Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great concern with the situation still being faced by families devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

As needed relief is finally making its way down to the affected region, our thoughts go out to all the victims and their families. Late last week, this body passed a $10.5 billion aid package that will provide initial funding for immediate and long-term responses. Today, we are passing an additional $51.8 billion. This funding will cover only a sliver of the final financial toll taken on communities throughout the Gulf Coast and what will be needed for families to re- start their lives. Yet this monetary cost pales in comparison to the immense emotional and human cost that continues to grow.

At the end of the day, the United States government is constitutionally obligated to ``insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, [and] promote the general welfare'' for all citizens. Particularly during a time of crisis, it is absolutely necessary that these obligations be fulfilled. In that regard, the federal government has failed. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina last week, thousands of families, stranded, injured, homeless, and without basic necessities of water and food waited and waited and waited for emergency relief. For four days, the President, Congress, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) minimized to themselves and to the public the immensity of what was occurring. The very institutions established to serve and protect the American people instead watched and waited as the tragedy grew.

The response of the government to the needs of these communities was demonstrably and woefully inadequate. I am pleased that an investigation has been launched to discover why the government agencies entrusted with providing emergency aid failed to respond in any meaningful way to the grave situation. Ultimately, we must determine what changes need to be made in order to ensure that future relief efforts are not hindered by incompetent management or bureaucratic obstructions, as they were last week. However, we will only find true accountability with a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate what went wrong.

Natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina can never be prevented, no matter how well prepared we may be. However, shifting natural conditions on the planet indicate that we may soon be seeing an increase in such events. In early August 2005, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) released a report stating that environmental conditions guaranteed an increase in destructive and powerful hurricanes along the Gulf Coast. Already this year we have seen an increase in hurricanes along the Gulf Coast. Such a warning has been voiced for some time, and we are now seeing the results if we continue to ignore such information. Additionally, the New Orleans Times-Picayune predicted this very disaster as recently as 2002. President Bush's assertion that ``no one could have predicted'' this disaster is clearly, and tragically, wrong.

Through the generosity of millions of Americans, those families affected by the hurricane are receiving some of the help they need, and I have absolutely no doubt that they will prevail in rebuilding their lives and their community. We must pledge to do all we can to help.

As we proceed with the long-term solutions, we need to make sure we do the right thing here in Congress. It is our job to make choices and these choices reflect our priorities. I hope the majority will acknowledge that many of the choices made in recent years were ill- advised. Together, we need to put the financial resources to work to improve the lives of survivors. It is not the time for business-as- usual, cut-taxes-at-all-costs, short-change-the-working-poor proposals we have come to expect from the majority. We can do better, and we must.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today In opposition to H.R. 3045, and In opposition to the unfair trade policies and burdensome costs to Americans that this agreement represents.

The Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, which binds together the trade policy and economic future of the U.S., Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, was negotiated over an 18-month period. As globalization takes hold in the world and our Nation becomes further integrated economically with others, it is vital that we only enter into a trade agreement that will protect U.S. workers, consumers, and businesses, and that economic development, the proliferation of democracy, environmental protection and, most importantly, the rule of law is honored in the agreement.

Unfortunately, CAFTA does not meet these standards, and instead, includes provisions that will cause considerable distress and harm to U.S. workers and businesses. It lacks a sincere commitment to protecting American jobs. It lacks strong environmental protection provisions. It lacks strong public health provisions. It lacks worker protection provisions. It lacks consumer protection. One of the most egregious portions of CAFTA would allow drug patents to be extended beyond normal limits, thus denying CAFTA nations the opportunity to introduce and offer generic drugs to its citizens, the majority of whom are poor and cannot afford the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Perhaps most importantly, CAFTA lacks that comprehensive policy that should be an overarching feature of any multinational trade agreement--the ability to proactively engage and integrate the domestic business and labor policies of each nation to ensure that each realizes new, improved standards of living, economic standing, and commitments to democracy.

I will vote against CAFTA because I do not believe it will achieve these goals. And I am not alone. In my state of New Mexico, numerous labor and business organizations have voiced opposition to this trade agreement. Since the President signed CAFTA nearly 1 year ago, my constituents have continuously expressed to me their concerns of what CAFTA will mean for them and their families. And they continue, in greater and greater volume, to voice those concerns to me as we have begun debate on H.R. 3045 here in the House.

U.S. trade policy must be fair trade policy, and CAFTA is not. I believe we have squandered an opportunity to enact positive trade policy, and I believe enacting CAFTA will cost our American businesses and families. I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 70th anniversary of the construction of Conchas Dam, near Tucumcari in my home State of New Mexico. Built during the Depression under the Emergency Relief Act of 1935, the Conchas Dam project created jobs for thousands of New Mexicans and resulted in a structure that controls flooding, conserves water and provides irrigation to nearby farmlands. On July 29 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will host an anniversary celebration and dedicate a plaque to the WPA workers who built the dam.

Located on the confluence of the Canadian and Conchas rivers, the dam is 230 feet high, 6,230 feet long and contains 836,000 cubic yards of concrete and 887,000 cubic yards of earth. Reservoir capacity is nearly 529,000 acre feet of water which covers almost 26 square miles and provides irrigation to some 42,000 acres of otherwise arid farmland. Water from Conchas Lake allows farmers to grow alfalfa hay, grain sorghum, cotton and broom corn, much of which is used to feed area livestock.

Construction on Conchas Dam started in 1935 when unemployment in New Mexico was as high as 50 percent due to the Depression. The Emergency Relief Act dictated that 90 percent of the workers must come from the relief pool so thousands of New Mexicans found employment building the dam. Workers and their families lived in tent cities near the site. After completion of the dam in 1940, many of them stayed in the community of Conchas which was a tremendous boost for the local economy.

Conchas Dam created the fourth-largest lake in New Mexico and one of the most popular water recreation sites in the state today. Conchas Lake features 60 miles of beautiful shoreline dotted with numerous coves, canyons and beaches. Tourists and locals alike enjoy fishing and boating on the reservoir and picnicking in the shadow of Conchas Dam.

Mr. Speaker, Conchas Dam is a testament to the achievements of the Works Progress Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a monument to the laborers who built it. The construction of Conchas Dam was a tremendous economic boost to New Mexico in the 30s and its value to the State today is nearly inestimable.

The 70th anniversary of the construction of Conchas Dam coincides with its inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places; a fitting time to reflect on the past and look to the future with the determination and fortitude of those men who built this great dam that we honor today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the energy bill conference report, but I do so with very strong reservations. Although I believe we missed many opportunities to make this energy bill truly comprehensive, I also believe that the conference report is an improvement over the House-passed energy bill.

It is a sad indictment of the way the Majority is running this Congress that it has taken us 5 years to pass an energy bill and the final product falls far short of what I believe the American public wants. I will vote for this conference report, but this bill lacks boldness and vision. There is more we can and must do to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower skyrocketing gas prices, protect our environment, and steer our country in a more forward-thinking direction on energy policy. I am pleased, however, that the bill makes strides in encouraging alternative energy research and production. Specifically, $3.2 billion is included for renewable energy production incentives and $1.3 billion is allotted for energy efficiency and conservation.

I was disappointed to see that a Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS, was not included in the bill. The Senate-passed bill included an RPS that would have required utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, by the year 2020. Studies conducted by the Energy Information Administration illustrate that a federal RPS could save consumers $19 billion. Moreover, 20 States have already enacted RPS requirement, many of which go beyond the Senate-passed provision. A federal RPS would have established a nationwide market-based trading system to ensure that renewables are developed at the lowest possible price. I strongly supported this provision, and over 70 of my colleagues signed onto a letter with me to conferees urging them to keep the RPS in the bill. The Senate conferees voted in a bipartisan manner to keep the RPS in the bill, but the House conferees stripped the provision. I hope that my colleagues will work with me in the future to support H.R. 983, a bill with bipartisan support that I introduced to create a federal RPS of 20 percent by 2027. The time for a federal RPS has come.

We also missed an opportunity to address the serious problem of global warming. I believe that the amendment Senator Bingaman offered, and that passed, expressing the sense of the Senate that mandatory action on climate change should be enacted was an important step towards congressional action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While I am disappointed that we could not do more, and that this sense of the Senate amendment was stripped from the conference report, I am pleased that the conference report includes a provision to establish a new cabinet-level advisory committee, charged with developing a national policy to address climate change and to promote technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the provision allows the Energy Department to authorize demonstration projects designed to test technologies that limit harmful emissions. The long-term solution to solving the global warming problem lies in the creation of new technologies and the Federal Government has a key role to play in promoting technological innovations. I believe we should have done more, something along the lines of the recommendations made recently by the National Commission on Energy Policy, but it is critical that we do something, and this climate change provision is the least we can do to begin the process of slowing global warming.

I am very pleased that a provision included in the House-passed bill, giving $30 million to uranium mining companies, was stripped from the bill. If enacted, this provision would have posed a grave threat to the water resources of two Navajo communities in northwestern New Mexico where four uranium in-situ leach mines have been granted conditional licenses by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The proposed ISL mining--which could still happen

even without the $30 million subsidy--would leach uranium from an aquifer that provides high-quality groundwater to municipal wells in and near these communities--an aquifer that is the sole source of drinking water for an estimated 15,000 Navajos. I thank the conferees for heeding the wishes of over 200 members of the House--as well as the Navajo Nation Council--to strip this provision from the bill.

The liability waiver for oil companies who used methyl tertiary-butyl ether, MTBE, which has contaminated 1,861 water systems serving 45 million Americans in 29 States, including New Mexico, was also changed in the final bill. I strongly opposed that provision, which would have placed the coffers of oil companies ahead of Americans whose lives have been adversely affected by this negligence.

Finally, one of my great concerns with the House-passed bill was a provision allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I am glad this provision was stripped in conference, and I will continue to oppose efforts by the oil industry to drill in ANWR. I have witnessed first-hand the tremendously diverse wildlife that will be hurt if drilling occurs in the area. The small benefits are simply not worth the cost.

I would like to commend my home State Senators--Domenici and Bingaman--who worked together in a very bipartisan manner to write this bill. I know it was a difficult task. I look forward to working with them and with their counterparts here in the House, to continue work on energy policy issues such as global warming, fuel efficiency standards, and further reducing our energy dependence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the kickoff of centennial festivities in the town of Melrose, New Mexico. The annual Old Timer's Festival on August 11th marks the beginning of an entire year devoted to celebrating the founding of this high-plains hamlet. In Melrose, the past will be commingled with the future as young and old stand together in tribute to one hundred years of perseverance and determination.

The town was originally called BrownHorn, after two local cattle ranchers. The Santa Fe Railway earmarked the area for its division switching point and requested that the name be changed to Melrose, purportedly after a town in Ohio. Soon after construction had started, the Melrose location was abandoned and the division switch was moved to a larger town nearby.

J.L. Downing, an early settler in the area, has been called the father of Melrose by some and is given much credit for the survival of this rural village. Downing is noted for encouraging early settlers by offering free water to residents until they could dig wells of their own; a feat of generosity that remains unrivalled to this date. The settlers stayed and the town continued despite the many challenges faced by early settlers.

Widespread availability of water led to agriculture which became a mainstay for Melrose residents who were now able to irrigate the arid land and produce life-sustaining crops. Once known as the broom-corn capital of New Mexico, Melrose stayed alive as enterprising folks opened businesses to service the area. The struggle for survival was exacerbated by severe winters, drought and fire but hard work and dedication prevailed as Melrose residents toughed it out and stayed.

In 1914, Melrose was reported to have had an Opera House, several businesses, a legendary girls' basketball team and a growing population. Some years later, however, WWI and the flu epidemic greatly depleted the town's population. Once again, residents of Melrose plowed through the hard times and in the 1930's organized a Chamber of Commerce for the betterment of the town and its people. In the WWII era, the population swelled to over 1500 from just a few hundred in 1940.

Today, the town encompasses 1.72 miles and averages 750 residents from all walks of life who engage in many career activities although ranching and farming remain at the heart of the Melrose economy. Located just 21 miles west of Cannon Air Force Base, the Melrose Bombing Range has been an integral part of testing and training operations. Many citizens of Melrose are employed by Cannon Air Force Base and local businesses benefit economically from it as well.

Melrose is also the birthplace of William Hanna, one-half of the legendary Hanna-Barbera, whose credits include cartoons such as, ``Tom and Jerry, Yogi Bear and Huckleberry Hound.'' And the largest collection of Depression-era art in New Mexico can be viewed at the Melrose library.

Mr. Speaker, I salute the citizens of Melrose, New Mexico, as they reflect on the past and look toward the future of this unique rural community. The town of Melrose has endured despite many challenges and setbacks over the year through the determination and of residents through the ages. In the coming year, townspeople will pay tribute to one hundred years on the high plains of New Mexico and honor their forefathers whose actions by many accounts, led to the successful town we see today.

It is places such as Melrose that shaped this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community deserves our recognition.

Melrose has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out today on the leadership's abuse of power on the PATRIOT Act. We bring the PATRIOT Act to the floor today under a closed process. Many amendments, good solid bipartisan amendments, were denied. I offered two amendments with broad support. They were denied.

The first created a strengthened civil liberties board called for by the 9/11 Commission. This board would protect our constitutional freedoms. The second, the Right to Read Act, would protect library patrons from arbitrary searches. It would bring the judiciary into the equation to protect our freedoms.

I believe that we can bring terrorists to justice and still protect our constitutional freedoms, but we will not do it under this process today. This process of not allowing debate on an amendment is deeply flawed. It runs roughshod over our rights. The leadership should be ashamed.

Mr. Chairman, almost four years ago, our country was traumatized by the vicious attacks on September 11, 2001. We will never forget that day or the days immediately following the attacks, and once it became clear who was behind the attacks and what their motives were, we realized that we were facing a threat unlike any other. In the years since, we have seen these senseless attacks continue on our allies across the world. As a former state attorney general, I fully understand the need to balance the security of our nation and the liberties of our citizens. The gravity of the situation is not lost on me, or any of my colleagues in this chamber.

On October 24, 2001, a justified sense of urgency resulted in an unjustifiably rushed vote on the PATRIOT Act. Many members had outstanding questions about the bill, which the Rules Committee put in place of another bill that had been passed by the Judiciary Committee. In the years since that bill passed, over 374 cities, towns, and counties in 43 states have passed resolutions expressing concern about the PATRIOT Act or an extension of it. In New Mexico alone, ten cities and four counties have passed resolutions. I have received over 3,000 letters and emails from constituents on this issue, and I have met with hundreds of constituents in my district to discuss the PATRIOT Act in town hall meetings. I have found that Americans of all stripes share my concerns about the Act.

The long awaited House floor debate of this bill has arrived. Many of my colleagues and I are eager to make some commonsense changes to this law, and to bring to light our concerns. Unfortunately, the bill before us today is just more of the same. It gives blanket reauthorization to the bill with only very minor improvements. All but two of the expiring provisions are made permanent, and 10-year sunsets are applied to Sections 206 and 215, the roving wiretaps provision and the ``library provision,'' respectively. All amendments brought to the Rules Committee that would have shortened the sunset period, so that Congress could continue to conduct important oversight and review of this legislation, were not allowed a vote on the floor.

I brought two amendments to the Rules Committee, both of which were rejected. The first, sponsored by Representative Bernie Sanders, would have reined in what is probably the most notorious provision in this bill--Section 215. This section grants law enforcement authorities unprecedented powers to search, or order the search of, library and bookstore records without probable cause or the need for search warrants. Because these surveillance powers were cast so broadly and the law prohibits them from revealing to the subject that an investigation is occurring, librarians, storeowners and operators are left in an impossible position. Just one month ago, this House passed an amendment to the FY06 Science-State-Justice-Commerce bill denying funding for this section. Why, then, does the majority insist on giving this section a blanket renewal for 10 years? Librarians and library and bookstore patrons in my district will have a difficult time understanding why their concerns have not been heard by the House leadership. Moreover, in July 2003, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a case against the Department of Justice over Section 215 in a Federal District Court in Detroit, Michigan. Despite promises by the judge that she would issue a prompt ruling, the ruling is still pending two years later. I am very concerned that this ruling has not yet been issued.

I also brought to the Rules Committee, along with Representative Carolyn Maloney and Representative Chris Shays, an amendment that would strengthen the Privacy and

Civil Liberties Board created in last year's intelligence reform bill. Unfortunately, in its current form, the Board does not have the tools to adequately do its job. My amendment would have changed the Civil Liberties Board to be an independent agency within the Executive Branch, have true subpoena power, make full and frequent reports to Congress, have access to information through privacy and civil liberties officers, and have fair composition. It is our responsibility to ensure that the Executive Branch has checks and balances, and I am disappointed that this amendment was not allowed a vote today.

I must also express my grave concern about a section of the bill that was not given a sunset, and thus has not been given the debate that I believe it deserves. Section 213, known as the ``sneak and peek'' provision, allows federal agents to search homes and businesses without giving notice for months. Changes to this section should have been included in the bill before us.

Mr. Chairman, I will vote against this bill today not because I oppose the PATRIOT Act in its entirety, but because I do not believe this bill represents the will of the people or their representatives. I think that if we were allowed a vote on an amendment to Section 215, for example, a majority of members would probably support it. And I think many members here would feel more comfortable attaching four-year sunsets to the expiring provisions than permanently reauthorizing them. But we will not be given that chance today.

In their final report, the 9/11 Commissioners brilliantly stated, ``The choice between security and liberty is a false choice,'' and that ``if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.'' We must continue to encourage debate on this law, the events leading up to its passage, and the long-term implications. Because the bill before us today does not reflect this need, I will oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Corporal Lyle Cambridge.

Lyle lived a life rich in the traditions of his family and Navajo Culture. Unfortunately his life was cut short last Tuesday, July 5th, when he was killed while on patrol in Baghdad at the age of 25. This was his second tour of duty in Iraq.

Lyle, a graduate of Aztec High School, joined the United States Army in May 2002. He followed on the same military path as his brother Vernon, who has been in the Army for 12 years, and his father Joe, a veteran of Desert Storm.

Surviving Lyle are his parents, Virginia and Joe Cambridge Sr., his wife Evonne, his two sons, 3-year-old Wyatt and 1-year-old Nick, and many siblings.

After learning of Lyle's fate, they and other members of the Navajo community gathered to remember him and pray. Through their heartache, they recalled Lyle's generous spirit and fun-loving personality.

Today and always, we also recognize the spirit, strength and sacrifice of Corporal Lyle Cambridge.

Our heartfelt condolences and prayers are with Lyle's family and friends during this time of great loss. We salute him for his courage and bravery.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay homage to John ``Bouncer'' Sena who passed away on June 26, 2005 at the age of 77. A mentor, friend and family man, he leaves behind relatives who loved him, friends who admired him, students who respected him and a city that mourns him.

At age eleven, John was told that he looked like a ``bouncer'' and the nickname stuck with him the rest of his life. As a sophomore, Bouncer Sena was a tackle on the Santa Fe

High School football team that won the state championship in 1943. He graduated from the College of Santa Fe in 1951 with a degree in business administration but devoted his life to education.

Married to Bernadette Ortiz in 1958, Bouncer Sena was the father of one son and three daughters who gave him six grandchildren. Bouncer was a family man, proud of his Spanish heritage. He loved the annual traditions of Fiesta de Santa Fe and the Procession.

Bouncer Sena was the vice principal for 25 of the 33 years he was employed by Santa Fe High School. During his years at the school he coached the sophomore basketball team and is also credited with creating the Career Day program. He was well-liked and respected by the students, their parents and his co-workers at the school.

Political aspirations led Bouncer Sena to seek and win two terms on the Santa Fe County Commission. While serving on the Commission, he was instrumental in the creation of the Santa Fe Water Board. He was named Chairman of the Santa Fe County Commission in 1978.

Mr. Speaker, in 1990, Bouncer Sena was named a ``Living Treasure of Santa Fe,'' undoubtedly for his dedication and good works in the community. Many people were touched by his kindness over the years. Bouncer Sena was truly a unique individual who will be greatly missed but never forgotten.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state for the record, that although I will not be able to vote on final passage of H.R. 3010, I oppose this bill. As many of you are well aware because of actions recommended in your own districts, the BRAC Commission is in the process of holding regional hearings throughout the country. They are holding a hearing on closure of Cannon Air Force Base, located in my district, tomorrow, Friday June 24th, and I will be in attendance with the entire New Mexico delegation to show our support for keeping Cannon open.

With that said Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the difficult constraints under which Mr. Regula and Mr. Obey had to work in crafting this important spending bill, and I certainly commend them for the work. Unfortunately, because this appropriations bill implements the budget resolution that I opposed, but that Congress passed, it does not give enough funding for many important services of the Federal Government. Services that have real implications for real people throughout New Mexico and the Nation.

As Mr. Obey pointed out in his opening remarks, last year's Labor/H bill funded the programs at $3.5 billion above the previous year. This year, however, on a program-to-program basis, the bill cuts $1.6 billion. Programs such as the Community Access Program, which received $83 million last year, are devastated in this year's bill. The Community Access Program has been utilized by several organizations in New Mexico to provide better integrated systems of care for uninsured and underinsured, but receives no funding under H.R. 3010.

Also, H.R. 3010 cuts funding for rural health care and emergency medical services by $44 million, or 41 percent. That does not take into account the cuts to the Health Professions Training Program, which is also an important program for rural and underserved areas in New Mexico. The Health Professions program encourages new medical and dental school graduates to choose primary care specialties and to practice in rural and urban under-served areas. H.R. 3010 cuts funding for this program by $252 million, or by 84 percent.

Another program that I believe is of great importance is the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant. Earlier this year I sent a letter, joined by 70 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, urging the appropriations committee to provide funding for this program. The President unfortunately requested zero funding for it in his budget request, so I am pleased that the Chairman and Ranking Member included $100 million in H.R. 3010. I do hope, however, that the Senate will provide a greater level of funding that will be ultimately retained in the conference report.

I also would like to highlight, as many others have done today, the $100 million cut to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This figure represents a 25 percent cut over FY05 levels for CPB, and I hope that Mr. Obey's amendment to restore this funding passes. Again, though I will not be able to vote on this amendment, I strongly support its passage.

I also support the amendment that will be offered by Mr. Miller to deny funds in H.R. 3010 for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The PBGC just today published official notice in the Washington Post that it would be terminating the pension plan of United Airlines Flight Attendants next week. This termination--and the terminations of the rest of the United Airlines pension plans for pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, public contact employees and others--is unfair. It is the result of a backroom deal struck between the PBGC and United Airlines to terminate the company's pension plans and dump the liabilities onto the PBGC. The PBGC should not be allowed to go forward with this plan, and the Miller amendment will ensure that it does not.

Mr. Chairman, I have just highlighted a few of the issues important to my constituents and me. I did not touch on the key education programs that are shortchanged under H.R. 3010, nor did I address the worker training, labor, and human services programs that are shortchanged under this legislation. The list is too lengthy for me to do so. What it does all add up to, however, is a bill that does not represent the values of me, or my constituents. And for that reason, were I to be here tomorrow, I would vote ``no'' on final passage of

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for graciously accepting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple and straightforward way of ensuring that our privacy rights and civil liberties are adequately protected.

We all should applaud the creation of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board in the Intelligence Reform bill. Recognizing that many of their recommendations called for increased government powers, the 9/11 Commissioners unanimously expressed the need for a viable Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to strike the right balance. They said that the choice between security and liberty is a false choice. They are right.

I was pleased that, after calling on President Bush last Spring to put forth his nominations and appointments for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, he did so on June 10th. The sooner we can get the Board up and running, the better.

If we want to take this Board seriously the current level of funding is clearly inadequate; $750,000 is simply not enough for a Board charged with monitoring privacy and civil liberties implications of Federal regulations, executive branch policies and procedures, and public law. 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste agrees, saying that the current amount is ``plainly inadequate to carry out the robust oversight function the 9/11 Commission deemed critical to ensuring that enhanced governmental powers to combat terrorism are not misused.''

The Maloney/Shays/Udall amendment increases the amount reserved for the Board to $3 million--the same amount that was initially given to the 9/11 Commission. And the level of funding in the bill for the Executive Office of the President will remain the same.

To be clear, a vote on this amendment is not a question of the Board's activities--which were laid out in the Intelligence Reform law. It is simply of an issue of giving the Board the funding they need to do the job it was created to do.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the Global Environment Facility. The Global Environment Facility, GEF, is the primary financing mechanism for addressing global threats to the environment. After only a little more than a decade, the GEF has already established an outstanding record for cost-effective assistance to developing countries struggling with critical issues such as land-degradation, toxic pollution, energy efficiency, the elimination of ozone depleting chemicals, and the difficult task of facilitating sustainable development.

The GEF puts money into countries whose stability matters to us, and our participation in the GEF builds partnerships and a sense of cooperation with other donors in tackling global environmental issues. In addition to furthering U.S. interests, the GEF deserves support for the simple reason that it works. In the Middle East, for example, the GEF is crossing borders, bringing countries together to protect vital water and wetland resources.

U.S. leadership has played an important role in the GEF both as its leading donor and as a powerful voice for reform. Largely because of the United States, the GEF is now more effective, transparent and accountable than ever before. The institution has already met most of the reform criteria we have put forward, and the governing Council is nearing a compromise on the issue of performance-based allocation. Reaffirming our commitment in the current budget cycle will also send a positive signal for the next phase of GEF operations in which U.S. leadership will remain critical.

Clearly, I appreciate the tough decisions that this subcommittee has had to make with the allocation they were given. But we cannot allow the GEF to fail on our watch. I would like to thank Chairman Kolbe for his consideration in giving the GEF Council the opportunity to adopt pending reforms and, if they do so, in being willing to work to restore funding in conference for the GEF. I would also like to acknowledge the good work of my fellow cochairs of the International Conservation Caucus, Clay Shaw, John Tanner, and especially Mr. Ed Royce, for their good work on this issue.

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

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as the majority has explained, H.R. 481 will further the purposes of the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site by enabling a significant parcel of land to be added to the site.

The Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site was authorized in 2000 to preserve, commemorate and interpret the location of the 1864 massacre of Cheyenne and Arapaho people camped along the banks of the Big Sandy Creek in southeastern Colorado. The effort to establish the historic site has been a cooperative one. The inclusion of the land authorized by H.R. 481 will be a significant step leading to the formal establishment of the site by the Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 481 will help advance the preservation and interpretation of the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site and we support adoption of the legislation by the House today.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the staff of the Resources Committee, both the minority and majority staff, and especially Rick Healy, who worked diligently on this bill.

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

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

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as the majority has explained, H.R. 1084 authorizes the establishment of a Civil War Memorial to New Hampshire soldiers who fought at the Battle of Antietam in 1862.

Evidently, New Hampshire is the only State that participated in the Battle of Antietam that does not have a memorial to its soldiers at the site. The citizens of New Hampshire are proud of their ancestors' participation in the battle and would like to commemorate their participation.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the adoption of H.R. 1084, as amended, by the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the majority and minority staff of the House Resources Committee, and especially Rick Healy of the Resources Committee, for their diligent work on this bill.

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

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

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

As stated by my friend and colleague the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), the overall purpose of this legislation is to reauthorize the appropriations and to make minor technical and clarifying changes to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act.

H.R. 1428 will help ensure that this important congressionally chartered foundation continues its successful work in supporting effective on-ground conservation partnerships, not only in my State of New Mexico, but also across the country.

I urge Members to support this noncontroversial bill, and I thank the majority and minority staff of the Resources Committee, and especially Dave Jansen.

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