Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for far too long, as I traveled around the state of New Mexico, seniors have told me their heartbreaking stories of being forced to choose between purchasing their medicine and purchasing groceries as a result of the exploding costs of prescription drugs. Today we have an excellent opportunity to address this tragic situation by providing a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries and put an end to the outrageous dilemma facing our seniors throughout the country. In addition, we have an historic opportunity to modernize the incredibly important Medicare program, including updating formulas for our health care providers in rural areas--an issue that is of particular importance to my constituents and me.

Thankfully, H.R. 1 does address the latter concern, but unfortunately falls far short on the critically important issue of prescription drug coverage. The prescription drug benefit provided under H.R. 1 would be the first step toward privatizing one of the most successful government programs in history, leaves seniors at the mercy of insurance companies, forces seniors into HMOs, has an incredible gap in coverage, and does nothing to control the exploding costs of prescription drugs. As such, I am forced to vote against H.R. 1.

Under this bill, seniors and disabled Medicare beneficiaries can obtain their prescription drug coverage only from HMOs and private insurance companies. Given the history of HMOs and other private health plans in rural areas, I have serious concerns about this approach. In fact, in 1997 in the state of New Mexico, HMOs dropped approximately 18,000 individuals because of rising costs. These individuals were left with nowhere to turn.

H.R. 1 would put beneficiaries at a similar risk by relying on untested private drug-only plans, which can decide whether or not to serve rural areas, and they can decide to leave every 12 months. Further contributing to the risk of this provision is the fact that there is no fallback option to allow traditional Medicare to provide prescription drug coverage if private plans decline to provide coverage in rural areas. Because much of my district is rural, this legislation would put the seniors in my district at particular risk. I cannot support this.

This is greatly disappointing to me given the several major rural healthcare provisions that are including in this legislation. The labor share revision, the geographic physician payment adjustment, equalizing the Medicare disproportionate share payments, increasing home health services furnished in rural areas, critical access hospital improvements--these are all incredibly important provisions that I strongly support in order to help strengthen the health care system in rural areas. I cannot, however, vote in support of H.R. 1 with the extremely flawed prescription drug benefit included with these strong rural health provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support adding a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare. I strongly believe that we must take action to provide relief for our nation's seniors. I simply do not believe, however, that H.R. 1 is the most effective way to do so. Tonight I will be voting in support of the substitute being offered by Mr. Rangel and Mr. Dingell.

In addition to including stronger rural provisions than those included in the Majority's bill, the substitute includes a guaranteed benefit of a $25 premium, a $100 deductible, 20% co-insurance, and a $2,000 catastrophic protection. The substitute also allows for lower drug prices by granting the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to use the collective purchasing power of Medicare's 40 million beneficiaries to negotiate lower drug prices. Also, the substitute grants access to generic drugs, and allows the safe re- importation of pharmaceuticals, providing further tools to seniors for gaining access to cheaper prescription drugs.

Perhaps most importantly, the substitute will not force seniors to leave traditional Medicare to get drug coverage. Nor will they be forced to join a private insurance plan that will restrict access to needed drugs, deny coverage for the medicine their doctor prescribes, or force them to change pharmacies.

Mr. Speaker, our seniors deserve a real prescription drug benefit, not the flawed benefit included in H.R. 1. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1 and support the substitute. Our seniors should not be forced into the unconscionable position of being forced to choose between medications and groceries any longer, and, unfortunately, H.R. 1 will not adequately address this situation.

Mr. Speaker, today, we are once again debating a tax bill that hopefully will never see the light of day in the other body. Here in the House, we have repeatedly cut taxes for the wealthiest few, while our deficit has exploded and we have ignored the countless priorities that our nation currently faces.

That's what this debate is really about. It's about priorities. Their priority is to help the wealthiest few. I am proud to say that I do not share the Majority's priorities.

My priorities include our disabled veterans. If we didn't pass this bill, we could possibly pass the concurrent receipt legislation.

My priorities include a fair Child Tax Credit to help the working poor who make between $10,000 and $27,000.

My priorities include providing decent housing and a quality education for our military families.

My priorities include a fiscally sound economic growth plan that creates more jobs by building more roads, bridges and updating our crumbling schools.

Unfortunately, by passing H.R. 8, we cannot begin to address the nation's real priorities.

Mr. Speaker, while I support reducing the tax burden on working families whenever possible, I believe H.R. 8 badly misses the mark. As written, H.R. 8 would add $80 billion per year to the ever-growing federal deficit. While we are permanently eliminating the tax paid on the largest 2 percent of estates, we are

contributing yet again to the exploding national debt--a debt our children and grandchildren must pay. In essence, H.R. 8 is a stealth tax on future generations.

The federal estate tax should be reformed, not repealed. I support the plan offered by Mr. Pomeroy of North Dakota that would have provided immediate estate tax relief in a responsible manner. I support Mr. Pomeroy's attempt to exempt estates up to $3 million (and $6 million for couples) from all federal estate taxes. This plan would exempt 99.6 percent of all estates in the country. In fact, only 400 estates nationwide would pay the estate tax under the Pomeroy plan. Not only is this plan fairer, it would be fully paid for by eliminating unnecessary corporate tax shelters.

Although supporters of H.R. 8 use family farmers and small business owners as the rationale for the bill, this claim is just a myth. There already are special provisions in the tax code to ease the burden on small businesses and family farms. In 1998, only 1.4 percent of all returns that paid the estate tax had farm assets that were taxed. Even with the changes made to the estate tax during the 107th Congress, the Congressional Research Service has estimated that less than one percent of small businesses and farms would be forced to liquidate assets to pay the tax. Our plan would have helped these families. Sadly, H.R. 8 will not.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Pomeroy substitute and no on final passage.

Mr. Speaker. I cannot say that I'm surprised by the actions of the Majority today. I cannot say that I'm surprised that instead of voting on the Senate-passed Child Tax Credit legislation, we're voting on something else. I cannot say that I'm surprised that once again, the GOP leadership is cynically manipulating the process to ensure that we pass even more tax cuts that will drive up the federal deficit and continue to expand our national debt. Once again, they're playing politics when what we need is tax relief for working families.

Let's review what we're talking about here. First, the President tried to convince us that the tax bill would help every working American. Sadly, though, the House Leadership gutted one of the few provisions that helped those most in need--the refundable Child Tax Credit--from the previous tax package at the last minute. Yes, in a bill that was supposed to be an effort to stimulate the economy, we didn't do anything for those taxpayers most likely to spend the money. Amazingly, workers who earn between $10,500 and $26,625 were left behind in a backroom deal. I cannot think of anyone who is more likely to spend that money than these working families struggling to make ends meet. What this sneaky deal means to New Mexico is that nearly 90,000 families and 157,000 children aren't going to benefit under current law. The Republican plan also left behind many in our military, who would have benefited from this break.

Once the secret was out, though, the outcry from across the country was clear. Nearly everyone realized how bad a deal this really was, and nearly everyone knew a quick fix was needed. However, it seems like the House Leadership are the only ones in the country who don't get it. The Senate voted nearly unanimously to pass a simple clean bill to give this benefit to the most needy. And, most importantly, the Senate bill won't increase the national debt by one penny. It's totally paid for. Even President Bush realizes how unfair this situation is, and has called on the House to pass a clean bill and let him sign it.

Not surprisingly, though, the House Leadership insists on passing a bill that cannot make it through the other chamber. The saddest part of this entire charade is that this bill--just like all the tax cuts this House has passed--will actually hurt American children much more than it helps them. In the long run, this $82 billion tax-cut plan will further saddle our children and grandchildren with even more debt. So, we're giving them a small check now, but it pales in comparison to the huge bill they're going to see later in life. It's not only unfair; it's irresponsible.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I urge my colleagues to demand that we vote on the Senate-passed bill immediately. We shouldn't delay another minute. It's too important to play these cynical political games.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. This bill is the third piece of legislation in a succession of tort reform vehicles offered by the majority this Congress. In offering H.R. 1115 today, the majority again seeks to manipulate our judicial system for the benefit of corporate America.

The Administration also strongly supports this bill. Yet, while both the Administration and the majority espouse the virtues of federalism and states' rights, this bill would severely limit, if not automatically remove, state court jurisdiction in the majority of class action cases. The anticipated result of this reduction caused Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, long-time a devout Federalist, and the Judicial Conference of the United States, to openly denounce this bill because it would increase the caseload of the already overcrowded federal courts. And, because federal courts must expedite criminal matters over civil matters, this bill would make a plaintiff's remedy more costly due to the increased amount of time their case is kept pending on the federal docket.

Furthermore, besides giving jurisdiction over most class action lawsuits to federal district courts, this bill would also be applied retroactively so that pending cases would be subjected to its provisions. This would effectively include cases pending against Enron Corp., Worldcom Inc., and Tyco International Ltd. At a time of heightened concern over corporate wrongdoing, now is not the time for Congress to make it more difficult for injured consumers to bring class-action lawsuits.

Considering the above, this legislation further illuminates the majority's willingness to erode an individual's protections from corporate wrongdoing through the manipulation of our judiciary systems. As a result, I oppose passage of this bill and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize AliceMarie Slaven-Emond, who was recently honored as one of only ten people in the entire nation to be selected as a 2003 Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leader. This prestigious award includes a grant of over $100,000 to enhance AliceMarie's work.

AliceMarie is cofounder, primary health care provider and volunteer executive director of the Northeast San Juan County Health and Wellness Center in Aztec, NM. The center is a community owned, nonprofit clinic, where patients receive primary care services, preventive screenings, immunizations, pre- and post-natal care and free medications. Services are offered on a sliding-fee scale, depending on income.

Working as a school nurse in the Aztec school district, AliceMarie was uniquely aware of children who were suffering medically because their families were uninsured or could not afford a doctor. To address these demands, AliceMarie, along with other concerned citizens, launched the planning process for a clinic in 1992 and opened its doors in 2000. The early stages were very difficult, but because of the steadfast commitment, determination, enthusiasm, tenacity and hard work, AliceMarie and her cofounders achieved a ``miracle.'' But AliceMarie is always quick to acknowledge the ``incredible graciousness'' of San Juan County. She reports that without the donations of cash, supplies, labor and many other services by local businesses, medical professionals and private benefactors, success could not have been possible.

The San Juan County Health and Wellness Center is an example of how one person can make a difference. Because of AliceMarie's unending determination, the quality of life for hundreds of people has been improved. The clinic began serving about 35 patients a month and now provides medical attention to 185 to 200 children and adults monthly, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or financial means. In addition, AliceMarie is proud of the fact that the center is also a resource facility that provides valuable health care education and information to the community.

AliceMarie Slaven-Emond is not only an extremely caring and dedicated nurse practitioner, but an extraordinary visionary and leader. Having visited the clinic myself, I have experienced first hand the incredible work that is being accomplished. I am proud to recognize AliceMarie today before my colleagues as a model of commitment to the betterment of the human condition. I also extend my deep appreciation to her cofounders, staff and San Juan County citizens for helping to make a dream a reality. As uninsured families continue to increase at the rate of 13 percent this year alone, AliceMarie and the San Juan County Health and Wellness Center are helping to fill the gap and are heroes in the truest sense. A great need existed, and caring and giving citizens rose to the occasion, with AliceMarie as the catalyst. I salute this very great lady.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 222, The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003. This legislation puts to rest long-standing water rights disputes between water users in the Little Colorado River basin in Arizona. More importantly, this legislation would also provide the Zuni tribe with the financial resources to acquire water rights in the Little Colorado River basin and to restore the riparian environment that existed previously at Zuni Heaven Reservation.

Recently, a delegation of Zuni tribal leaders and members visited my office here in Washington. They told me that Zuni Heaven, a riparian area along the Little Colorado River, is central to the Zuni religious and cultural traditions and is the place where Zuni deities and ancestors have resided from time immemorial. This sacred riparian area is the home of the Kachina, one of the highest religious orders in Zuni culture, and was in historical times, a very lush riparian area with willow, cottonwood, cattails, turtles, and waterfowl.

Ever since the 1877 Presidential order diminished the Zuni cultural homelands and established the current Zuni Reservation in New Mexico, the Zuni people have maintained the practice of making a pilgrimage to Zuni Heaven. Every four years, Zunis from western New Mexico trek over 50 miles to Zuni Heaven, located in northeast Arizona, to perform religious ceremonies during the summer solstice period. This pilgrimage is very important because it helps sustain and rejuvenate Zunis' cultural and religious traditions.

The Zuni Water Rights Settlement will help the Zuni people restore their sacred Zuni Heaven to the way it was as described in ancient traditional historical accounts. Furthermore, it will help them develop wetlands for water plants, birds and other animals so important and necessary in carrying on the Zuni Kachina religion.

Considering the above, I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me today and support this very important legislation.

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 in strong support of S. 222, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003. This is a unique water rights settlement, carefully designed to protect the Zuni's most sacred site while at the same time preserving access to water supplies for upstream users.

The Zunis are counting on this legislation, as my colleague from Arizona knows, to finally settle critical water questions. I urge my colleagues to support Senate S. 222. I would congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) on his leadership.

This is a unique water rights settlement, carefully designed to protect the Zuni's most sacred site while at the same time preserving access to water supplies for upstream water users.

Recently, a delegation of Zuni tribal leaders and members visited my office here in Washington. They told me Zuni Heaven, a riparian area along the Little Colorado River, is central to the Zuni religious and cultural traditions and is the place where Zuni deities and ancestors have resided from time immemorial.

This sacred riparian area is the home of the Kachina, one of the highest religious orders in Zuni culture, and was in historical times, a very lust riparian area with willow, cottonwood, cattails, turtles, and waterfowl.

Ever since the 1877 Presidential order reduced the Zuni cultural homelands and established the current Zuni Reservation in New Mexico, the Zuni people have maintained the practice of making a pilgrimage to Zuni Heaven.

Every 4 years, Zunis from western New Mexico trek over 50 miles to Zuni Heaven, located in northeast Arizona, to perform religious ceremonies during the summer solstice. This pilgrimage is very important because it helps sustain and rejuvenate Zuni cultural and religious traditions.

The Zuni Water Rights Settlements will help the Zuni people restore their sacred Zuni Heaven to the way it was as described in ancient historical accounts. Furthermore, it will help them develop wetlands for water plants, birds and other animals so important and necessary in carrying on the Zuni Kachina religion.

I extend my compliments to the Zuni people, the State of Arizona, and the non-Indian organizations who participated in the negotiations that resulted in this historic water settlement.

It is unfortunate that we were not able to pass this bill when it first came before the House earlier this week. The Zuni are counting on this legislation to finally settle critical questions about their water rights. We are now able to pass this bill and send it to the President for his signature, and I urge my colleagues to support S. 222.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I support the Senate bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 4, the proposed amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States flag. I respect our flag, what it stands for, and personally deplore acts of desecration against the flag. However, I believe that our commitment to respecting our flag while preserving our fundamental freedoms, as symbolized by our flag and embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, can be met without amending the Constitution.

Many Members of Congress see continued tension between ``free speech'' decisions of the Supreme Court, which protect flag desecration as an expression of first amendment speech, and the symbolic significance of the United States flag. Consequently, every Congress that has convened since those decisions were issued has considered possible measures to permit the punishment of those who engage in flag desecration. However, the amendment offered today by the majority would diminish the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression, one of our most fundamental guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

Amending the U.S. Constitution is necessarily and understandably a rigorous task. To become the law of the land, the flag desecration amendment would have to get the approval of two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and then be ratified by three quarters of the state legislatures. The fact that only 27 amendments, including the Bill of Rights, the civil rights amendments, and women's suffrage, have been made to the Constitution in the past 200 years illuminates the infrequency of such legislative initiatives. Moreover, since its ratification in 1791, the Bill of Rights has not been altered in any manner. Consequently, I believe that passage of such an amendment would set a dangerous precedent for further erosion of our constitutional rights and freedoms.

Not only is amending the Constitution a task that must not be taken lightly, we must be absolutely sure that it is necessary. In this case, I am not convinced that the requisite level of necessity has been met. For example, flag burning is an exceedingly rare occurrence--since the Supreme Court's free speech, flag desecration decisions, fewer than 10 flag burning incidents have been reported each year.

Considering this, I believe that amending the Constitution to address the shameful conduct of such a minute portion of our general populace is simply unnecessary. This conviction is generally supported by a letter sent to Senator Patrick Leahy in May 1999, in which General Colin Powell, now Secretary of State, wrote that ``The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.'' Secretary Powell, one of our most noted patriots and war heroes, obviously believes that diminishing our First Amendment rights is not the solution to the perceived problem at hand.

Taking into account the infrequency of flag desecration, as noted by Secretary of State Powell, I question today what it is that we are trying to regulate: is it the act of physical desecration itself or rather the sentiment behind the action? I believe that H.J. Res. 4 would affectively and severely abridge our rights of free expression. As such, I will oppose passage of this proposed constitutional amendment.

Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) does not say is that what this piece of legislation on the floor today does is take away a woman's right to choose, take away a woman's right to reproductive freedom, and it is part of a concerted effort on behalf of the Republican Party to pack the courts with judges who would repeal Roe v. Wade. That is what the real issue is when it comes to this piece of legislation the gentleman from Texas just talked about.

Mr. Speaker, last month, President Bush visited my home State of New Mexico. He came to sell his tax cut. The President said, and what many of his minions have been saying over the last couple of months, is that every taxpayer was going to be helped by this tax cut. He emphasized how the child tax credit would help all taxpayers. Well, now the bill has been signed and we have read the fine print, and guess what? New Mexico, in fact, is going to get very little in the way of a tax cut for working families. Virtually nothing. Zero. Nada.

When I was Attorney General and we used to work on cases called consumer scams, we used to call this tactic bait and switch: tell them one thing to sell them the idea and complete the sale, and give them something completely different and hope they will never find out. Bait and switch. One of the oldest consumer scams. That is what this tax cut was all about.

The Republican National Committee is also in on this scam. The committee, on its Web site, asks the question: Who benefits under the President's plan? And I read from the Web site: ``Everyone who pays taxes, especially middle income Americans.''

Why bait and switch? Because they do not want you to know who gets the lion's share of benefits from this tax cut: millionaires. In 2005, 200,000 taxpayers making $1 million or more will get 44 percent of the benefits. Eight million, mostly low- and middle-income taxpayers will not receive any benefit, not a penny from the law. Forty times as many taxpayers who get no benefit from the cuts as there are millionaires who get 44 percent of the law's benefits. Let me repeat: 40 times as many taxpayers who get no benefit from the cuts as there are millionaires who get 44 percent of the law's benefits.

What can we say about a tax cut and a fiscal policy which rewards the rich at the expense of the middle income? What can we say about a tax cut which will force us to cut health care, education, and homeland security? What can we say about a tax cut and fiscal policy which deprives the government of revenue it needs to make the United States a strong and vital Nation?

The normally staid Financial Times of Britain answered the question this way: the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum. The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us is of great importance, perhaps today more than ever. Even as we debate this legislation today, our brave men and women are serving in harm's way. That is why I strongly support many provisions of this legislation; particularly the 4.1 percent across-the-board pay increase for military personnel, as well as the vital readiness, modernization, and infrastructure improvements, which will keep our forces the best- trained and best-equipped in the world.

As we are all painfully aware, there are many security challenges that face our great nation. As such, it is critical that we provide the necessary investments in our national defense. However, because of several highly controversial provisions in what is traditionally a bipartisan bill, I have strong reservations about supporting H.R. 1588 as it is currently written.

One of my primary concerns pertains to the environmental provisions in this legislation that weaken environmental protections. Although I fully support maintaining the highest possible level of military training and readiness, I believe such readiness must also be balanced against our duty to protect at-risk species, especially in light of existing Department of Defense exemptions in current environmental laws. H.R. 1588 does not adequately address this concern.

The Department of Defense contends that military training on the approximately 25 million acres of land at the more than 425 installations nationwide is greatly constrained by environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. However, a GAO report issued in June 2002 found that training readiness remains high and that the ESA and the MMP are not hampering military readiness. In addition, existing environmental laws already have national security exemptions, yet DoD has never bothered to apply for them. Although I support Chairman Hunter's attempt to temper this extreme anti-environmental provision, I am dismayed that Democrats were denied the right to offer the Rahall/Dingell amendment,

which would have addressed these environmental exemptions in a much more comprehensive manner.

Another provision that is of great concern to me pertains to the DoD's civilian personnel. H.R. 1588 contains broad, sweeping provisions that grant the Secretary of Defense authority to create an entirely new civilian employee system for DoD's 700,000 civilian workers, which strips these employees of some of their basic rights, such as the right to notice before they are fired and the right to join a union. Representatives Cooper, Davis, and Van Hollen offered an important amendment before the Rules Committee to make major modifications to these provisions, in order to protect fundamental employee rights in any new National Security Personnel System designed by the DoD. Disturbingly, the Republicans disallowed this important amendment from being considered on the floor today. I wish I could say I was shocked at this action, but unfortunately it has become standard fare for the Majority to stifle debate and discussion on the important issues of the day.

Last, and certainly not least, is my concern over the nuclear weapons provisions in H.R. 1588. This legislation authorizes previously prohibited research on low-yield nuclear weapons and also authorizes $21 million to study the feasibility of developing a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

Our military needs improved capabilities to hold at risk hardened, and deeply buried targets in rogue nations that might contain prohibited weapons of mass destruction programs. However, instead of building new nuclear weapons and sending the signal to our allies and enemies alike that it's okay to build nuclear weapons, I believe we should fund weapons that have just as strong a deterrent capability, but do not encourage new uses for nuclear weapons or encourage a new nuclear arms race.

The military has not even asked for nuclear weapons to do the job because there are already several conventional programs underway that would allow us to get at the same targets. A recent article quotes Adm. James Ellis, head of U.S. strategic command, as saying he wants to ``reduce the country's dependence on nuclear weapons by using conventional, precision-guided bombs and missiles.''

Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate, I strongly support a strong national defense to address the many national security challenges we face in this uncertain world. Excluding these extraneous, highly controversial provisions, H.R. 1588 contains many important provisions to improve our nation's defenses. I support the important provisions that provide good pay, housing and training for the men and women in uniform and fund important modernization priorities that will ensure that we have the most technologically advanced military in the world. I am very hopeful that the environmental, civil service, and nuclear weapons provisions are addressed in conference in order to make this a more acceptable and bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, people in New Mexico are hurting. Since January 2001, the unemployment rate in my state has risen to 5.9 percent. While every single person on unemployment would rather have a job, until the economy reverses, we in Congress have a moral obligation to help the jobless make ends meet. The extension will help nearly 5,000 New Mexicans who still have not found jobs, and were scheduled to exhaust their Federal benefits at the end of this month.

We have been calling for this type of legislation for weeks, and I applaud the Majority for finally doing what is right. Unfortunately, although they have done what's right, they haven't done enough in this bill to help all Americans who are out of work.

Last year, because of the failed economic policies of this administration, Congress was forced to enact the Temporary Extension of Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) bill. Sadly, though, the need has only increased since then. The economy has actually gotten worse since Congress passed TEUC in March 2002.

The number of unemployed (8.79 million) is at the highest level in nearly a decade. The unemployment rate rose to 6.0 percent in April, compared to 5.7 percent when TEUC was enacted in March 2003 and when the program was extended in January of this year. The number of payroll jobs fell for the third straight month in April; unemployment is now 2.1 million below its level when the recession began. Long-term unemployment also continues to get worse.

Unemployment benefits provide an economic lifeline for families struggling to find work and boost an ailing economy. People are losing their jobs, looking for work, and finding none.

It is unfortunate that the House leadership waited so long to bring up this bill. It is also unfortunate that the House leadership has refused us a vote on the Democratic alternative--yet again.

While I will vote for this bill because it is critical to the millions of Americans who have lost

their jobs in the last two years, we should be doing more. This plan leaves over one million unemployed behind, and fails to provide them the benefits they need to put food on the table, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their heads.

We also should be extending this benefit for 26 weeks, not just 13. Although the bill provides that in high unemployment states jobless workers would be eligible for 13 more weeks--in addition to the 13 extra weeks available to all jobless workers who have exhausted their 26 weeks of regular benefits--the entire country is in need of this assistance. Because of the strict requirements for a state to qualify as a high unemployment state under this program, only six states currently qualify--Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington. We should pass the full Democratic package immediately to help everyone seeking work, not just the few.

Research shows that during previous recessions, the stimulative power of unemployment benefits saved an average of 131,000 jobs and slowed the drop in the Gross Domestic Product by 15 percent. National studies have shown that $1 in unemployment insurance leads to $2.15 worth of economic growth.

Every week without unemployment insurance benefits, states lose $200 million in cash--cash that in all likelihood would be spent at the local grocery store and the local gas station. Indeed, a recent study by Economy.com, an independent financial research group, found that the single most effective stimulus measure would be further extension of emergency Federal unemployment insurance benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation unfortunately is long overdue, and very necessary. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2158, and quickly send this legislation to the Senate to ensure these benefits continue uninterrupted.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are startling. In just over 2 years, this administration has taken a vibrant economy and turned it into a total mess. Once we saw projected federal surpluses for years, but now we see unprecedented deficits as far as the eye can see. Once we saw Americans working in good paying jobs, but now we see over two million jobs lost and families needing help to make ends meet. Once we saw states thriving and providing much needed benefits to the most needy, but now we see massive state deficits that require federal assistance to close.

Something needs to be done to fix these problems. The question is what's the best way to do it? When we began the debate earlier this year about how to turn around our struggling economy, I was looking for a plan that passed three simple tests. Was the plan fair? Was the plan fast-acting? Was the plan fiscally sound?

Tonight, the House is voting on the President's proposal. The answer to all three of these simple questions is a resounding ``no.''

Is it fair?

The other side likes to point out that the average family will receive about $1,000 in tax breaks. What they don't tell you is that 53 percent of all taxpayers--yes, 53 percent of all taxpayers--will see less than $100 in their pockets. However, if you make over $1 million a year, you get a tax cut of $93,500. This clearly is not fair.

Is it fast acting?

Well, it's going to take effect this year. Yes, that much is true. Unfortunately, the President's plan gives the break this year and next, then it takes it away again in 2005. So, the average middle class taxpayer will actually see their taxes go up 2 years from now. And this trickle-down tax policy will not stimulate the economy now. In fact, it totally depends on those who benefit--the few--to reinvest their windfall down the road. In fact, there is no guarantee that any of this will happen, so there is no guarantee that this tax cut will generate any jobs, let alone the one million promised by the President.

Is it fiscally sound?

The answer is a resounding no. The dividend tax reduction and the cut in the capital

gains rate will give us little bang for our buck. Many leading economists argue that the dividend cut especially is one of the least effective options to grow the economy.

This bill is a cruel hoax on New Mexico families. The overwhelming majority of hardworking New Mexicans will reap minimal benefits from these tax cuts. Although the final agreement hammered out by the House and Senate is much better than President Bush's original proposal, it still will not deliver much of a boost to the economy and instead increase the federal debt to be paid for by future generations.

With passage of this tax cut, Congress and the president are demonstrating their economic arrogance. Over 400 economists, 10 Nobel prize-winning economists, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and a host of other credible experts have told us that this is not the way to go. It is not good economic policy, it is not good tax policy, it is not good fiscal policy, and it is going to put us in a deeper and deeper deficit hole. Eventually interest rates will rise because of the federal debt and that's going to hit middle-income families harder than the wealthy individuals who benefit the most from this misguided bill.

Two years ago, President Bush told us that we could enact his policies and virtually eliminate the debt held by the public by 2008. Now, the Bush Administration is asking Congress to raise the debt limit by almost $1 trillion. It is an unprecedented turn of events. Those in the White House and their allies who want to eventually end the role of the federal government as we know it today--in education, homeland security, health care, Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits and other basic services--are well on their way.

The only beneficial provisions included here are the ones that we included in our alternative plan: raising the refundable child tax credit, speeding up tax relief for married couples, preventing more individuals from being hit by the alternative minimum tax, small business expensing, and the financial aid to the states. Unfortunately, these redeemable items will be strangled by the capital gains and dividends tax breaks for the few.

In 2001, I voted against the Bush tax cut bill because it was too skewed toward the wealthiest Americans and too fiscally irresponsible. Since then, we have gone from record surpluses to record deficits, and the economy is still floundering. Passing another enormous tax cut this year will only continue this trend and increase the economic problems that our children and grandchildren will inherit.

Tonight, I will do so again. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and grant the Secretary of Agriculture the power to order the recall of meat and poultry that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise unsafe. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by Carolyn McCarthy (NY), Earl Blumenauer (OR), Tim Ryan (OH) and George Miller (CA).

The announcement of the discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, also known as ``mad cow disease,'' in Canada this week, further highlights the importance of this legislation. Let me be clear that there is no evidence that our domestic meat products are compromised in any way. However, if they were ever found to be tainted, the Secretary currently has no authority to mandate the recall of these products. This is unacceptable today, more than ever.

I cannot overstate the importance of the nature of this legislation. It is imperative to the health and welfare of the American public that we bolster the regulation of the meat and poultry industry. The number of people affected annually from ingesting tainted meat and poultry products illuminates this proposition: 5,000 people die from food-borne illnesses each year. Furthermore, nearly 76 million people get sick annually from eating tainted food, of which 325,000 require hospitalization.

The Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak of 1993 prompted the imposition of a new regulatory system on the meat and poultry industry designed to help eliminate future deadly food-borne illness outbreaks. The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) program shifted the responsibility for ensuring meat safety from USDA inspectors to the meat companies themselves and instituted microbial tests for harmful bacteria. Since the implementation of the HACCP regulations, however, controversy has erupted over whether the new rules place too much power in the hands of the meat industry to regulate itself.

Due to the huge political clout of the meatpacking industry, USDA does not have, nor seem to want, the power to issue mandatory recalls of tainted meat and poultry products. Complying with agency recalls, therefore, is at the industry's discretion. The meat industry says that it has never failed to cooperate with a recall request from the USDA, thus mandatory recalls of tainted meat are not needed. I disagree.

Whenever there is a recall, press releases issued by these companies make very clear that the recall is voluntary. However, when USDA asks for a recall, a negotiation process ensues between the agency and the industry. Meanwhile, thousands of people would continue to eat potentially harmful meat. This is not a trivial matter. This is meat that is potentially contaminated and could result in death.

This is a question of accountability. Somebody must be held responsible for the quality and safety of the meat we consume. The government must ensure that the meatpacking industry produces only safe meat products. My bill will facilitate this need by amending the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. My bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to order the recall of meat and poultry that is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise unsafe or tainted from the market. The time has come for this necessary step.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

I cannot overstate the importance of the nature of this legislation. As a Member of Congress from the west, I take very seriously the need to find a balanced approach to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire. The Cerro Grande fire, which occurred within my district in 2000, scorched over 40,000 acres and consumed over 400 homes and businesses in Los Alamos, NM. This tragic example highlights the importance of this issue in New Mexico.

Wildfire prevention and protection is of such grave importance that I am extremely concerned about, and strongly object to, the manner that this legislation was brought before us today. A Committee Print of this bill was received in my office, during a recess period, five days before it was scheduled for Resources Committee markup. Not only did we, nor the public, have time to analyze and digest its content, but the importance and depth of this issue was further undermined by the fact that this committee did not even hold any hearings on the bill before proceeding straight to mark-up.

In the past, I have worked with Mr. McInnis on fire issues and had hoped to be able to do so again this Congress. I believe that by working together on a bill in a bipartisan manner, we could have crafted legislation that protects our communities from catastrophic fires without the perceived need to impose unprecedented deadlines and standards for injunctive relief on the federal judiciary, and without emasculating our environmental laws. However, due to the manner in which this bill was presented to us, the opportunity to work together, or at least consider any viable alternatives to H.R. 1904, did not arise.

Considering this, I would like to point out that H.R. 1904 was not the sole option available to Congress for the protection of our at-risk communities from wildfire devastation. Similar to H.R. 1904's Section 104, which essentially eliminates any public alternatives to agency action as set out in NEPA, the majority did not allow us to consider any alternatives to H.R. 1904, aside from the Miller/Defazio Substitute offered here today. For example, in February Mr. Udall of Colorado and I introduced H.R. 1042, the Forest Restoration and Fire Risk Reduction Act. Had we had an opportunity to hold hearings on our bill, Mr. Udall and I would have been able to formally raise some of the issues not addressed in H.R. 1904, but that are critically important to wildfire prevention and protection.

H.R. 1042 refocuses the implementation of the National Fire Plan (NFP) to areas designated as ``wildland/urban interface,'' the critical zones that are of the highest risk to people, property and water supplies, by redirecting NFP funding and hazardous fuels reduction projects through state selection panels. H.R. 1042 would accomplish this through the collaboration between state and federal land managers, and local and tribal communities in both decision and implementation activities. Through their individual contributions, we could develop cost-effective restoration activities, and empower these diverse organizations to implement activities that value local and traditional knowledge, build ownership and civic pride, and ensure healthy, diverse, and productive forests and watersheds. Such collaboration would result in the efficient restoration of areas distressed by wildfires and help protect our homeowners and businesses from future losses.

While I agree with the general consensus that thinning our forests-- by controlled burns or mechanical means--will lessen the likelihood of unusually severe fires, I cannot support the contention of the Bush Administration and the majority that to facilitate such projects we need to expunge our environmental laws and procedures for public comment and participation. The exemption of fire-risk reduction projects from environmental review and administrative appeals, and to deny the public the full and fair opportunity to have viable alternatives to agency action considered, circumvents established policy of public participation, an important aspect of our democratic process for making decisions affecting public lands. Excluding public comment does not assist in developing sound forest management.

H.R. 1042 makes some relatively innocuous procedural concessions that can expedite the process of resolving appeals, but, unlike H.R. 1904, it maintains these sound principles of law and public policy, and does not affect the traditional judicial review process and standards of equity inherent in our legal system.

H.R. 1904 contains unwarranted judicial review standards. Not only does it impose unreasonable time limits for filing cases in federal court after final agency action, H.R. 1904 contains an unprecedented provision that changes the fundamental legal standard of equitable relief. H.R. 1904 directs the court, when considering a motion for injunctive relief, to determine whether there would be harm to the defendant and whether the injunction would be in the public interest. In effect, these provisions tip the scales of justice in favor of the administrative agency.

The equitable balancing of competing claims has historically been part of the court's province. Injunctions are intrinsic to our federal judiciary's ability to remedy wrongs. Consequently, H.R. 1904's judicial review provisions serve to diminish the court's ability to balance competing interests, and blur the line separating the legislative role and the role of our courts.

In conclusion, I believe, as all of us from the western United States would likely agree, that it is imperative to support proactive programs that reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires and aid in the restoration of lands that have met the same unfortunate fate as the Cerro Grande. However, such programs should be community-based and should not gut our environmental protection laws, nor affect existing standards of judicial review.

H.R. 1024 had the capacity to meet these important objectives. However, we were not offered the opportunity to consider that alternative. For this reason, and those reasons stated above, I must oppose H.R. 1904.