Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to memorialize an outstanding jurist, an honorable man, and a leading Hispanic in the field of law by introducing legislation to name the Federal Courthouse in Santa Fe, NM, after Judge Santiago Campos. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by my colleagues, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Solis, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mr. Pastor.

Judge Santiago Campos was the first Hispanic appointed to the Federal bench in New Mexico, serving from 1978 until his death in 2001, including as chief judge from 1987 through 1989. Judge Campos' career of public service only culminated with his service as a U.S. District Court Judge, as he also served in the U.S. Navy as a Seaman First Class from 1944 to 1946, as the Assistant and First Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico from 1954 to 1957, and as a District Court Judge from 1971 to 1978 in the First Judicial District in the State of New Mexico. Judge Campos served with distinction on the bench and displayed both firmness and compassion with those who entered his courtroom. He was a life long resident of New Mexico and graduated first in his law school class at the University of New Mexico.

Judge Campos was very active in his courtroom, often exercising his right to question witnesses in the middle of cross-examinations. Many agree that he became more involved in a case than other judges, but still let a lawyer try his own case. One of his most memorable cases ordered the Gannett Co. to return The New Mexican, Santa Fe's daily newspaper, to its former owner, Robert McKinney due to a breach of contract.

During his career, Campos was an honorary member of the Order of the Coif. He also received the Distinguished Achievement Award of the State Bar of New Mexico in 1993, and in the same year the University of New Mexico honored him with a Distinguished Achievement Award.

Sadly, Judge Campos passed away on January 20th, 2001. Following his passing, the New Mexico State Legislature passed a joint memorial requesting Congress to name the Federal Courthouse in Santa Fe, New Mexico, after Judge Campos who had his chambers in the courthouse for over 22 years. In addition, the judges of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals who reside in New Mexico and the district judges of the District of New Mexico unanimously requested and support Congressional action to name the Federal Courthouse after Judge Campos. I am pleased to take up this effort.

Last Congress I introduced this legislation and was able to work to get it passed by the House. Unfortunately the Senate did not act on this legislation. This year, however, I am hopeful that we will be able to get this legislation signed into law and honor this great man with a small token of appreciation for the remarkable life that he lived.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I honor a very great lady today upon reaching her 100th birthday. Mary Louis Akers, a resident of Santa Fe, New Mexico, is commemorating, with a host of family and friends, a century of life upon this earth. I salute and applaud her on this remarkable event.

Mrs. Akers was born on May 20, 1903, in Sherman, Texas, to Margaret Crumley Melton and James Henderson Melton. Growing up during the first part of the 20th century was quite different than it is today. Mary Louise Melton's father delivered mail on horseback, and the family traveled by horse and buggy most everywhere they went, not owning a car until Mary Louise was a teenager. The train was used for long trips. The family always had an ``icebox,'' the forerunner of the refrigerator, and ice was delivered to their home every few days. Laundry was always done by hand.

Entertainment was very different when Mary Louise was young. Her primary entertainment was reading. The family did not own a radio until Mary Louise was a teenager, and the first ``silent'' movie she saw was a series that only ran on Saturday afternoons. Many years later, in the 1950's and after she was married, a television was purchased.

Mary Louise suffered infantile paralysis, now known as polio, when she was nine months old. The disease paralyzed her left side. Remarkably, however, she recovered from the disease and, fortunately, was left with little residual, and unnoticed, effects.

Mary Louise attended Kidd Key College in Sherman, where she studied voice. Her first

job was as a teacher in Rockfort, Texas, eighteen miles from Sherman, where she taught the first four grades. It was during those years that she met her future husband, Homer Akers, who was training to be a Presbyterian minister. They married on June 19, 1930, at the First Baptist Church in Sherman, and their first home was the Presbyterian manse in Natalia, Texas.

Homer and Mary Louise Akers spent the next 47 joyous years together until his death in 1977. During their marriage, Rev. Akers served as a minister in seven Texas communities, each about four years each, and in Portales, New Mexico, from 1947 until 1968, a location that will always be considered home. A daughter, Margaret Louise, was born in 1931, but only lived a few days past her third birthday. A second daughter, Kathryn Ann, was born in 1936, and Mary Louise currently lives with her in Santa Fe.

In her 100 years upon this earth, Mary Louise Akers is known and deeply loved and admired by hundreds, if not thousands, of those whose lives she has touched during her extraordinary 100-year journey. She loved serving as the primary greeter in all the churches her husband served and was the voice most heard when hymns were sung. She has always been a famous ``jokester,'' constantly teasing her family and friends with her delightful, bubbly personality and infectious laughter. Having a perfect memory, Mary Louise can readily recall wonderful, enduring and entertaining stories about all those whom she has known.

Mary Louise Akers has abundantly enjoyed her 100 years. She has always been extremely active and enjoys attending community events and traveling with her daughter. A few of her passions are having tea parties with family and friends, attending an Aker family reunion every July, receiving cards and letters and writing many herself, going to the beauty shop every Friday, and eating lots of strawberry jam every morning and drinking a Coke every afternoon, which she considers her ``tickets'' to a long life. Her very favorite ``supper'' food is a chocolate sundae with ``lots'' of syrup!

Mary Louis Akers is a very grand lady, and the world has been, and continues to be, a better place because of her presence in it. Driving a car up until her 80's, Mary Louise's CB ``handle'' was ``Sunshine Mary'', I can think of no more accurate way to describe this delightful lady. I invite all my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representative to join me in wishing Mary Louise Akers a very happy and healthy 100th birthday, may she enjoy many more to come!

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for that introduction.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the issue of how this bill was legislated, because I think it is very important that we understand the process that we went through. The process we used here is an abomination. When we were hearing this bill in the Committee on Resources, we did not even have a bill. It was a committee print is what we are talking about. So we didn't have a bill.

We were given very short notice. It was only a matter of days. That committee print was not even heard in committee. It was directly marked up. So we have completely cut out any legislative history for the Committee on Resources.

This is something that has been unprecedented. It is something on this floor of the House we should not stand for. That alone, that alone, the violation of the Committee on Rules of ramming through a committee print which is not even a bill, that alone should get Members of Congress mad about voting against this bill, and it should be a bipartisan vote against this rule that is before us today.

The thing that I do not understand is why. Why are our friends on the other side of the aisle so worried about letting the public be heard? They have short-changed the public. They have not had a hearing that has allowed the public in. This is something that I think goes to the heart of the democratic process.

The other two good, solid reasons to vote against this rule are that amendments in committee, very, very important amendments in this committee, were voted on in committee and yet denied here on the floor in the rule, in this closed rule process.

The first one was an amendment that I offered in the Subcommittee on Judicial Review, which was also offered in the Committee on the Judiciary by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Those amendments have been denied in this rule, even though there were close votes, so there is no attention to this on the floor.

Judicial review, why is that important? The judicial review provisions in this bill rig the system in favor of the Federal Government. The Federal agencies are favored over citizens. Basically, there are provisions telling the Federal judiciary, telling the judiciary, if there is any doubt here, if there is any ambiguity, decide on behalf of the Federal government.

We have never worked the system that way. This is an issue that should be debated on the floor. We have been denied the ability to debate this issue on the floor, and that alone I think, Native Americans were also shut out on an amendment. That is very important. There is a tradition of working in a bipartisan way.

The second amendment, in addition to judicial review, the second amendment which was offered in committee on this, apparently there was agreement by the bill's sponsor and by others in the room, saying, yes, we forgot Native Americans, we forgot Native Americans. But I have worked all day today to try to get, and since the committee hearing, a Native American amendment in there. Native Americans lost some of the biggest forests, as members from Arizona know. They lost some of the most largest forests in this devastation, and they should have an amendment, they should be included. We should be able to go forward with a Native American amendment. But, once again, it has been denied.

The democratic process has not been followed. Two crucial amendments have been denied on the floor. I would ask that all Members vote to defeat this rule.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me rise today on behalf of the Miller-DeFazio substitute because I believe it is the much

better bill before this body today, and let me tell Members why.

We are talking here about trying to deal with forests that are overgrown, a situation that has grown over 100 years; and we are trying to find out a way to get those forests healthy. The approaches that are before us here are pretty radical. The bill that has been offered by the majority in this case does some unprecedented things in terms of judicial review. It really in fact guts some of the injunctive relief provisions and slants the whole process towards the Federal Government.

I hear on their side of the aisle talk all the time, limited government, we want limited government. What they are voting for is giving the Federal Government the balance of the power when you get into court on injunctive relief. And so they are tipping the scales in behalf of the Federal Government. And who else is in court? The citizen. That is who is in court. The citizen is in court with the Federal Government. And so this majority bill is basically saying, when you get into court and you start looking at these tough issues, citizens raise good concerns, well, it doesn't matter that they have raised good, proper concerns, let's rig the court system, let's rig the court system so it comes out in behalf of the Federal agencies.

I hear talk all the time in the Committee on Resources, oh, we have got to limit the Federal Government, we have got to watch these Federal agencies, we have got to keep an eye on them. You are not doing that in this bill. This bill is just opening the gates wide open for Federal agencies to abuse that power. The Miller-DeFazio substitute does not have a judicial review section. It does not have that egregious section. So it is better by far just on that account. But what Miller- DeFazio does is actually focus the Federal Government on thinning in the areas where it is needed most. The base bill is completely unfocused. You do not have a clue where they are thinning. Miller- DeFazio focuses in and says, let's look at urban-wildland interface, let's look at municipal watersheds, let's spend our time and resources in those areas. That is a significant difference here.

Another significant difference is in the NEPA process. I beg to differ with the gentleman from Oregon who says that our bill does some unfair things in terms of NEPA. We allow the citizens to participate with their forests, participate in the process. The underlying bill, the base bill, does everything it can to cut the citizens out of the process, shorten the deadlines, weight the judicial system against them. When it comes to allowing citizens to participate in their forests, these, after all, are the forests of the United States of America. The public owns these forests. What we are doing in this base bill is gutting the ability of the citizens to actually participate in the process.

And so the better bill today is Miller-DeFazio. I would urge everyone to vote for that. And if that is not adopted, to vote down the base bill, the bill that is before us, because it is unbalanced, it is unfair, and it hurts citizens' ability to comment on their forests.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, I am opposed to it in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the motion to recommit, and I first want to say that this is not a motion to kill the bill. This is a motion to recommit that will make the bill fairer and will make it more balanced.

The motion to recommit would merely strike the most egregious provisions of this bill, sections 106 and 107, which are known as the judicial review provisions of this bill. In the first instance, Members should be appalled at how this bill came to the floor and how the judicial provisions that are in it got here. We had very short notice to the committees. There was no bill actually introduced. There was a committee print. That means it was never introduced as a bill in the Committee on Resources.

Apparently, the majority did not want to expose their bill to public light. Therefore, it being a committee print, there is no legislative history; and this is, in the annals of the Committee on Resources, absolutely unprecedented action.

Let me tell my colleagues what the judicial review sections do in this bill. First of all, when a court hears an action, you have before that court in these hazardous fuels actions citizens and Federal agencies and others. This section, adopted in this bill which had no hearings, adopts a standard where the Federal agency decides what is in the public interest.

When the issue comes before the court and you have citizens and Federal agencies and others that are before the court, the section that is adopted, the judicial review section, does something which is unprecedented and I do not think has been done in Federal court before. It says that the Federal agency that is acting in the public interest should be given great weight in terms of what they decide. So it tips the scale in favor of the Federal Government, and it basically rigs the system in favor of the Federal agencies.

Throughout the debate here today, I have been asking the majority why: Why would you, who favor limited government, who favor smaller government, who are always talking in our committee about the Federal powers being too broad, why would you want to give a Federal agency not only the power to determine the public interest, but when it gets in the court, you say to the Federal Court that this Federal Court has to decide in favor of the agency? Well, the only answer I could get from the other side is that some Senator from the other body introduced an amendment, which never made it out of the Senate, and because she happens to be in our particular party, that that is why this language is good language.

Well, she may not be right all of the time. Make no mistake about it, the majority may talk a lot about limited government, but they have a very specific purpose here. They want to give the Federal agencies, which my understanding is the President has requested this authority, unprecedented power in the Federal courts at the expense of citizens.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just urge a vote for the motion to recommit. It makes the bill a more balanced bill, it makes it a fairer bill, and it protects the rights of citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor those police officers who devotedly and selflessly work to protect and serve the public on a daily basis. I also pay special tribute to those men and women who have given their lives in the line of duty.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation data, 152 law enforcement officers lost their lives while protecting our communities across America in 2002. Of those 72 died by criminal acts, including 54 officers shot, two stabbed, four fatally injured in assaults, and 12 who were killed when somebody drove a vehicle into them. The other officers died as a result of accidents.

During this week of poignant ceremonies, New Mexico remembers three police officers from our State who died last year. We honor Officer Jeffrey Cole Russell of the Albuquerque Police Department, Police Officer Kevin William Schultz of the Pojoaque Pueblo Tribal Police Department, and Deputy Sheriff Damacio Montano of the Valencia County Sheriff's Department. We will never forget these men who made the ultimate sacrifice.

All Americans should keep alive the memory of these three brave and heroic men, and recognize the contributions of the countless other law enforcement officers who have either been slain or disabled while performing their duties. For these reasons I am a proud member of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus. Throughout my public career, I have done everything that I can to provide for law enforcement. Whether it is fighting for the COPS program or working to see the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program be reauthorized, I am eternally grateful for the service of our men and women in blue.

Sadly, in our society today, unless we are personally affected by violence or disorder, we often do not realize the dedication of our law enforcement officers, and the sacrifices they make to keep our communities safe. ``National Police Week'' is an important time for all Americans to recognize the role law enforcement officers play in safeguarding the rights and freedoms we all enjoy daily and give thanks for their countless hours of service.

Mr. Speaker, we owe a debt of gratitude not only to the slain officers who served their communities so courageously by preserving law and order, but also to their families, who have lost a spouse, parent or child. Our law enforcement officers are heroes and we must never forget their contributions and sacrifices--during ``National Police Week,'' they are well remembered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 100, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. Considering the hundreds of thousands of people serving our country around the world and the many active duty servicemembers currently returning from the Middle East, this is a very timely bill.

As a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I support strengthening legal protections for those on active duty in the armed forces. Just as we depend on them to defend our country, they depend on us to provide fair and updated benefits and services.

This bill updates laws in place to protect servicemembers from being harmed in civil, financial, or legal proceedings. All too often I hear stories of deployed soldiers receiving calls from family that they cannot afford to pay rent and will face eviction, or that debt is piling up, or that the family cannot break a lease in order to move to a more affordable home. This bill, which has the support of many veterans groups and military organizations, as well as the legal community, would help fix those dire situations for those serving in active duty and their families.

I am pleased to vote in favor of providing these overdue protections revisions. The passage of H.R. 100 will be a testament to our men and women in uniform--and their families--that their country supports and applauds their courageous service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1350. When Congress made the leap to dramatically change the way the nation treats the education of disabled students in 1975 when it created IDEA, it made a commitment to providing a free, quality education to children who previously had been neglected by the system. This commitment to fund 40 percent of the excess cost of education for children with disabilities was unprecedented. Six million children who had once been forced to seek private education or forego education altogether were given the opportunity that so many children take for granted. At least, that was the idea.

Unfortunately, this body has continued to neglect these children by refusing to fully fund the program. Today we had the opportunity to show these children, their parents, and their educators how serious we are about their education--but passing H.R. 1350 will be a failure to do that. Not only does the bill fail to fund IDEA above the 18 percent we currently give to the 40 percent Congress promised, but it actually sets back the education of children with disabilities. In fact, this bill weakens the civil rights protections that were initially established with IDEA, undermines parental involvement and even creates the potential for disabled students to be punished for actions related to their disabilities. When the Majority promises to leave no child behind, does it make an exception for children with disabilities?

Many groups, including the PTA, the National Mental Health Association, and the Children's Defense Fund oppose this bill because it falls short of improving education for children with disabilities. It has become clear that this bill favors school administrators--not children, parents, and the teachers who work so hard to give disabled children an equitable education.

I strongly support a good public education for all children and I believe that every child is entitled to the same. Those who passed IDEA in 1975 shared that view, and they set a goal to give students with disabilities the treatment and education they deserve. Unfortunately, this bill fails to live up to what the original authors of IDEA intended, and I must vote against it. However, I am committed to special education and I will continue to work to pass a bill that accomplishes the intended goals set out under the original Act.

Mr. Speaker, as the national data continue to show how bad this Bush recession really is hurting the American people, the GOP majority has once again missed a golden opportunity to pass an economic growth plan that really helps working men and women, the very people who have suffered the most under this administration's unsound policies.

Today, we have before us an irresponsible $550 billion Republican tax bill that is based on the President's goal of eliminating taxes on dividend income and continues the Republican mismanagement of our Nation's economy by recklessly borrowing from future generations to reward the wealthy.

I support an alternative economic growth plan that creates over 1 million jobs, provides assistance to individuals, small businesses and States through a fair distribution of benefits without gimmicks, and makes investments in homeland security, infrastructure, and health care. I support a plan that provides for greater economic stability by committing to fiscal responsibility, preserving Social Security, and ensuring minimal long-term debt. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently has reiterated his position that the Nation is best served when the cost of any new tax cuts are offset, something the Rangel plan does. The cost of the Rangel plan is offset by suspending scheduled future tax cuts for the top two income tax brackets-- taxpayers with incomes about $151,300.

The plan I support, offered by Mr. Rangel, provides a stark contrast to the Bush administration's indifference to the growing unemployment crisis. Over 2 million job shave been lost since 2001. It is therefore critical that we extend emergency unemployment benefits for another 6 months and also increase benefits by 13 weeks to 26 weeks total. The Rangel plan does exactly that. But again, just like last year, the majority is not addressing these real needs to help the unemployed-- those who are, in fact, most likely to actually spent money and get our economy back on track. We cannot wait for unemployment benefits to expire before we act.

Another stark contrast between the Rangel plan and the Bush plan is the assistance provided for State and local governments. With collective State and local deficits of $200 billion from fiscal year 2002-2004, the Federal Government has a major responsibility to help our State and local governments in many key areas such as health care, homeland security and infrastructure. We should provide assistance to State and local governments. This will bolster national security and create job by temporarily expanding the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage (FMAP). We should target money to Homeland Security and infrastructure projects that are ready to go.

The Rangel plan would also expand the child tax credit, thereby covering nearly 2 million additional children and boosting the level of the child tax credit from $600 to $800 per child. The income threshold would be dropped from $10,000 to $7,500 and the percentage of the credit that would be refundable for lower-income taxpayers would be increased from 10 to 15 percent. In addition, I would accelerate the start of marriage penalty relief, boosting current law standard deduction and EITC provisions.

I also believe that we should accelerate the 10 percent income bracket and immediately expand the 10 percent marginal income tax rate to 2008 levels, from $6,000 to $7,000 for single individuals and from $12,000 to $14,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly. Providing the targeted tax relief to this bracket and marginal income tax rate will have a much stronger stimulating effect on the economy instead of targeting the wealthiest in America who will end up saving instead of spending anyway.

Furthermore, I believe Congress and the President must focus on job creation for small businesses and foster U.S.-based production by including business investment incentives to create and retain jobs in the United States.

This can be done by allowing greater small business expensing and bonus depreciation and by closing the most egregious tax shelter loopholes and corporate expatriation techniques. Under the Rangel plan, small businesses would be allowed to expense up to $75,000 of new investment costs, a $50,000 increase from the current $25,000 that businesses are allowed to expense. Additionally, all companies would benefit from bonus depreciation that is revised to provide for 50 percent bonus depreciation over the next 12 months and a 30 percent bonus for the last half of 2004. Also, the Rangel plan would repeal the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC)/Extraterritorial Income (ETI) Tax Program and replace it with a corporate rate deduction for domestic manufacturers. This would provide American companies with a strong incentive to maintain and expand their operations in the United States, protect and create jobs and allow U.S. manufacturers to remain competitive in the global marketplace.

Our country needs responsible tax policies that do not further increase the deficit already built up under this administration's watch. Apparently the majority believes the only way to create jobs is by borrowing more money, ignoring the current deficit, and increasing the national debt. I disagree with this strategy. I disagree with their plan. And I strongly oppose passage of this misnamed jobs and growth plan.

Unfortunately, the Rangel plan will not be given the vote it deserves on the House floor today. I am confident that if the American people really knew what was in the Thomas plan, every Member of Congress would hear the outcry from their constituents to vote no on it. Apparently the majority is concerned about the same. How else can one explain the all-too-familiar blow they strike at the Democratic process by not allowing a substitute to come to the floor?

I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Thomas plan, vote yes on the motion to recommit and support a responsible and effective stimulus plan.

Mr. Speaker, the previous gentlemen spoke and said that the Democrats have no plan and have no alternative. The gentleman knows that is false. The Democrats have a solid plan for economic growth, tax cuts to the middle class, not to the wealthy, targeting people who are going to spend it rather than those who are going to keep it, tax incentives for small business, which are a solid part of our plan, extending unemployment benefits and helping States with Medicaid funding. The difference is that our plan is fiscally responsible and fast acting and will prime the pump and get the economy going again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the threats to our constitutional freedoms. On September 11, we saw two planes kill thousands of people in New York. Our country has been in two conflicts overseas since then. There is insecurity in the land. Historically at times like these, Presidents and Congresses have run rough-shod over our constitutional freedoms and taken away individual rights.

A few examples in history: When we were about to go to war with the French, the Congress passed and John Adams signed the Alien & Sedition Act which made it illegal to talk against the government and people were thrown in jail for doing so. Abe Lincoln during the Civil War suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. During World War I, we again threw people in jail for speaking against the government. During World War II, we rounded up over 100,000 Japanese-American citizens and put them in internment camps. Fifty years later we realized we had done them wrong, and we apologized and paid them a meager sum. During the McCarthy era in the Cold War, 160 secret hearings were held and lives were ruined if you exercised your constitutional rights.

So in sum, war and fear and insecurity can make us lose our moorings.

After September 11, we rushed to pass the PATRIOT Act in 6 weeks. The PATRIOT Act has some good provisions which update old laws; but it also seriously undermines the Bill of Rights and many other provisions. Take one, the fourth amendment, which says there shall not be any searches of a person's home without a court issuing a warrant.

One of the worst examples of a fourth amendment violation in the PATRIOT Act is a new provision called sneak and peek. That means you can have a secret search of your house. The government can come into your house, they can search it, take things, and you may never learn. Sounds like the fourth amendment out the door.

Under the current regime President Bush can label somebody an enemy combatant, and they are thrown into a military brig even if they are an American citizen. There is no contact with the outside world, no attorney, no charges, no trial, and the person may be detained indefinitely. That does not sound like American justice to me.

And then just last week over in the United States Senate as the New York Times reports, we had a secret hearing in the Senate Intelligence Committee. The White House and the CIA proposed that the CIA and the military be given authority to collect intelligence on American citizens. Not even during the Cold War did we go this far. We have always kept separate the FBI, which does domestic law enforcement, and the CIA and the military, which deal with threats outside the country.

There are many more examples of our rights being eroded today. The President must be held to account for these violations. The Congress must get a grip on these abuses. The Congress should step forward, step up to the plate and review these policies and review these laws. The Congress needs to conduct real oversight in public, not behind closed doors, and needs to protect our constitutional freedoms. Ben Franklin said it best 200 years ago when he said, ``If we surrender our liberty in the name of security, then we shall have neither.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. We should be using this opportunity today to pass an effective and balanced energy bill that will help conserve our nation's resources and lessen our dependence on energy sources that are detrimental to our environment and even our national security. Instead, the bill being debated today harms the environment, threatens public health, endangers wildlife, and hurts consumers.

I believe a balanced national energy policy would be one that helps consumers by increasing energy production and reducing energy demand. Further, I feel that America's current and future energy needs should be met through a balanced approach that supports our fundamental environmental values. We must focus on becoming more energy efficient, investing in innovative technologies, and ensuring that energy markets are fair and competitive. We must also focus on reducing America's dependence on international oil suppliers and developing clean and renewable energy sources. Unfortunately, this bill accomplishes none of these goals.

Before consideration of the bill, I testified before the Rules Committee and requested that I be allowed to offer three amendments. The first would have required retail electricity suppliers to obtain 15% of their power production from a portfolio of renewable energy resources by 2020 and within 5 years add an additional 5%. This would allow us to enhance our nation's energy independence and national security while lowering prices for consumers by mitigating the effects of energy shortages and natural gas spikes. In addition, I believe including a Renewable Portfolio Standard in our nation's energy policy would create jobs and expand economic development, while simultaneously reducing air pollution and the threat of global warming.

The second amendment I hoped to bring to the floor was in support of the thousands of farmers, ranchers and homeowners across the west that are directly impacted by oil, gas and coal bed methane development activities on their lands. This amendment would have required surface use agreements between landowners and the oil and gas industry prior to any development of subsurface mineral rights owned by the federal government. Many farmers and ranchers own split estate interests, meaning that they own the surface resources and the federal government owns the subsurface mineral rights that it leases to the oil and gas industry. Currently, it is not required that the oil and gas companies repair and clean up a project site during or after its completion. Instead, the surface use agreements are only voluntary. Oftentimes as a result, many surface owners suffer loss of income, impairment of water quality, erosion and contamination of soil, harm to livestock and wildlife species, and they have no recourse because they did not have surface use agreements with the oil and gas companies. My amendment would have given these landowners the legal recourse they deserve.

Unfortunately, neither of these amendments was accepted by the Rules Committee. However, I was able to offer before the full House an important amendment that would strike an unnecessary and potentially dangerous subsidy included in H.R. 6 pertaining to uranium in situ leach mining. As written, the subsidy allots $30 million to the domestic uranium industry. The in situ leach mining procedure could cause radioactive uranium and other toxic chemicals to leach into groundwater. The area where this mining could potentially be undertaken in my district is near a high-quality aquifer, which is the sole source of scarce drinking water for over 10,000 people of the Navajo Nation in New Mexico. This subsidy compounds past disasters by promoting mining that could have dangerous health and environmental implications. Although my amendment was defeated, the roll call made it clear that there is bipartisan backing for striking this unfair and unwise subsidy. As this bill is negotiated in conference, I will continue to work to protect my constituents in New Mexico who have suffered so much from uranium related activities near their homes.

As we move into the future, we must act responsibly in ways that take into account the changing landscape of the world's energy situation instead of exacerbating the already dire energy dependence problem our nation faces. Conservation--getting the maximum value out of every bit of energy we use--must become a central feature of our nation's energy philosophy. We praise those who maximize the value of every dollar they spend; we should do the same with our energy. America should prize efficient and productive use of all our important resources, including energy. Conservation is real, achievable, and crucial.

Again, in those areas, this energy bill falls short. H.R. 6 weakens consumers protections, allows companies to contaminate water, allots over $18 billion in unnecessary subsidies to big oil and gas corporations, and takes one more step toward drilling in the untouched wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This will not enhance conservation or provide for the security of the energy supply for the American people as proponents of this bill claim. What it will do is reward the energy companies and leave the responsibility of keeping secure the nation's energy supply to yet another generation.

It is my hope that a conference committee will help produce a more sound compromise energy bill that does not threaten the future of either the environment or the country's energy needs. I will continue to work to see that our nation implements an energy plan that is balanced and addresses environmental concerns in a way that also provides for our continued economic success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. As a former federal prosecutor and the Attorney General of New Mexico, I have seen first hand that crimes committed with guns are among the most heinous, and should be prosecuted as quickly and forcefully as possible.

That is what concerns me most about H.R. 1036. Unfortunately, regardless of the criminal actions taken, it provides the gun industry with unprecedented immunity against civil liability prosecutions arising from such actions. Furthermore, in many cases it exempts manufacturers and dealers from product liability and provides disincentives to the industry to ensure that their products are safe. This legislation radically rewrites well-accepted principles of liability law by depriving gun violence victims of their legal rights in cases involving industry misconduct and negligence. If this bill is enacted, citizen lawsuits will no longer provide the primary mechanism to hold the gun industry accountable for its actions.

The bill only holds the gun industry accountable for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product ``when used as intended.'' Furthermore, it only provides a remedy for gun transactions that cause injury if the dealer had knowledge prior to the transaction that the firearm would be used to commit a violent crime or to traffic drugs. This bill diminishes and limits a victim's recourse against intentional and unintentional conduct.

Amazingly, this bill is retroactive. It would provide for the dismissal of all pending litigation that falls outside of its limited exceptions. A case that is familiar to us all demonstrates the ramifications of this bill. The legal counsel for the families of the recent sniper shootings in the DC area alleges that a west coast arms dealer ``intentionally and willfully'' chose to sell and distribute firearms in a grossly negligent manner, ignoring state and federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous persons. Furthermore, the families claim that if the dealer had acted responsibly in the sale of its guns, the sniper suspects would not have been able to obtain the assault rifle they used to carry out their shootings. Regardless of the veracity of these allegations, this case would be dismissed under the provisions of H.R. 1036 unless the sniper suspects clearly indicated to the dealer that they intended to carry out their recent shooting spree. I think that goes too far.

The bottom line is this legislation is bad public policy. This bill illuminates the majority's willingness to erode an individual's protections from corporate wrongdoing. I oppose passage of this bill and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. Chairman, in his State of the Union address to the Nation in January, President Bush acknowledged that the country faces many challenges and rightly said that ``(w)e will not deny, will not ignore, we will not pass on our problems to other Congresses and future generations.'' These were noble words that spoke to the true spirit of America.

Unfortunately, the budget conference report denies or ignores many of the challenges we face and passes them along to our children and to our future leaders.

By insisting on new tax cuts for the wealthiest that we simply cannot afford, the budget blueprint will explode Federal deficits and debt for years to come. These piles of debt will be passed on to future generations and will severely weaken our ability to meet the funding challenges facing Social Security and Medicare because of the retirement of the baby boom generation.

This budget projects record deficits while paving the way for up to $550 billion in new tax cuts. This budget agreement marks the worst deficits in our Nation's history. This historic achievement is at the same time that Republicans control both the Congress and the White House. What a sad legacy that is.

The result of this budget will be higher interest rates, the crowding out of private sector investment, and a reduction in long-tern economic growth. Amazingly, in just two and a half years the $5.6 trillion surplus that was projected when President Bush took office has been eliminated.

And not surprisingly, to make room for the latest round of non- stimulative tax cuts, the budget conference agreement again proposes cutbacks in domestic priorities like education, health care, transportation, and law enforcement--cuts that would have a significant negative impact on the vast majority of Americans.

I am not here just to condemn the Republican plan. In fact, I voted for an alternative, as did a few Republicans who objected to the Speaker's budget plan. The Democratic resolution would have adequately provided for education, would have provided $528 billion for Medicare prescription drug benefit, and would have provided some tax cuts. We wanted to put some money in the pockets of American consumers likely to spend it to give this economy a boost, a jump. We wanted to give some money to businesses to encourage them to invest, some tax cuts to businesses to encourage them to invest. We had tax cuts too, just not as massive as those included in the president's proposal. Our proposal would have been balanced in the year 2010. We accumulated a trillion dollars less debt than the Republicans. We had a budget that was commendable. It was rejected.

Mr. Speaker, the sad truth is that this budget takes us further down the wrong path. This policy threatens the long-term fiscal health of our nation.

I am proud to vote against this flawed policy.

Mr. Chairman, today we are considering the largest supplemental appropriations bill ever brought before the U.S. Congress--a bill totaling $77.9 billion. We live in extraordinary times, Mr. Speaker, so it is no surprise that we are considering a bill requesting an extraordinary amount of supplemental spending. What is extraordinary, however, is that in light of the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, and the simultaneous obstacles we face in ensuring the security of our citizens here at home, this supplemental bill includes only $4.2 billion for homeland security.

Mr. Speaker, our first responders are already under great pressure ensuring the safety of our citizens and I am sure we would all applaud them for their hard work and effort. But our applause is not enough. Our applause does not help them effectively protect our nation. Our applause does not help our first responders become any more prepared for a chemical or biological attack than they, and our nation, already are. Further exacerbating the problem for our first responders is the fact that many men and women who are now overseas either in Iraq, or in support of the military action in Iraq, are reservists or members of the National Guard who are police officers and firefighters when not on active duty. As a result, many of our local police and fire departments are experiencing shortages in the personnel they have available.

We must provide more funding for these men and women. For that reason, I opposed the Rule for the debate on the supplemental spending bill. This rule prohibits Mr. Obey from allowing his important amendment that would increase funding by $2.5 billion for Homeland Security programs. Programs that are critical to our nation's security. The Obey amendment would provide critically needed funds for military facilities, nuclear security facilities, port and infrastructure security, and much-needed funds in the amount of $1.2 billion for state and local first responders. It is a shame that Mr. Obey is not allowed to offer his amendment, but it is an even bigger shame that this bill shortchanges our needs for security here at home.

That being said, I do believe this is an important bill. I believe that it provides the critical resources to support our men and women currently fighting in the field. Just as we must support our first responders, so too must we support the men and women courageously fighting overseas right now, and we must do so by providing additional funding that will help them conduct their missions. I am hopeful that these funds for those currently in harm's way will help bring a speedier resolution to the operations in which they are participating, and will help contribute to their safety and the speed with which they are able to return to their loved ones back here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my thoughts, and the thoughts of my colleagues are, and should be, with the soldiers fighting overseas. But as we continue to keep them in our thoughts, we must not neglect the security of our nation at home. I hope that Members will work across party lines to provide more funding for our security at home as this bill returns from the conference committee. After all, don't we want to provide the best security possible for our soldiers when they return home? I, for one, certainly do. And I believe my colleagues should as well.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Committee on Rules for making this amendment in order.

This amendment is a simple amendment with a simple objective: striking section 14209 of the Energy Bill and to protect the health of thousands of residents of the and Navajo Nation.

Section 14209 provides a $10 million subsidy over 3 years to promote a highly experimental technology where uranium is mined from groundwater. The problem is, the groundwater is a pure source of drinking water for a community of over 10,000 Navajo Indians. The Navajo community has suffered enough from the effects of uranium mining. Hundreds of families have lost their loved ones and breadwinners to the scourge of uranium mining.

During the 1940s through the 1970s, Navajo men mined uranium in dirty mines with high levels of radon. As a result, many contracted lung cancer. The Navajo Nation has seen an epidemic of lung cancer caused by uranium mining.

The people of the Navajo Nation and the residents of Crownpoint and Church Rock, do not want this mining to occur in their groundwater. They have suffered enough. They are fighting now against a company in court

that is attempting to mine, and they are in court right now.

Some of my colleagues have approached me and asked me to withdraw my amendment because they believe that New Mexico was excluded. This is not the case. If it were, I would be pleased that the drinking water and aquifer of my constituents would not be threatened.

As written, section 14029 does not preclude uranium mining in New Mexico or anywhere else for that matter.

The Congressional Research Service has advised me that, as written, 14029 would permit in situ leach mining in New Mexico.

Specifically, if a domestic uranium producer has produced uranium in any of the States listed, Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Utah or Wyoming, and produced uranium in any other State, then that company is eligible for the grants created by this section. Then they are not precluded from doing this procedure anywhere that uranium is located.

More importantly though, this is not just about New Mexico. In my opinion, we should not be experimenting in communities' water anywhere. I am trying to protect everyone near uranium mines from having their water supplies polluted.

Mr. Chairman, my first and foremost concern in offering this amendment is protecting the health of thousands of Navajos who would be severely impacted by this mining. There are, however, other concerns. This proposed subsidy would also lead to even further unsound fiscal policy.

At a time of skyrocketing Federal deficits and an uncertain economic future, we should not be giving away $30 million to the uranium industry. We have too many domestic priorities that are not being met because of policies like this subsidy. Taxpayers for Common Sense views this as an unfair and unwise corporate giveaway.

This is also about fairness. It is sadly ironic that we cannot find the financial resources required to fully fund the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, which was intended to clean up the mess left by the uranium industry; but we can find the resources for this $30 million subsidy to pollute more water and potentially ruin the health of more citizens.

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.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my distinguished friend, the chairman from Louisiana, makes the point that this is solely a responsible way to help the uranium mining industry.

I would point out to the gentleman that the uranium industry, since its beginning, has received $60 billion in subsidies from the Federal Government. We have a serious glut in uranium right now, one, because of governmental policies, and, secondly, because our companies that operate here in the United States cannot compete internationally, and we have this huge glut of uranium on the market right now. So the solution that the gentleman and this bill come up with is to throw more money at an industry and prop it up and encourage that industry to go out and mine in situ in people's groundwater.

This is not the way to move. I do not think this is the kind of solution that would help my constituents, it does not help anybody's constituents who live near uranium mining, and I believe we ought to focus on what is going on here.

First of all, we are propping up an industry; secondly, we are damaging the groundwater of many people; thirdly, this just is not sound fiscal policy for our Nation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments on this issue. I consider him a good friend. But on this issue I think we have to disagree.

They say the uranium market is hurt because of governmental policies. The real facts are that the uranium industry cannot compete internationally.

Other countries, namely Canada, are able to produce at far lower prices than the United States. What we are doing here by including this subsidy is propping up a dying industry.

Yes, there is a glut in the current uranium market, also created by governmental policies; but why are we giving away taxpayer money to increase the supply even more? What happened to competition? My friends from the other side always talk about competition. This is not competition; this is growing more and more and more supply.

This is a very unwise section of this bill, and it should be stricken.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for her willingness to come to the floor and clarify the intent of the legislation. I appreciate her efforts on this issue. However, even if the language in the bill were in line with the intent, I still believe my amendment is necessary. This subsidy has dangerous implications for the entire Nation, not just my district.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close debate on my side.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment can prevent potential damage from this provision that inflicts enormous, enormous, damage on the health of thousands of Native Americans. But this provision has implications far wider than just my district. It has implications in any district that has uranium and where uranium is mined.

The potential long-term damage this section could inflict on the environment is immeasurable. I ask my colleagues to take a close look at this and consider whether or not they might want this dangerous type of mining occurring in neighborhoods of their constituents.

I would also ask that they take a look at the fiscal responsibility here. This is an industry which has received $60 billion in subsidies. This is an industry right now where there is a huge glut on the market of uranium, and we are talking once again about throwing $30 million at the industry and propping it up. It does not make a lot of sense, especially in this competitive environment.

I would urge my colleagues to look at the groups that are supporting my amendment. We have the Taxpayers for Common Sense, who believe that this is a very serious corporate giveaway. That is one end of the spectrum. And we have most major environmental groups that are supporting this amendment. The leaders of the Navajo Nation for the last two terms have supported this amendment and are against this type of mining on the Navajo Reservation.

The Navajos are the largest tribe in the Nation, and the Union of Concerned Scientists is against this amendment.

So with that, I would ask all of my colleagues to vote for the Udall amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana says that this is an amendment against the nuclear industry. I am not offering this with that motivation. This is an amendment to protect the environment, and it is to protect the taxpayers' pocketbook.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 380, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003. This legislation provides financial relief to the Postal Service in a time of great need. By enacting this legislation, we will help the Postal Service carry out its stated mission of providing universal service--the idea that mail service in our rural areas should be as speedy, efficient, and inexpensive as mail service in our largest cities. In my district in New Mexico where there are numerous rural communities, this mission is especially important. Additionally, by providing relief for the Postal Service, we can keep postal rates stable until 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the steps this Congress has taken toward helping the

Postal Service to carry out their vital services. I thank my colleagues for showing their support not only for the Postal Service and its many employees, but for all communities throughout the country.