Floor Statements

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, the Committee on Resources and the 108th Congress approved legislation identical to H.R. 1046. We have no objection to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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, the House passed similar royalty relief legislation in the 108th Congress. The bill before us contains provisions sponsored by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

We have no objection to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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, we support passage of this measure.

Yesterday, May 15, was National Peace Officers Memorial Day and the first day of National Police Week, which are both intended to commemorate the service and sacrifice of those who keep our communities safe. While this legislation is technical in nature, it is an important way in which Members can show their respect for those honored by this memorial and for those who continue to serve as peace officers.

Mr. Speaker, there are today more than 17,000 names listed on the memorial here in our Nation's capital. Sadly, another 153 names will be added to the list for 2004, brave men and women who died in the line of duty protecting and serving others.

We all had a personal reminder last week of what that selfless service really means when many Capitol Police officers remained behind on the Capitol grounds to evacuate Members, staff, and visitors. Thankfully, that episode proved to be a nonthreatening incident; however, it clearly highlighted the potential dangers the women and men of the Capitol Police are trained and willing to confront.

We would encourage everyone to visit the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and to let law enforcement officers know just how much we appreciate their service as they go about their duties this week.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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, we support passage of H.R. 540 and the amendment to the bill which adds seven new titles. The amendment authorizes several important projects for water recycling, improvements to irrigation efficiency, conservation of groundwater and surface water, and desalination of water.

I particularly want to draw attention to titles VI, VII and VIII of this legislation. These titles incorporate the text of H.R. 386, H.R. 855 and H.R. 863, respectively.

These bills, introduced by the gentlemen from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Ortiz, and Mr. Reyes), my colleagues, will help finance projects to stretch the limited water supplies in their districts. I commend my friends from Texas for their leadership in introducing these bills and for working hard to secure their passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for his leadership on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from El Paso, Texas (Mr. Reyes), and also recognize his crucial leadership on water issues in the border area.

Mr. Speaker, having no additional speakers, 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, I rise today to speak on H.R. 938. The majority has explained the pieces of this package. As the sponsor of the legislation comprising title IV, I would like to focus my remarks on the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, which will be designated in the State of New Mexico.

I introduced this legislation earlier this year. A companion bill in the Senate, introduced by New Mexico's two Senators, currently awaits a vote on the floor of that body. In the 107th Congress, identical language passed the House unanimously. I am obviously pleased that today we, once again, have the opportunity to move closer to making this bill a law so New Mexicans can take additional steps to preserve and learn from our rich history.

The establishment of the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area is a citizen-driven effort to protect the remaining significant resources representative of the Spanish and Pueblo colonial era in north-central New Mexico. The bill identifies the northern New Mexico counties of Rio Arriba, Santa Fe and Taos as a National Heritage Area, an elite designation from Congress reserved for areas regarded as significant resources.

Northern New Mexico boasts many sites of historic and cultural significance. Our State is a blend of Pueblo and Hispanic cultures, making it a very unique and special place in our country. This legislation would identify many of the sites that tell northern New Mexico's story, help preserve them and, in the process, allow them to be more thoroughly enjoyed by New Mexicans and visitors to our State. Preservation would directly lead to economic development of this area through enhanced tourism.

Title IV creates a nonprofit corporation governed by a 25-member board of trustees charged with developing a management plan for the heritage area. The board will be comprised of representatives from the State, affected counties, tribes, cities, and others. The corporation's plan would include recommendations for identifying, conserving and preserving cultural, historical and natural resources within the heritage area, along with strategies to promote tourism of the region's natural and cultural assets.

The city of Espanola, the city of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, Rio Arriba County, Taos County, La Jicarita Enterprise Community, the Chimayo Cultural Preservation Association, and the Eight Northern Pueblos support the Northern Rio Grande Heritage Area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Speaker, having no additional requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to correct an outdated tax law that is forcing a husband and wife of 27 years from my district to live thousands of miles apart during what should be the golden years of their retirement together. In introducing this legislation, however, I seek to not only assist the couple in my district who has brought this inequity to my attention, but also to assist any other families facing the same problem.

Mrs. Novella Wheaton Nied, a U.S. citizen and native Taosena, and Veit Nied, a German citizen, called my attention to this issue early last year. The Nieds have been married almost 30 years and have lived overseas in various countries for the length of their marriage until September 2001. Mr. Nied, an economist, retired in September 2001 from the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium. The couple decided to return to Taos, New Mexico, Novella's home, for their retirement years, but learned upon Veit's approval of permanent resident status in the United States that his pension from the European Commission would be subject to double taxation--the initial tax by the European Commission, and again by the U.S. should he choose to make his residency here.

Double taxation on his pension will create a hardship for the Nieds in their retirement--both financially and emotionally. As a result, Mr. Nied did not accept the permanent resident status and has been traveling back and forth between Germany and the United States, being very cognizant and diligent about following U.S. immigration and taxation laws, and therefore has not stayed longer than 120 days per annum in the United States, which would render him liable for taxes in this country. This unfortunate living situation has been ongoing since 2001 when they learned of the double taxation and have been seeking a solution that would allow them to once again live together.

During this time, the Nieds have corresponded with the IRS seeking a solution to the problem, to no avail. I have consulted with the IRS, as well as with the Congressional Research Service, seeking a solution short of introducing legislation, but it has become clear that only legislation will remedy this problem.

The IRS tax code is outdated and does not recognize such multinational organizations as the EU for purposes of the foreign tax credit. As a result, the Nieds, and most likely other families in the United States, find themselves in this unfortunate predicament. The United States has tax agreements with many countries to prevent double taxation, as well as provisions in the tax code that allow resident aliens who pay taxes to a foreign country to claim the foreign tax credit that reduces their U.S. income taxes. Unfortunately, the EU does not qualify as a foreign country for purposes of the foreign tax credit.

As such, today I am introducing legislation that amends the Internal Revenue Code to treat employment taxes paid to the European Union by employees of the European Union as income taxes paid to a foreign country, for purposes of the foreign tax credit. This bill will allow Mr. Nied, and others in his situation, to qualify for the foreign tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill that brings a section of the tax code up to date with the changes in international political institutions. While it certainly will help Mr. and Mrs. Nied, this legislation will also help other families who face the same situation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and pass it quickly to allow the Nieds, and others, to be permanently reunited so that they may enjoy their years of retirement in the company of their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, May 12th is Chronic Fatigue and Immune Dysfunction Awareness Day.

Chronic Fatigue and Immune Dysfunction Syndrome afflicts more than 800,000 Americans. CFIDS, also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis, is a complex and debilitating medical disorder characterized by profound exhaustion, intense widespread pain, and severe problems with memory and concentration. It usually lasts for years, and many never recover. Because the symptoms of CFS are common to other conditions and no diagnostic test exists, it is often overlooked by health care providers. In fact, government studies show that only 15 percent of those who have CFS have been diagnosed by their doctor. It is even more difficult for CFS patients to get appropriate symptomatic treatment.

The cause of CFS is not yet known. Much of what we do know about CFS has been documented by researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Here are some facts: women age 30-50 are at greatest risk for developing CFS, and Latinos and African Americans are at greater risk for CFS than Caucasians or Asians. Children can get CFS too, although it is more common in teens than younger children. The condition may begin suddenly, as with the flu, or it may build gradually over time. Physical or mental exertion makes symptoms worse.

Individuals with CFS are severely impacted by the disease and, according to CDC studies, their functional status is the same as or worse than those suffering from obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, osteoarthritis and severe depression. People with CFS often lose the ability to maintain full-time employment, attend school and participate fully in family life. The Nation's economy is also seriously affected; the annual direct cost of lost productivity due to CFS is $9.1 billion, an amount equivalent to Wal-Mart's annual profits.

There is hope. The Department of Health and Human Services has chartered a CFS Advisory Committee that meets quarterly to discuss research and service to people with CFS. The CDC is conducting promising research that may lead to a diagnostic test for CFS. Other researchers are following important leads that may improve treatment and deepen understanding of the way CFS affects various body systems. However, in fiscal year 2004, just $15 million was spent by the Federal Government to conduct research on this devastating illness. CFS consistently ranks at the bottom of NIH funding charts and even during the period when Congress was doubling the NIH budget, support for CFS research declined.

Many challenges remain and more federal funding is needed to answer basic questions. It is time for Congress to do more to help them. I urge my colleagues to earmark $10 million for CFIDS research in the next annual appropriation for the National Institutes of Health. CFS warrants the support of this Congress and we must find a way to help hundreds of thousand of Americans get back to work. Let's not wait another day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 10th anniversary of the Service Learning Program at TVI Community College in my home state of New Mexico. Service Learning is a collaboration of academic instruction, civic engagement and work experience that complements traditional college curriculum. Classroom learning is supplemented with relevant community service followed by self-assessment through group reflection. The concept of Service Learning is not new; the innovation is in promoting it as an essential part of the higher learning experience.

Dr. Rudy Garcia started the TVI Service Learning program in 1995 with 30 local non-profit agencies and 45 students. Ten years later, over 8,000 students have participated in nearly 42,000 hours of education- based community service. Funded by grants, this initiative has achieved program sustainability by building agency partnerships to deliver unique and relevant learning experiences for students while meeting community needs. The TVI Service Learning program fosters an ethic of civic engagement, best illustrated by the 35% of students who stay on as agency volunteers after completing the required hours for their program.

Service Learning at TVI is more than just volunteerism; students translate what they have learned in the classroom into hands-on experiences that develop skills for future employment. The non-profit community agencies are mentors to the Service Learners and partners to the educators who strive to increase academic success and student retention. Local employers also benefit, as Service Learning helps build a stronger, more experienced labor pool; a college degree combined with related work experience is the key to success in today's job market.

Dr. Garcia's Service Learning program has won numerous awards, including the Community Engagement Collaboration Award and the National Bellwether Award for Best Community College Instruction Program. The Campus Compact has designated TVI a Training College for institutions interested in Service Learning, Civic Responsibility and Community Partnerships. TVI and Dr. Garcia were also selected by the Pew Partnership for Civic Change to provide their Leadership Training program.

Mr. Speaker, I have had many Service Learners in my district offices, and as a public servant I welcome every opportunity to mentor these students in community service and civic responsibility. I endeavor to provide relevant work experience, while recognizing the tremendous contribution of our Service Learning

students as they apply these leadership principles and become peer mentors and role models in our community.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to offer my remarks today regarding H. Res. 22. As a member of the House Small Business Committee, small business creation and development is one area in which I take great interest. As the Representative from a largely rural district, I understand that small businesses are the livelihood of rural America. They bring goods and services to these communities, providing the foundation for local rural economies. They also are the main source of employment in many rural areas.

In many rural areas, it is a priority to ensure small businesses access to capital. Without access to financing, small businesses are unable to target new markets, grow, or even hire new workers. Often, undercapitalized businesses go bankrupt, leaving a void in rural communities across the country.

The Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program was created to fill this void as well as to ensure that small businesses would always have an available source of affordable capital. The program is administered by a network of lenders, which based on SBA rules, sets up its own processes. SBA provides a guarantee on a portion of the loan, and allows the bank to extend more capital than they would without the guarantee. The 7(a) loan program, which is the SBA's core lending program, is responsible for 30 percent of all long-term lending to small business owners.

Unfortunately, the Administration recently shifted the cost of the 7(a) program to small businesses and their lenders--raising fees on these loans for both the borrowers and lenders. Upfront fees were raised by nearly $1,500 for smaller loans and as much as $3,000 for larger loans. For the largest loans available, which are for $2 million, these fees are now over $50,000. This has doubled lenders' annual costs for making loans and reduced their incentives for participating in the program.

The Administration's actions are starting to take their toll. During the last quarter of FY04, when the program was operating unfettered and with lower fees in place, the program did $3.94 billion worth of business. Recent quarterly figures show that this has dropped to $3.42 billion--a 14 percent decline. And the Administration has now proposed more fees for next year. This will only serve to further harm small businesses and the communities that they are located in.

There are many creditworthy businesses that are in need of capital but that do not fit a lender's traditional underwriting standards. Some entrepreneurs put off needed improvements or forgo potential expansion. Others are forced to turn to costly lending alternatives and end up financially strapped with insurmountable debt before their companies have even had a chance to get off the ground.

To make things worse, credit conditions are tightening for small business owners. The Federal Reserve has just raised interest rates for the seventh time since last June. Many lenders have followed suit, lifting their prime lending rates to 5.75 percent. Small business loans are tied to the prime lending rate, and as a result many small businesses will face higher interest rates.

It is evident that many small business owners are unable to access the capital they need. This creates a situation where not only is the entrepreneur unable to achieve their goal, but our local communities lose out on the potential job creation and economic growth that these new firms bring with them.

Small businesses are critical to our nation's economy and we must ensure that they have access to capital. Yet, this resolution fails to call for Congress to help strengthen the SBA programs that best help small businesses. This resolution falls far short of helping small businesses. As such, I urge my colleagues to oppose H. Res. 22.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I would like to first thank the Committee on Rules and the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) for making my amendment in order. My amendment strikes section 631 of this legislation. Section 631 is typical of this flawed, shortsighted energy bill, which does not give us a national energy policy and does not help consumers with high gas prices.

Section 631 is a $30 million giveaway to dangerous uranium mine technology. It is unsound fiscal policy for an unproven type of mining. Furthermore, this $30 million giveaway will encourage a company to pollute the groundwater of a community of 10,000 Navajo Indians.

At its worst, this section targets a minority community with a dangerous technology and uses them in an experiment. At best, it is an unwarranted giveaway to the uranium mining industry.

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

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

With all due respect to the chairman, he claims that this section excludes New Mexico. I have a memo here from the Congressional Research Service that reads as follows: ``The proposed statutory language, section 631, does not appear to prohibit precisely the same sorts of projects envisioned by section 631 from occurring within New Mexico. This statute, section 631, even appears to permit the Department of Energy to fund these types of programs in New Mexico so long as there are alternative available sources of Federal funding that can be utilized.''

Also, I would point out funds are fungible. This $30 million could end up and free up funds committed elsewhere. A company can use the now freed-up money to mine in New Mexico. Thus, this subsidy would indirectly facilitate uranium mining in Navajo communities.

This has broader communications than just for my State. We should not be experimenting in communities' water supply anywhere. My amendment protects all communities near uranium mines from potentially having their water supplies polluted.

Section 631 also has very serious fiscal concerns. This proposed subsidy would lead to even further unsound policy. At a time of skyrocketing Federal deficits and in an uncertain economic future, we should not be giving away $30 million to the uranium industry. We have too many priorities that are not being met because of policies like this subsidy.

Taxpayers for Common Sense views this as an unfair corporate giveaway. We do not need more of this type of uranium development. Promoting this type of development does not safely provide new energy sources; instead, it increases the potential for drastically harming the environment and causing potential harm to thousands.

The case, Mr. Chairman, for this amendment is strong. This is corporate welfare, pure and simple. It is unwise use of taxpayer dollars and dangerous to my constituents. My amendment can prevent the potential damage this provision can inflict on the health of thousands of Native Americans. But as I stated earlier, this provision has implications to far more communities than in my district. The potential long-term damage this section could inflict on the environment is also immeasurable.

I ask my colleagues to take a close look at this and consider whether or not they would want this type of dangerous mining occurring in the neighborhoods of their constituents. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, stop corporate welfare, help protect the health of Native Americans and help protect the environment.

In closing, I ask to include for the Record this list of organizations that are supporting my amendment to demonstrate the broad support we received from both New Mexico and nationally.

Supporters of the Udall Amendment

Taxpayers for Common Sense

Natural Resources Defense Council

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Research Service was specifically asked the question, and there is absolutely no doubt. I read it into the Record. It is there.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and I congratulate the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Hastings, for bringing it to the floor of the House.

The amendment would expand the Federal definition of environmental justice, directs each Federal Agency to establish an office of environmental justice, reestablishes the interagency Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice, and requires that Executive Order 12898 remain in force until changed by law.

By adopting the amendment we can take a significant step to ensuring that current and future Federal policies will be informed by the need to protect minority and low-income communities from poor environmental and energy decisions and policies.

The amendment is similar to a bill I introduced earlier this year with our colleague from California, Representative Hilda Solis. It is also cosponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews as well as by Mr. Hastings of Florida, the author of this amendment.

Like this amendment, that legislation was prompted by our continued concern about the way Federal actions have had disproportionately adverse effects on the health, environment and quality of life of Americans in minority and lower-income communities.

Too often these communities--because of their low income or lack of political visibility--are exposed to greater risks from toxins and dangerous substances because it has been possible to locate waste dumps, industrial facilities, and chemical storage warehouses in these communities with less care than would be taken in other locations.

The sad fact is that in some eyes these communities have appeared as expendable--without full appreciation that human beings, who deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, are living, working, and raising families there.

This needs to give way to policies focused on providing clean, healthy and quality environments within and around these communities. When that happens, we provide hope for the future and enhance the opportunities that these citizens have to improve their condition.

This amendment, like our bill, would help do just that. The amendment, like our bill, essentially codifies an Executive Order that was issued by President Clinton in 1994. That order required all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice considerations in their missions, develop strategies to address disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income people from their activities, and coordinate the development of data and research on these topics.

Although Federal agencies have been working to implement this order and have developed strategies, there is clearly much more to do. We simply cannot solve these issues overnight or even over a couple of years. We need to ``institutionalize'' the consideration of these issues in a more long-term fashion--which this bill would do.

In addition, just as the current policy was established by an administrative order, it could be swept away with a stroke of an administrative pen. To avoid that, we need to make it more permanent-- which is also what this amendment, like our bill, would do.

It would do this by statutorily requiring all federal agencies to-- make addressing environmental justice concerns part of their missions; develop environmental justice strategies; evaluate the effects of proposed actions on the health and environment of minority, low-income, and Native American communities; avoid creating disproportionate adverse impacts on the health or environment of minority, low-income, or Native American communities; and collect data and carry out research on the effects of facilities on health and environment of minority, low-income, and Native American communities.

It would also statutorily establish two committees: The Interagency Environmental Justice Working Group, set up by the Executive Order to develop strategies, provide guidance, coordinate research, convene public meetings, and conduct inquiries regarding environmental justice issues; and a Federal Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, appointed by the President, including members of community-based groups, business, academic, State

agencies and environmental organizations. It will provide input and advice to the Interagency Working Group.

In a nutshell, what this amendment--like our bill--would do is require Federal agencies that control the siting and disposing of hazardous materials, store toxins or release pollutants at federal facilities, or issue permits for these kinds of activities to make sure they give fair treatment to low-income and minority populations-- including Native Americans. The bill tells Federal agencies, ``In the past these communities have endured a disproportionate impact to their health and environment. Now we must find ways to make sure that won't be the case in the future.''

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this flawed, shortsighted energy bill, which does not give us a national energy policy, and provides more than $22 billion in taxpayer dollars to the private industry. I'm not sure what era the authors of this bill think we're living in, but this bill does not reflect our present or future energy needs in the 21st Century.

High gas prices are on the minds of many Americans right now, and this bill does nothing to change that. The Energy Information Administration has said that this will actually increase gas prices by three cents and will have almost no effect on production, consumption, or prices. I suspect my constituents in New Mexico who are paying $2.32 a gallon will be concerned about that. But this is only one of the several reasons why I oppose this legislation.

One of my great concerns is the provision that allows drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. I have been to Alaska and I've seen the tremendously diverse wildlife that will be hurt if drilling occurs in the area. In addition, there are native tribes who depend on this wildlife, and they have asked Congress and the state of Alaska to stand up for them and oppose drilling. The environmental costs of this provision are sky-high, and benefits are little to none--six month's supply of oil. Opening ANWR would have no effect on our dependence on foreign oil. It is simply not worth it.

How can the Majority call this bill ``comprehensive'' when it does nothing to address fuel efficiency in our vehicles? China will produce cars and trucks that are more energy-efficient than the U.S. fleet as soon as 2008. That is why I strongly supported the amendment offered by Rep. Markey of Massachusetts to raise the average of 25 miles per gallon to 33 miles per gallon over the next ten years. Raising fuel economy standards would reap SUV, pickup truck, and minivan owners a net savings of up to two thousand dollars in some cases. It would also alleviate the need for the U.S. to send over $25 million abroad each hour to pay for foreign oil. This amendment would have truly benefited our national security, our economy, and consumers.

I think my constituents will also be interested in the provision in this bill shielding lawsuits against 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. Documents from recent court cases reveal that the industry knew MTBE could cause severe harm to groundwater supplies as early as the mid 1980s. Internal Exxon memos from 1985 show the company knew MTBE pollutes groundwater more easily and is more difficult to treat than other gas additives. I find it incredibly disturbing that some members of this body place the pockets of oil companies ahead of the constituents in their districts whose lives have been adversely affected by this negligence.

Another grave concern that I have is section 631, which is a $30 million dollar giveaway to a dangerous uranium mining technology that could seriously harm the water and health of 12,000 Navajo Indians. The proposed in-situ leach mining would leach uranium from an aquifer that is the sole source of drinking water for thousands of people in northwestern New Mexico, thereby threatening their health and the integrity of their communities. The proposed mining would leave high levels of uranium in the drinking water supply, which is a slap in the face of Navajo communities that are still struggling to get compensation for the diseases they are suffering from uranium mining conducted near them during the Cold War. This is also unsound fiscal policy for an unproven type of mining. I offered an amendment to strike this section of the bill. Unfortunately, it was defeated by a vote of 225-204. I have been told that these subsidies will not be included in the Senate bill. I hope that remains true, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this provision is stripped from the bill in conference.

I brought two other amendments to the Rules Committee that were unfortunately not allowed a vote in the full House. One would create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard, so that by the year 2022 electric utilities, excluding rural electric cooperatives, would generate 15 percent of their energy from renewable energy sources, and 20 percent by the year 2027. This bipartisan amendment was cosponsored by Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado, Rep. Leach of Iowa, and Rep. Platts of Pennsylvania. Right now, the U.S. relies on foreign oil to meet roughly 60 percent of our oil needs. This inevitably leaves us dependent on unfriendly nations and harms our national security. We consume a quarter of the world's oil, yet we only control two percent of its supply. It is high time we invest in renewable energy technologies and develop practical solutions to encourage renewable energy production. It is my hope that the Senate will move forward with a more progressive renewable energy policy in its version of the Energy bill.

My last amendment, which I cosponsored along with Rep. Dingell of Michigan and Rep. Boehlert of New York, was designed to fix unnecessary inequities in the hydropower dam relicensing process proposed in H.R. 6, while still ensuring that the relicensing process proceeds quickly. This amendment applies all new rights given to a license applicant to any other party. All stakeholders--States, Tribes, private landowners, local businesses, fishermen, irrigators, conservationists, water sports enthusiasts, and other concerned citizens--would be given the chance to participate in decisions that affect the health of American rivers. I believe it is only fair to include these stakeholders in the appeals process, and I was disappointed that this amendment was not allowed a vote on the floor.

Why does the Majority insist on passing a bill full of tax incentives and subsidies for the oil and gas industry at a time of record profits for those companies? Even President Bush said last week, ``I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.'' The massive royalty tax breaks for energy companies are ill conceived. This bill is anti-taxpayer, anti-environmental, and anti- consumer.

We need a comprehensive energy policy that encourages safe domestic energy production, that will not drastically harm the environment and cause potential harm to thousands, and that does not contain billions of dollars in giveaways to big oil and gas companies. We need a real energy strategy that will help consumers, decrease our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and keep us competitive internationally. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this flawed bill, and I hope we can work toward a more comprehensive energy bill in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Boehlert-Markey amendment to raise fuel economy standards for automobiles and I thank the gentlemen offering this amendment for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard it repeated over and over during debate on this bill from members on both sides of the aisle--we must reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and we must stabilize our energy costs. Yet H.R. 6 does none of these things!

That is why I strongly support this amendment to raise the average of 25 miles per gallon to 33 miles per gallon over the next ten years. Increasing the fuel economy is one important step we can take towards making all this rhetoric a reality. This amendment truly does benefit our national security, our economy, and consumers.

Raising fuel economy standards would reap SUV, pickup truck, and minivan owners a net savings of up to two thousand dollars in some cases. It would also alleviate the need for the U.S. to send over $25 million abroad each

hour to pay for foreign oil. These payments increase the trade imbalance, reduce the strength of the dollar, drive up-the cost of other imported goods, and stunts the growth of the nation's GDP.

In addition, many of the world's major auto-makers recently signed an agreement with the government of Canada that commits them to improving fuel economy standards by 25 percent by 2010. China will soon produce cars and trucks that are more energy-efficient than the U.S. fleet. Considering that the U.S. consumes a quarter of the world's oil, we must keep pace with these other countries and improve our fuel economy standards.

This amendment matches the rhetoric by truly reducing our dependence on foreign oil, helping our economy, and benefiting consumers. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue.

I see a far different place than the two gentlemen that have spoken before us from the opposition. When I went up to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I saw a tremendously diverse area in terms of wildlife. I saw musk oxen, grizzly bears, Arctic char, and this marvelous caribou herd, which is the largest in North America, migrate to cross the area that we are talking about drilling in. So there is a far different area than is being described.

One of the things that has not been mentioned here is, two native tribes depend on the migration of these caribou, and they have asked the Congress and they have asked the State of Alaska to stand up for them and to say, We do not want to have the destruction of this migration, because their livelihood depends on having caribou, and their entire existence rotates around that.

So I would urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment and vote down this dangerous energy bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Military Families Leave Act, a bill that will take a small step to help ease the burden of military families in this country. I originally introduced this bill at the end of the 108th Congress, and I look forward to working for its passage during the 109th Congress.

Nearly every day we hear stories about the hardships of the families of our nation's soldiers. Family members of deployed soldiers face unique challenges, especially in the first days and weeks after the member has been summoned to duty. The National Military Family Association has testified that it hears from many families about the difficulties of balancing new family and personal requirements with their regular duties when a family member is deployed. As members of Congress, we too hear from constituents who struggle with this balance. I believe there are measures we can take to ease this burden and increase flexibility in the lives of our military family members.

The legislation I am introducing today is one of the steps we can take. The Military Families Leave Act allows spouses, parents, or children of military personnel who are serving on, or are called to active duty, in support of a contingency operation to use their Family and

Medical Leave Act benefits for issues directly related to deployment. The bill does not extend the FMLA to anyone; it simply allows those who already qualify for the FMLA to use that benefit in new specific instances. For example, if a woman's husband is deployed for a contingency operation, she can use her FMLA benefit to secure power of attorney or to arrange for necessary childcare. Or, in a single parent situation, the mother or father of the deployed servicemember could use his or her FMLA benefit to care for a grandchild. This bill has been carefully drafted to stipulate that this leave could only be taken for issues directly relating to or resulting from the deployment of a family member.

Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has introduced the Senate companion to this bill, which has garnered widespread support from military reserve, active duty, and military family organizations. I would like to submit for the Record support letters from the Reserve Enlisted Association and Reserve Officers Association, the National Military Family Association, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and the National Partnership of Women and Families. Others who support this bill include the Military Officers Association of America and the National Guard Association of the United States.

It is time to show our military families that we are listening to their concerns. The Military Families Leave Act represents a small measure of relief for the families of the men and women who serve in our armed forces. I ask that my colleagues join me in assisting our military families by supporting this bill.

Reserve Enlisted Association,

April 9, 2005.

Hon. Tom Udall,

House of Representatives,

Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Udall: The Reserve Officers

Association, representing 75,000 Reserve Component members,

and the Reserve Enlisted Association supporting all Reserve

enlisted members supports your bill, to amend the Family and

Medical Leave Act to provide authority for Reserve Component

family members to take leave in conjunction with a call-up.

The Guard and Reserve are contributing approximately 40

percent of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and are gone

from home for the longest period of time ever anticipated.

Many families are faced with having to accommodate this

absence with often less than 30 days notice and it requires a

considerable amount of time to make the necessary

adjustments. Family members supporting a spouse, son,

daughter or parent that is serving on active duty, should not

have to also be afraid of losing their job.

The bill recognizes many of the problems encountered in the

current mobilization and provide solutions. We encourage you

to offer your provision as an amendment to House Report 109-

016, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the

Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2005. ROA and REA applaud

your effort and concern.

Sincerely,

Lani Burnett,

CMSgt, USAFR (Ret.), REA Executive Director.

Robert A. McIntosh,

Major General (Ret), USAFR, ROA Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.256, because this bill severely hurts a middle-class citizen's ability to get a second chance.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to offer my remarks today regarding S. 256, the so-called ``Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.'' The issue of bankruptcy reform is extremely important and it is critical that we pass a measure that will ensure greater personal responsibility of debtors, as well as ensure that credit card companies and other creditors take responsibility for their irresponsible lending. Unfortunately, this bill does neither. In fact, this bill overly penalizes working families and takes no action against reckless and predatory lending.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to my reservations about the legislation, I also strongly object to the rule under which S. 256 is being debated. The majority has, once again, passed a rule that stifles debate and blocks serious and substantive amendments. There were more than 30 thoughtful amendments brought before the

Rules Committee, yet they did not allow a single one to be brought before the full House. These amendments would have addressed the impact that this bill would have on groups such as disabled veterans returning from Iraq, single parents, families experiencing a catastrophic medical event, and people who are victims of identity theft. This continued smothering of the democratic process by the majority is shameful and must stop.

As to the substance of the legislation, it is no secret that the number of bankruptcies has risen considerably in the past twenty years. In 1980, there were 330,000 bankruptcies in the United States. In 2003, that number rose to over 1.66 million. The number of filings has dropped 3.8 percent in 2004 down to 1.59 million. Though this is headed in the right direction, I understand that more has to be done. S. 256, however, is not the answer.

S. 256 is full of provisions that I adamantly oppose. It imposes a rigid means test, endangers child support, and allows millionaires to continue to shelter their assets in mansions. These provisions result in an unbalanced and punitive measure that will have a devastating effect on women, the unemployed, and the elderly. Reform in this bill is skewed toward restricting the consumer's access to relief from overwhelming debt, while making it easier on those creditors who encourage additional unwise borrowing.

S. 256 fails to find a middle ground between lenders and borrowers. While it is critical that individuals begin taking greater responsibility for their debt, so too must the credit card industry take greater responsibility for shamelessly targeting individuals with their credit card applications. It is these creditors who subsequently grant these individuals higher levels of credit at high interest rates. It is the creditors who saddle these individuals with insurmountable levels of debt. S. 256 does nothing to help break this vicious cycle.

I would like to reiterate that I strongly support the principle of increased personal responsibility for debt, but I believe this bill does more harm than good. I believe we would be better served if we could fully debate the merits of this legislation, as well as substantive amendments that were disallowed from consideration by the full House. Unfortunately, once again, we cannot, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the heart-wrenching details of Ms. Terri Schiavo's case are well known to all of us. Her personal case, not to mention the family rift that has resulted, is certainly a tragedy and my heart goes out to Terri, her husband, parents, and loved ones who all are trying to do what they believe is best for Terri.

However, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that should be determined by those very people. This is not a matter for Congress to decide. Unfortunately, since Terri's family has been unable to agree on the best course of action, they have had to undergo, and continue to undergo today, lengthy legal battles. While it is unfortunate, that is what our legal process is for, and it has repeatedly ruled in favor of Terri's husband. Bringing this bill to the floor of the House marks yet another example of the Congressional leadership's subversion of the judicial process. Anytime the leadership disagrees with a ruling by a court, they strip its power. This is not the way these matters should be handled. It is not only subversion of the legal process, but of the Constitution of the United States of America.

In fact, in a 1990 case before the Supreme Court that pertained to some of the very same issues of the Schiavo case, Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative justices on the court, stated that he wished that the Supreme Court had stated, ``clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field.'' He went on further to say, ``the point at which life becomes `worthless' and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become `extraordinary' or `inappropriate' are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine justices of this court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory.''

Justice Scalia's statement highlights both the difficult nature of the issues involved, as well as his clear belief that matters such as these have no business in the federal courts. This is a highly private issue, and though it is unfortunate that Terri's family was forced to go to the courts, it should remain at the state level.

Congress should not have interfered by passing S. 686. It represents a gross overreach of Congressional power into a highly private issue. An issue, Mr. Speaker, that is at root between Mr. Schiavo and his wife Terri, and on the immediate periphery, between Mr. Schiavo and the Schindlers. It is amazing that some have chosen to play politics with this tragic family situation. My prayers are with the entire family, especially now that Terri has passed away.

This case does highlight, however, the need for individuals to make their personal and private health care decisions and embody them in a living will. At the very least, family members should have the comfort of knowing they're doing what their loved ones would have wanted. One of the best things that can emerge from this heartbreaking case will be an increase in families discussing and creating living wills.

Finally, I regret that I was unable to return in time for the debate and vote on S. 686. Once I received official notice of a recorded vote, it was impossible for me to arrive in Washington, DC in time for consideration of this measure. That being said Mr. Speaker, I rise now to state for the record that I would have voted against S. 686.