and redirected money into nutrition, food insecurity, and conservation programs at rates much greater than those outlined in the Farm Bill we are voting on today. The Kind amendment would have almost tripled funding for outreach and technical assistance for socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers, and would have put a moratorium on foreclosures on farms owned by socially-disadvantaged farmers and ranchers while creating a commission to investigate the causes of foreclosure.

I am proud to have supported the Kind amendment and hope that such comprehensive reform will be possible in the future. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the Agriculture Committee has at least taken initial steps in the direction of reform, and I will vote in support of their 2007 Farm Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 1, which will finally implement in full the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. This is an extremely important day for our Nation.

I want to specifically express my support for the inclusion of provisions that protect our privacy and civil liberties. Last Congress, I worked with Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Christopher Shays to introduce the Protection of Civil Liberties Act which would have made the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board an independent agency and granted it the power it needed to fully do its job. I am pleased that the Conference Report works to ensure that the Board will finally be able to fully operate as our country's independent civil liberties watchdog.

The Conference Report before us today gives the Board independence by finally removing it from the administration's control and provides it with the funding necessary to do its job. It authorizes the Board to have access to all the relevant information it needs to carry out its responsibility, and gives the Board more power to subpoena potential witnesses. Additionally, the Board will be required to regularly report to Congress on its activities, findings, and recommendations, and to inform the public of its activities as well.

Clearly, for years our country has been headed in the wrong direction regarding the protection of our civil liberties, and a fully independent Civil Liberties Oversight Board will serve as an important first step to bring our nation back on course. We must not continue to undercut the civil liberties our Constitution guarantees under the false pretense that they cannot be maintained in a post-9/11 world. I strongly believe the American public deserves both security and privacy and, today, action in the House ensures that this can occur. I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, the last time Congress raised the minimum wage, gas prices hovered around $1.33 a gallon, Enron wasn't even in business and America had never heard of the iPod, much less the iPhone. Since then, the cost of living has risen 26 percent, while the real value of the minimum wage has been eroded by inflation to its lowest level since 1955.

Thirteen million American workers will get a pay raise thanks to the minimum wage increase that begins today. That means an estimated six million children will see their parents' incomes rise, an increase of $2.10 an hour that will give families an additional $4,400 a year to meet critical needs. That's 15 months of groceries, over two years of health care, 19 months of utilities, or 20 months of child care.

I wish I could say it took great political courage to back this wage increase. However, it did not. More than 85 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage. The American people have been ready; what was missing was the Congressional leadership. For more than nine years, the Republican-controlled Congress refused to raise the minimum wage. The new Democratic leadership raised it in just seven months. For four years, the old Congressional leadership let Pell Grant values stagnate. Last week, Congress passed the biggest investment in college aid since the GI Bill. And for almost four years, Republicans in Congress gave President Bush a blank check to fight a misguided war in Iraq. Since January, Congress has told the President again and again that it's time for a change.

The new Congressional leadership has shown that it will do what the old Congressional leadership would not; it will fight for America's working families. Today's wage increase is just one sign of changed priorities in Washington. Congress has begun to deliver real support to those who need it most.

With all of the talk in Washington, we can lose track of what politics means in the everyday lives of Americans. Anybody who claims that it does not matter who controls Congress should go talk to a worker who just took home a larger paycheck. That larger paycheck was only possible because of a new Congressional leadership and a new Congress. I am proud to serve in that Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to John Allen. Mr. Allen served with distinction and honor as one of the famed Tuskegee Airmen. He was unable to make it to Washington this past April to receive his Congressional Gold Medal and instead will be receiving it this coming Saturday in his home State of New Mexico.

The Tuskegee Airmen participated in more than 15,000 sorties on 1,500 missions. A thousand black pilots were trained at Tuskegee, and throughout World War II they shot down 111 German planes and disabled 150 German aircraft on the ground. In this same time, 150 Airmen were lost in battle or training, 66 were killed, and 33 were shot down and held as prisoners of war. And in one of the most significant demonstrations of commitment to mission, the Tuskegee Airmen did not allow a single bomber it protected to be shot down. These men showed a prejudiced Nation that courage has no color.

In his eagerness to serve, Mr. Allen exaggerated his age and was allowed to enlist in the Army. Even though he was younger than his fellow recruits, the Army noticed his remarkable intelligence and recommended he join the Air Corps where he was assigned to the 332nd Fighter Group. Mr. Allen never saw combat, but he did see hate. Despite their service, Tuskegee Airmen experienced bigotry and discrimination. Once, after eating at a whites-only officer's club, 103 Airmen were arrested and in spite of their clear commitment and patriotism, similar episodes marked the daily lives of black soldiers.

Even the timing of this commemoration reminds us of the difficult situation the Tuskegee Airmen faced. This honor should have been given 50 years ago. The failure of this country to properly honor these great men in a timely fashion speaks volumes about the legacy of injustice that made their sacrifice all the more remarkable. They fought for a country that wouldn't let them eat with white officers. They fought for a country that denied their sacrifice and dishonored their service. By honoring these men with the Congressional Gold Medal, we cannot undo the injustice that they have endured, but we can serve notice that we will not tolerate further injustice.

Mr. Allen retired from the Weapons Safety Division at Kirtland Air Force Base in 2000. He spent his entire career serving his country. I wish him a happy retirement and hope that his example will continue to inspire each of us to serve our Nation and to use our lives to make our Nation better.

Mr. Chairman, we as leaders must face and prepare for the reality that America's nuclear footprint is shrinking and that in the coming years our national priorities will shift to address the looming energy crisis. With that in mind, it is abundantly clear that the mission and purpose of Los Alamos National Laboratory, located in my district, must be diversified to ensure its future permanence and to utilize its full potential for scientific research. I stand resolutely behind LANL, and will continue to fully support the men and women who work there, but they must recognize that the bill before us marks only the first step of the coming reallocation of resources in the nuclear complex. Only in recognizing, accepting, and ultimately embracing this shift, will the lab ensure that they continue to serve in their leading role in combating existing national security threats as well as others that are sure to emerge.

That is why today, Mr. Chairman, I will be voting in favor of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. In so doing, I am voting for the future of the lab. I am voting for what I believe will be a future as bright as past in helping this country meet its national security challenges. But as I do, I vow to help the leadership at the lab make this diversification a reality. I vow to help the lab remain the preeminent lab in the country, home to the best scientists in the world.

Before we vote, however, I would like to briefly recap the steps in the Appropriations process that have brought us to this point today. In May, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water marked up its Fiscal Year 2008 bill and reported it to the full Appropriations Committee. This bill included funding cuts that would affect the core mission of the Lab, which gave me great concern. The bill also postponed funding for the RRW and CMRR, projects I have been skeptical of since first being proposed. I am not the only one skeptical of these programs, which is why this bill also wisely included a provision requiring the Administration to thoroughly evaluate and prepare a plan outlining the specific need for not only these projects, but for our entire nuclear stockpile before authorizing millions more taxpayer dollars.

On the other hand, the bill we considered in committee included an unprecedented and long overdue investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and climate change research. I applauded the Chairman's vision for these investments, both because it is needed to enhance our nation's security for the future, but also because I firmly believe that the top-notch scientists at LANL have valuable contributions to make in these areas. During this discussion, I received assurances from the Chairman that LANL will have access to these new funds, but they must actively compete for them.

The bill was voice-voted in Committee a few weeks ago and was brought to the floor. During that debate, I led the fight to protect the core mission of the Lab, offering an amendment to restore $192 million in funding for the Road Runner Supercomputer, the Science campaign, and the Lab's facilities. Not only are these areas needed for the lab to effectively conduct its core mission, but they will also be needed for diversification. However, my amendment was not an endorsement of the status quo regarding our nuclear weapons policy. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated.

However, during all of this, what became clear was that part of these funding issues for LANL had to do with preparing for conference with the Senate. As the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Wamp, stated on the House Floor, ``. . . this is the beginning of the process. I know Senator Domenici is going to weigh in. I love it, because these House leaders have given the House a better position to negotiate this bill from than we have ever had in my tenure here, because we need that leverage. Frankly, the Senate has rolled us on this bill for many years. Not any more. We get fair treatment. We can go in there and negotiate our priorities and come away with a good product.'' No one who follows the Appropriations process should be shocked by this negotiating tactic.

In the meantime, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported a bill to the full Senate that provides hundreds of millions of dollars in funding increases for LANL. The Senate has yet to pass their legislation, but when they do, as we know, a conference committee will convene to negotiate the differences between the two versions of the legislation. I am confident that the final conference report will result in the restoration of funding for the core mission of the Lab, just as my amendment would have done.

And I will certainly be working for restoration of these funds through conference. Nevertheless, the process to this point must serve as a signal that change is needed if the funding--and the permanence-- of the lab is to be certain. It would be folly to assume that the status quo and a static mission will be enough in the years to come. Instead, I hope the idea of diversification is strongly embraced and pursued by LANS, not only to strengthen the lab and its work force, although that is also important, but because the capacity of the lab to produce scientific greatness in pursuit of solving the gravest threats to our nation and to the world is too important.

I have received assurances from the NNSA that diversifying the mission of the lab is possible, but the leadership of the lab must take the initiative to start the process. In fact, there are ongoing discussions at this time about a possible diversified mission for LANL. As we continue the funding process, it is now up to LANL to decide whether it wants to diversify and thrive, or remain focused only on its current mission, which, as we have seen this year, means an uphill battle. I have strongly advised and urged the leadership at the lab to see that diversification is the only way to ensure the future of the lab. I hope that those at the lab believe the same and that in the very near future we will begin to see a true, substantive move toward this important goal.

I thank the gentleman.

They say on the other side, and the gentleman has said, that we have a spending problem and that they left the country in better shape. Our friends on the other side are talking about leaving the country in better shape. I think we need, Mr. Chairman, to remind them of the history here.

What we're talking about is just 6 short years ago President Clinton left office with a budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, and a lot of us at that time were talking about how we were going to invest in education and health care and the important things that our country needs and that make our country stronger.

And in 6 short years, 6 short years, our Republican friends have driven this country into a deficit situation. We're

talking projected now on a 10-year basis $3 trillion or more in deficit.

So I don't see how our friends on the other side of the aisle can claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. I don't see how they can claim in any way that they have left the country in better shape. I don't see how they can claim that they're fighting spending. I mean, this was, under them, borrow and spend, borrow and spend. That was the message. And what we're trying to do here in this particular piece of legislation is get under control a situation where we invest again in the things that the American people really care about: invest in education, investing in our workers so that we can have a competitive workforce, investing in Pell Grants to help students get the very best education.

Madam Chairman, we have an interesting contrast here. We have these self-described fringe legislators that are here on the floor speaking up. You might call them extremists or radicals, whatever.

But we also, in comparison to that, we have an incredible bipartisan process that has been going on this. This subcommittee met for many, many hours, the Labor-H Subcommittee chaired by our wonderful chairman, Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Walsh, met for many hours and came up with a bipartisan bill.

Then that bill was presented to 66 Members of this House in a full appropriations hearing, and it was approved. Not a single Member of the 66 Members voted against that bill. They all approved it, sent it on to the floor. You have this marvelous work product that Members have put many, many hours into, and they have labored over. They were all laboring over education, health care, worker protection. That is really the thrust of what we are doing here today.

I rise to associate myself with the comments of Chairman Obey and Mr. Loebsack of Iowa.

The American workers who fell ill during service to our country must be justly compensated in a reasonable period of time. As you have said, these men and women are American heroes. They really made a difference for our country.

I have been an outspoken critic, both in the Appropriations Subcommittee and in my district, of EEOICPA's lack of removing the bureaucratic hurdles faced by claimants. I thank my two colleagues and join them in requesting the Department of Labor to provide this information.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush said last week al Qaeda in Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is there was no al Qaeda in Iraq on 9/11. In fact, we helped create al Qaeda in Iraq by our invasion. And what we are going to learn today from our intelligence service report is 4 years in Iraq has made al Qaeda stronger around the world.

So let's get our facts straight in this war and focus on the real threat in a smart and intelligent way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1904, the New Mexico Water Planning Assistance Act. I would like to thank my colleague from New Mexico for her work on this legislation and on the issue. It is an extremely important issue to us in New Mexico, and throughout the Southwest.

Like other states in the arid west, New Mexico suffers from water scarcity. Drought often impacts municipal water supply, agricultural water supply, and increases volatility in high fire-risk areas. Economies and ecologies alike are threatened when scarce water resources are not properly managed. Ensuring careful management of this precious resource is a top priority in communities throughout New Mexico. This bill would allow New Mexico communities to unite under statewide water plans, formulated from comprehensive statewide research and quantification of water resources.

Through grants and technical assistance from the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey, this bill authorizes funding for resource mapping and studies assessing the quality and quantity of both surface and groundwater throughout the state. The bill further allocates funds to develop models for several of the state's rivers, many of which are threatened by overuse and excessive impoundment. This year, the Rio Grande was included in the World Wildlife Fund's list of the

world's top 10 most threatened rivers, and the Santa Fe River was listed as the Nation's Most Endangered River this year by American Rivers. Research and conservation along these rivers will positively impact New Mexicans and the greater southwest region.

This bill will provide New Mexico with information and resources that will enable the state to sustainably manage and conserve its precious water resources. By facilitating comprehensive surface and groundwater studies, this bill will allow New Mexicans to make sound decisions on water resource management that will impact the entire southwestern United States.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important step towards sustainable water management in New Mexico and the Southwest. A comprehensive approach to hydrologic resource management is necessary to confront the challenges of New Mexico's growing communities and precarious fluctuations in climate. This bill provides New Mexico with the tools needed to meet these challenges in a sustainable manner, and I urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, many of us recognize that one of the great challenges facing our nation today is combating global warming by reducing the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for the rapidly rising temperatures on our planet. What many may not realize, however, is that the largest source of emissions and energy consumption both in this country and around the world is buildings. Given this fact, any attempt to stem the tide of growing greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency must include the building sector. The federal government has an important role to play on this count, and must provide leadership to the rest of the country and world. To that end, I rise to introduce today the Energy Efficient Buildings Promotion Act of 2007.

This legislation takes up ``The 2030 Challenge,'' issued by Ed Mazria of the organization Architecture 2030, who, I am proud to say, is one of my constituents and who was also instrumental in developing this legislation. The 2030 Challenge calls on the global architecture and building community to adopt targets to ensure that all new buildings, new developments and existing buildings undergoing major renovations, achieve carbon neutrality, or use no fossil fuel greenhouse gas emitting energy to operate, by 2030.

Organizations, architects, local governments, and individuals wanting to do their part have all taken up this challenge. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has adopted it for all buildings in all cities. It is time for the federal government to do so as well. In the United States, the building sector accounts for approximately 48 percent of all annual energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Several states have implemented building standards for state government buildings, but the federal government needs to lead the rest of the nation by example, to encourage reduced fossil-fuel energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the ``built'' environment.

My legislation ensures that the federal government answers Architecture 2030's call by establishing an energy performance standard for new federal or federally supported buildings. For new federal buildings and federal buildings undergoing major renovations, they must meet the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) silver level standards, or an equivalent standard approved by EPA. They must achieve at least a 60 percent reduction compared to the regional average energy consumption for that building type, and they must be built in a manner that will allow for declining fossil fuel energy consumption in amounts of 70 percent by 2011, 80 percent by 2015, 90 percent by 2020, and 100 percent by 2025.

In addition, my legislation establishes similar standards for new buildings and buildings undergoing major renovations that were built with at least 10 percent of federal funds. These buildings or renovations must be designed to achieve at least a 50 percent reduction compared to regional average energy consumption for that building type. Also, they must be built in a manner that will allow for declining fossil fuel energy consumption in amounts of 60 percent by 2011, 70 percent by 2015, 80 percent by 2020, 90 percent by 2025, and 100 percent by 2030.

Madam Speaker, I believe these two new standards and the improved energy efficiency that will result will be a strong marker of Federal leadership towards more environmentally friendly buildings.

It is not enough by itself, however. Another avenue for Federal leadership is the U.S. tax code. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 recognized this and established several very important tax credits and deductions to promote energy efficient construction and improvements to homes and commercial buildings. Many of these tax provisions are not only scheduled to expire in 2008, but in the estimation of many, were also set at amounts too low to spark the level of construction and efficiency improvements needed.

To that end, this legislation extends to 2013 and increases the Nonbusiness Energy Property Tax Credit from $500 to $1,000, it extends to 2013 and increases the New Energy Efficient Homes Tax Deduction from $2,000 to $4,500 per unit, and extends to 2013 and increases the Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Tax Deduction from $1.80 to $2.75 per square foot.

Madam Speaker, we must take steps to address the greenhouse gas emissions and energy inefficiencies in the building sector. The Federal Government has a unique opportunity to provide the leadership for the rest of the country and even the world in promoting greener building. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and help begin stemming the tide of a significant portion of the greenhouse gas emissions contributing to the problem of global warming.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think people should understand that the views that are being enunciated here are not the views of the bipartisan appropriations subcommittee that I serve on. Mr. Tiahrt and Mr. Dicks have worked very hard to produce a bill that I think is an excellent product. It really answers the question these gentlemen have raised earlier: What is this bill about? Because what they are talking about cutting, folks, is cutting to the heart of what the American people love.

Let's talk a little bit about that. They want to talk about 1 percent, 4 percent and all of that. But they don't want to talk about what they are really cutting.

Now, the National Wildlife Refuges, the American people love. This administration is talking about closing down 200 National Wildlife Refuges because we don't have any personnel in them. So you want to continue that. The speakers here today want to continue

those cuts and close down National Wildlife Refuges.

If you ask the American people, do they love their American parks and do they want rangers to be there to service them? The American people are going to say, yes, of course, they do. Well, these gentlemen want to cut them. That is what is going on here. They want to cut the parks and cut park personnel. There is a huge backlog in the parks. They don't want to do anything about it. They want to cut further.

The other part of this bill which is very, very important, is we are always hearing about local communities needing water and sewer. Your side always talks about mandates. Well, this bill is about giving local communities water and sewer grants through the EPA so that they can clean up so that cities don't have to be polluters.

So, we ought to get a little question in reality here when it comes to the fringe element that is coming out here, not the bipartisan subcommittee that put this together.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I would say that on behalf of the majority, we would accept the gentlewoman's amendment and would be willing to work with her closely on it.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is agreed to.

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

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, the chairman and ranking member look forward to working with the gentlewoman on this very important issue.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Payday Loan Reform Act of 2007. I want to thank original cosponsors Luis Gutierrez, Keith Ellison, and Janice Schakowsky for their support on this issue.

Payday loans are short-term cash loans based on the borrower's personal check held for future deposit or electronic access to the borrower's bank account. These loans range in size from $100 to $1,000 and average about 2 weeks in length. Finance charges can range from $15 to $30 for a $100 loan and the average annual percentage rate on payday loans ranges from 390 to 780 percent for a 2-week loan. Let me repeat that: the average annual percentage rate on payday loans ranges from 390 to 780 percent.

It is well known that payday lending is rapidly expanding. In fact, at the end of 2006, the Center for Responsible Lending reported that the approximately 25,000 payday loan outlets in the country had an annual loan volume of at least $28 billion. These lenders charged over $4 billion in loan fees to consumers.

All someone needs to get a payday loan is an open bank account in fairly good standing, a steady source of income, and a form of identification. Full credit checks, or even questions asked to establish if a person can afford to repay the loan, are rarely conducted. I believe lending that fails to assess a borrower's ability to repay, that requires consumers to write checks on insufficient funds, and that encourages perpetual debt is unacceptable.

As such, we are introducing this bill today, which addresses important aspects of payday lending. First, it addresses ``rent-a- banks,'' which are banks that partner with payday lenders to make single-payment and installment loans. These arrangements are designed to allow payday lenders to evade small loan laws in their respective states. This bill prohibits insured financial institutions from making payday loans, either directly or indirectly. Second, this bill prohibits payday loans based on checks drawn from depository institutions. Basing loans on personal checks that will be deposited to repay the loan on the next payday can be a key to the coercive collection tactics. This bill will prohibit the holding of a check as security for a loan and can help end these practices.

Congress has enacted legislation to address the personal responsibility of lenders and while I believe that individuals must take greater responsibility for their debt, the lending industry must also be held accountable for targeting those individuals who are unable to payoff their debts. Last Congress, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, we included language that provided these important protections to members of the armed forces. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure that these protections are given to all consumers.

Let me also say that our chairman is an incredible tennis player, and I always like to be on the same side of the net with him rather than on the other side.

I would like to first of all congratulate Norm Dicks and Todd Tiahrt for their leadership and their bipartisan cooperation on this bill. We haven't seen this kind of leadership in a long time, I think it's very impressive, and I want to applaud it.

Let me also say that we have done some very significant oversight in this subcommittee of the appropriations. We have tackled a variety of issues. We've had all the Departments in. We've taken a very, very hard look at the kinds of things that are going on in these Departments. We also haven't seen that in a long time. One of the things that Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt have done is restore the public witness day. That's something that's very important and hasn't been around for about 10 years, where every member of the public can walk in and comment and tell us what their point of view is. Much of those points of views that were reflected in the committee are specifically in this bill.

I also want to thank Mr. Stephens and all of the staff. They've done a pretty incredible job. What this bill is about is the stewardship of our natural resources. This is a bipartisan tradition that started many years ago, over 100 years ago with Teddy Roosevelt and the first chief of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot. This was a Republican tradition and started out as a Republican tradition, and we hope that Republicans will join us in a bipartisan way on this bill rather than picking it apart, because this moves the country in a very, very important direction, and this bill also reflects the Nation's values that we haven't seen reflected in the appropriation bill over the last 6 years.

Let's just look at what's happened over the last 6 years. The Forest Service is down, 35 percent. This bill isn't able to restore all of that, but we start working back up. The EPA, a cut of 29 percent.

There we're talking about law enforcement and doing things about cleaning up air and water and toxics, an unconscionable cut in the EPA of 29 percent. This bill moves it back in the right direction to restore those enforcement capabilities, and a cut in the Interior Department of 16 percent over the last 6 years.

This bill once again starts to move us back in the right direction. This bill is about protecting public lands, protecting wildlife, recreation, and clean air and clean water.

One of the other things that I think this bill does that is very important is fund the National Park Service. I urge all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to support this bill. It's a good bill, and they have done a great job at pulling it together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation to rename the VA Medical Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico after Raymond ``Jerry'' Murphy. I believe this naming will go far to honor a veteran who gave so much of his personal life and professional career to this Nation.

After serving as a Marine Corps captain in Korea and earning the Congressional Medal of Honor, Mr. Murphy spent over 20 years as the VA Director of Veterans Services at the very VA medical center this legislation would rename after him. He was a tireless advocate for veterans and helped thousands of veterans and their families over the decades.

While the entire delegation has risen in strong support of this legislation, it should be noted that both New Mexico's veterans' service organizations and John Garcia, the Secretary of Veterans Services in New Mexico and a veteran himself, initiated this renaming, bringing the service of Mr. Murphy to our attention and suggesting the legislation.

Both Senator Domenici and Representative Wilson are to be commended for introducing this legislation, and Senator Domenici for getting it out of the Senate and getting it over here to the House so that we could act upon it.

Additionally, I would like to thank Chairman Filner for his leadership on this legislation and his leadership on all veterans issues.

Unfortunately, Mr. Murphy fell ill with cancer and passed away before this honor could be bestowed upon him. However, this naming will ensure that future generations of New Mexicans will learn of the selfless work of Mr. Murphy, and hopefully many more will emulate him in devoting their lives to public service.

Mr. Murphy personified duty, and I'm pleased that this legislation will be passing the House today.

Mr. Chairman, on Wednesday, this body debated the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for the upcoming fiscal year. During debate, I offered an amendment which would have added $192 million for the purpose of supporting and diversifying the core mission of our Nation's laboratories. Although my amendment did not pass, I remain strongly committed to the idea that a diversification of the mission of our labs is essential and must take place now if we are going to continue to face--and solve--the major national security challenges of the future.

The debate of the amendment brought up several misconceptions and misunderstandings, and I want to take this time to reiterate the purpose and substance of the amendment.

First, some said that my amendment would increase ``funding for new nuclear weapon development.'' This is simply not true. My amendment would return spending approximately to current levels--thereby not providing for the funding of new weapons. As I stated in my previous remarks, my amendment would target funding for three programs, all of which support securing and maintaining our Nation's existing weapons and the core mission of the laboratory. In fact, two of the three programs--the Road Runner Supercomputer and the Science Campaign--help ensure our current weapons supply remains safe, reliable and accurate through computer simulations of weapons in the place of real weapons testing. In the past, I have expressed great concern with the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, and I continue to believe that numerous important questions regarding this proposal need to be answered before it proceeds. I doubt our need for a new weapon.

Second, some said that my amendment could ``terminate most of the Nation's nonproliferation programs'' and that opposing the amendment would ``stop terrorists from acquiring nuclear materials.'' This is also not true. According to the committee report, $75 million of the Office of the NNSA Administrator is set aside for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program. My amendment would have set total funding for the Office of the NNSA Administrator at $215 million, more than enough to continue to fund the nonproliferation program. Further, my amendment did not in any way stipulate that the funding would come from the nonproliferation program. It should be noted that current funding for the Office is $340 million. Clearly the $415 million provided in this bill is a substantial increase for all programs. Even if my amendment had been adopted, the agency still could have completed these important tasks.

Third, some said that my amendment indicated that ``jobs in New Mexico are more important than the overall national management of these sensitive national security programs.'' Certainly representing the constituency needs of the Third Congressional District of New Mexico is my primary concern. And, yes, those who would lose their jobs under this bill--technical, academic and support jobs in which many have spent decades--are worried. But let me be absolutely clear about this: Neither I nor a single member of the Los Alamos community would for a moment rather protect these jobs than protect the safety and defense of our national security programs. The men and women who work at Los Alamos take great pride in their mission and service to our Nation. They understand the unique undertaking of the lab, and it is my honor to represent them.

Mr. Chairman, on Wednesday night I held a telephone town hall with the community of Los Alamos on this issue. During the town hall an informal poll question asked whether people support a diversification of the lab's mission. Eighty-four percent of the respondents--over half of whom were employees at LANL--supported such a diversification.

I do not believe that we must continue with a status quo mission for our national laboratories. Nor do I believe that creating a national security strategy in a policy vacuum without any regard for the needs of the future is the way to proceed. There is an absolute need, and, in fact, a great opportunity, for our national laboratories to diversify their missions and expand the scientific research being conducted in order to meet the challenges we are facing. From energy independence to health care to climate change modeling, we have the capacity for this diversification. I hope that in the coming months and years I will be joined by others who believe in this cause.