Tom Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act. In particular, I want to call attention to section 3065 and to thank Chairman Oberstar and the Chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Johnson, for their support of the city of Saco, Maine. Section 3065 authorizes construction of modifications to an Army Corps of Engineers jetty at the mouth of the Saco River in the Camp Ellis neighborhood of Saco. The Corps built the jetty more than 130 years ago and subsequently has lengthened, smoothed, and raised it. Unfortunately, the jetty is destroying the Camp Ellis neighborhood by contributing to what the Maine State geologist has called the worst coastal erosion in the State. Thirty-eight homes have been lost to the sea. Currently, homes that were once six rows back from the shoreline are in danger of being destroyed. During winter nor'easter storms, one part of Camp Ellis often becomes an island. These dangerous conditions are caused by a structure erected, improved, and maintained by the United States Government. For that reason I believe that the Federal Government must act to alleviate the problem. Section 3065 funds a spur jetty and a series of breakwaters that will diminish the force of wave action on the beach. For the past 7 years, I have been actively involved with Federal, State, and local officials, as well as with Camp Ellis residents, all dedicated to fixing the Camp Ellis erosion problem. Passage of WRDA could not be more timely. On Monday I was there in the middle of the storm surge, and during this week's nor'easter, Camp Ellis lost at least two homes to the sea. If the proposed modifications to the jetty had been made, these homes would not have been destroyed. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, given the history of the last few years, there is no reason to take what the Republican minority is saying seriously. And I say that because the history of the last 6 years has been to prove that people who don't believe in government don't run it well. It is also true that past Republican budgets have never made permanent the President's tax cuts. So there is rank hypocrisy to suggest that there is a tax increase embedded in this one when there was a similar increase embedded in past Republican budgets. But, beyond that, what we are really talking about is criticism from a party which ran up $3 trillion in the Federal debt over the last few years; and they have done that, frankly, by putting their tax cuts for the richest people in the country on a credit card. Only they don't intend to pay the credit card. They intend our children and grandchildren to pay back the credit card with $3 trillion of additional Federal debt. Now, we could go on, on that subject, but the bottom line is budgets are about priorities; and the Democratic priorities in this budget are very, very different from what the administration and the Republicans have done before. For example, clean water. In my home State of Maine, we value the environment. A good environment is absolutely essential to the health of our economy, because so many people come to me precisely because we have clean air and clean water and a beautiful place to visit. So it is important to the economy. People move to Maine because it is a fabulous place to live, and the quality of the environment is important there as well. Our future responsibility for the planet is all tied up in environmental issues. But the President and the past Republican Congress has reduced the Clean Water State Revolving Fund over the last few years. Clean water is a basic value for all Americans, and they tried to reduce funds for the Clean Water Revolving Fund. Conservation and preservation of important resources, important to all people in this country, they tried to cut it. We are increasing that funding. The bottom line is this: Our budget priorities are dramatically different. We have rejected the administration's proposed cuts to core environmental programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Fish and Wildlife Refuge System, and EPA's own budget. They have been trying to reduce funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. We have a different set of priorities. We increase that funding, and this makes a dramatic difference. This budget funds conservation and environmental protection infrastructure at $31.4 billion, $2.46 billion more than the President requested. We have provided a deficit neutral reserve fund for the reauthorization of the farm bill, and a significant portion of that increased funding would go toward enhancing the Department of Agriculture's natural resource conservation programs. I would go on to say that expanded agricultural conservation programs help farmers better comply with environmental regulations, and they certainly provide valuable natural resource benefits for the public. The bottom line is this: clean water, clean air, protecting public health, improving the environment, fulfilling our responsibility to preserve the planet for our children and grandchildren, to preserve our parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and open space. That is what this Congress should be doing. That is what this Democratic budget does. It is a dramatic change from the past, and I just want to congratulate Chairman Spratt for the good work he has done in making this budget environmentally sensitive.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to trade policies that are unfair to American workers. Congress must insist on a new model for trade that makes American workers the top priority. Trade agreements must also take into account protections for the environment and ensure access to life-saving medicines. Developing trade agreements that take these priorities into account will be difficult, but we must not rush into obligations which will ultimately harm our own interests, and we must reject the false choice between expanding our trade opportunities and fairness to U.S. workers. It is simply wrong to follow the old model that we know hurts the livelihoods of so many of our constituents. That is why Democrats are pushing for new priorities in the trade deals that the administration is negotiating with Colombia, Peru, Panama, South Korea and other countries. Congress must continue to press the administration to change its trade policies and provide specific, constructive suggestions to advance the goals of our workers and our economy. Unfortunately, the Bush administration doesn't act as though it believes that Congress should have a real say in trade negotiations. One example, though it is certainly not the only one, is the matter of allowing access to life-saving medications. Congress has passed legislation directing the administration to respect the Doha Declaration, an agreement that allows countries flexibility under WTO rules to provide for public health. Although the administration signed the Doha Declaration, USTR has completely ignored Congress' directive to respect it. Every trade pact negotiated since 2002 has contained stringent intellectual property rules sought by the major drug companies. By keeping medicine prices high, these rules increase industry profits but restrict access to needed medicines for citizens in developing countries. Even in current free trade negotiations, USTR continues to ignore the will of Congress to respect the Doha Declaration. That is why a new framework for trade must include a stronger role for Congress. The current model of nonbinding negotiating objectives permits the President to ignore the wishes of this Congress. It is no surprise that the administration has favored large corporate interests at the expense of American workers, the environment and global health. But it is wrong. However, our new majority in Congress will respond to workers who have been hurt by previous trade agreements. After all, trade agreements have affected my home State of Maine's manufacturing, farming and service sectors. Soon Congress may be asked to consider renewing fast track authority. I voted against the Trade Act of 2002, which granted fast track authority to the President. I urge my colleagues to reject renewal of fast track in its current form. It is vital that Congress continue to press for change, firmly and constructively.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will vote on legislation to set a path for the responsible redeployment of American troops from Iraq. I will support this bill because it will end American involvement in the Iraqi civil war and bring our troops safely home. This week marks the fourth anniversary of a war born in deceit and prolonged by mismanagement. I voted against the invasion in 2002; I will vote now to end this war by supporting the Iraq Accountability Act with its benchmarks and timetables for redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq. For 4 years, previous Congresses neglected their oversight responsibilities while the administration made mistake after mistake. The congressional majority failed to conduct thorough investigations, demand accountability, or offer policy alternatives. We have paid a steep price for that neglect, including the lives of more than 3,200 American Armed Forces, with another 24,000 wounded, many critically. The new Congress is providing long overdue leadership, taking action to end U.S. involvement in a civil war with no end in sight. Responsible military disengagement from Iraq is in the national security interests of the United States. There are no easy, cost-free options. But our perpetual presence in Iraq has sapped our military strength, undermined our credibility around the world, and limited our investments in domestic priorities like health care and education. This week, the House of Representatives has a choice: Either endorse the President's open-ended commitment, or adopt a plan that demands accountability, sets a timeline for redeployment, and restores the readiness of our Armed Forces. The President's strategy of indefinite intervention is simply not sustainable. The situation in Iraq has moved beyond our military's ability to shape events in a positive direction. Extending our presence merely delays our ability to recover the ground we have lost, our diplomatic initiative, our global reputation, and the broken state of our ground forces. The Iraq Accountability Act has three key components: First, it uses President Bush's own benchmarks to require the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own security. If they meet those benchmarks, all American forces would leave Iraq by the summer of 2008. If they do not, American forces will leave as early as the end of this year. Second, the bill supports our Armed Forces by requiring the President to certify that any troops deployed to Iraq are fully and properly equipped, and that their deployment follows Department of Defense standards for readiness and rest between deployments. Third, it provides funds needed to ensure that returning troops and veterans receive the best possible health care and other services they deserve. The American people expect us to say where we stand on the war in Iraq. By supporting the Iraq Accountability Act we are voting to use the long-neglected powers of Congress to bring U.S. involvement in the Iraqi civil war to an end. I urge, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Iraq Accountability Act when it comes to the floor tomorrow.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 156, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my continued support for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill which the House passed 2 weeks ago which I hope the Senate will soon consider. I was proud to support House passage of the Employee Free Choice Act because I believe that the current law places undue burdens on workers who are trying to exercise their rights to organize. Under the current law, workers are often subject to intimidation, and employers receive a slap on the hand for illegal activities. One study recently conducted by the University of Illinois found that 30 percent of employers fire pro-union workers, 49 percent threaten to close a work site, and 51 percent coerce employees with bribes or favoritism. Because of these acts, many workers are afraid to vote for a union against the wishes of their employer, even in private. If those statistics are not compelling enough, I urge my colleagues to consider the fact that the United States is the only industrialized Nation to have a union avoidance industry of any size. This industry, on which corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year, exists solely to help businesses resist unionization efforts and undermine union strength. The Employee Free Choice Act would close the legal and illegal avenues to intimidation that some employers use, thereby strengthening employees' ability to choose. It would discourage the firing of employees by increasing fines and penalties during the election process. It would guarantee that first contract negotiations don't drag out for years by requiring mediation and arbitration to end delays. The Employee Free Choice Act would allow the use of card check procedures, in which a majority of workers, not just a majority of voters, sign cards authorizing a union. Why is it so important to ensure access to unions? Inequality is rising in our country. Two years ago, Alan Greenspan said: ``A free market society is ill served by an economy in which the rewards are distributed in a way which too many of our population do not feel is appropriate.'' Whether or not you agree that increasing inequality in our country is tied to declining union membership, one thing is clear: unionized workers have better rates of health care coverage, better wages, and are five times more likely to have a pension. Access to health care, better wages, secure pension: these are the things the House is trying to give back to the middle class in America. Making our economy work for everyone is a complicated, ongoing process. The Employee Free Choice Act is one important step we can take toward accomplishing that goal. In many American workplaces, the process of forming a union is contentious. Yet, though they may differ over issues like wages, health care and pensions, employees, supervisors, and company owners are all striving for the same goal, to make their company work and for competitiveness in a global economy. Finding a middle ground on questions of compensation, training and health care boosts American productivity, innovation, and competitiveness. When employers control the outcome, we not only cheat workers; we cheat our economic future. As we approach 2020, our income distribution is trending toward that of 1920. Americans don't want to be left to the market-based whims of health savings accounts, privatized Social Security, or personal job retraining accounts. They want a government that ensures that individuals can provide for themselves and their families. Senator Wagner wrote the National Labor Relations Act in 1934 to ensure that workers would have an unambiguous, unmitigated right to representation in the workplace. He said then that ``the denial or observance of this right means the difference between despotism and democracy.'' It is unfortunate that the Employee Free Choice Act faces obstacles in the Senate, but it is time to give Americans a fair shot at organizing again. Everyone deserves protection under the law. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the Employee Free Choice Act.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to renewing trade promotion authority, also known as fast track. Fast track in its current form is nothing more than a blank check for the administration to negotiate harmful trade agreements without congressional input. I voted against the Trade Act of 2002, which granted fast track authority to the President. Those of us who opposed such a large grant of authority are not surprised that, given a blank check, the Bush administration has made regional and bilateral deals to suit narrow corporate interests and cut Members of Congress out of the process. We need to examine what has happened to hardworking people in my home State of Maine since Congress signed that blank check. Between January of 2001 and December of last year, Maine lost more than 20,000 manufacturing jobs. In the same period of time, Maine also lost 8,000 information sector jobs, in what surely is just the beginning of trouble for our service sectors. Only one month ago, Moosehead Manufacturing, a furniture-making firm in the towns of Monson and Dover-Foxcroft, Maine, employing 120 people, closed its doors as a result of competition from China, Mexico, and Brazil. Moosehead Manufacturing tried for years to adjust to the pressure of foreign competition by changing its products and the structure of its workforce, unfortunately, to no avail. Fast track authority allowed the administration to continue to make trade deals without adjusting their tactics in the least, even as jobs flowed out of my State. It isn't clear how lost manufacturing jobs will be replaced in Maine. What is clear is that these jobs were casualties not of the inevitable forces of globalization, but the abuse of a process that is closed to the majority of Americans. That is why I voted against fast track, and why I am here to urge my colleagues to vote against renewal in anything like the form of the current law. Mainers who lose their jobs because of global competition often have to accept lower wages when they find another job. This week, The Washington Post reported that nearly half of workers laid off between 2003 and 2005 who were successful at finding new employment took a pay cut at their new jobs. Nearly 30 percent reported earnings losses of 20 percent or more. The same is true for Maine manufacturing sector workers. According to a 2002 survey done by the Maine AFL-CIO, laid-off manufacturing workers who found new employment lost on average 16 percent of their wages. One out of three laid-off workers lost pension benefits. Congress is under pressure to renew fast track. The administration claims that it cannot negotiate bilateral or multilateral agreements without it. The administration has had long enough to demonstrate what it will and won't do with fast track authority. Our constituents deserve to be heard when trade deals are negotiated, not ignored. Rather than write another blank check, Members of Congress should take an active part in trade negotiations. We must insert accountability into any future grants of authority to the executive branch. We must strive to create agreements that meet the test of what serves the public good, rather than what serves narrow special interests. I strongly believe that the choice between agreements that open new trade opportunities and agreements that protect workers is a false one. We can and must achieve both objectives. We can address health care, education, job training, and technological investments to make our firms more competitive. We can do more to retrain and cushion the blow for workers who lose their jobs as a result of foreign competition, and we can rewrite the model for trade agreements so that the interests of hardworking Americans are a priority. I urge my colleagues to oppose renewal of fast track in its current form.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Employee Free Choice Act. It is natural to believe, as most Americans do, that since workplace elections have secret ballots, they are similar to the elections we have for municipal, State and national offices. Unfortunately, choosing to join a union is not like the choices we all make at voting booths in November. Americans rightly expect not to be fired or harassed for the way they vote. They do not expect to hear that their jobs may be shipped overseas or that they may lose their health care coverage. On the other hand, the law gives employers that oppose unions with illegal means a chance to do such things. Employers that want to fire or threaten the union-friendly worker can calculate ahead of time that it will only cost them a few thousand dollars in fines if they are caught. And wronged employees might not be reinstated for years, long after the union effort has run its course. Other tactics are legal but unfair, such as mandatory meetings for employees to listen to their employer's antiunion views with no similar opportunities for unions to respond. Workers are subject to intimidation so effective that many are afraid to vote for a union against the wishes of their employer, even in private, even in a secret ballot. One study recently conducted by the University of Illinois found that 30 percent of employers fire prounion workers, 49 percent threaten to close a workplace, and 51 percent coerce employees with bribes or favoritism. These acts are not legal under the National Labor Relations Act, but the fines are so paltry and the legal process so slow that unscrupulous employers are undeterred. People are afraid to vote for a union because they are afraid to lose their jobs and because the law does not adequately protect them. These are not the kind of elections Americans expect at their polling places. The Employee Free Choice Act would bring our workplaces closer to the democratic ideals we do expect. The Employee Free Choice Act would strengthen employees' ability to choose. It would discourage the firing of employees by increasing fines and penalties during the election process. It would require mediation and arbitration to end delays and make sure that the first contract negotiations do not drag out for years. The Employee Free Choice Act would also replace secret ballots with a card check procedure in which a majority of workers, not just the majority of voters, sign cards authorizing a union. Why is it so important to ensure access to unions? Inequality is rising in our country. Two years ago, Alan Greenspan said, ``A free- market society is ill-served by an economy in which the rewards are distributed in a way which too many of our population do not feel is appropriate.'' Whether or not you believe that increasing inequality in our country is tied to declining union membership, one thing is clear. Union workers have better rates of health care coverage, better wages, and are five times more likely to have a pension. Access to health care, better wages, secure pensions, these are things Congress is trying to give back to the middle class in America. Making our economy work for everyone is a complicated, ongoing process. I believe the Employee Free Choice Act is one important step toward accomplishing that goal. In most American workplaces, the process of forming a union is contentious. Yet, though they may differ over issues like wages, health care and pension benefits, employers, employees, supervisors and company owners are all striving for the same goal: American competitiveness in a global economy. Finding a middle ground on the question of compensation, training and health care boosts American productivity, innovation and competitiveness. By giving the lion's share of the power to employers, we not only cheat workers, we cheat our economic future. As we approach 2020, our income distribution is trending toward 1920. Americans do not want to be left to the market-based whims of health savings accounts, privatized Social Security, or personal job retraining accounts. They want a government that helps individuals provide for themselves and their families. Senator Wagner wrote the National Labor Relations Act in 1934 to ensure that workers would have an unambiguous, unmitigated right to representation in the workplace. He said then that ``the denial or observance of this right means the difference between despotism and democracy.'' Let us give Americans a fair shot at organizing again. They deserve protection under the law. I urge my colleagues to support the Employee Free Choice Act.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I thank our Speaker and the majority leader for scheduling this long overdue debate on Iraq. For 4 years we have suffered from a Congress that was unwilling to lead, and content simply to follow on Iraq. The previous majority gave the President a blank check for the war and rubber-stamped the funding. They ignored oversight, avoided investigations, and stifled debate. Today in Iraq, the price of this neglect is the loss of too many American lives caught in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war. Now our new Democratic leaders and committee chairs are asserting Congress' constitutional responsibilities on war and peace. We are reclaiming a congressional role in foreign policy in order to bring a responsible end to the U.S. military involvement in Iraq. One step is this resolution, which sends a vital signal of disapproval of the President's escalation plan. Another is the ambitious list of long overdue oversight hearings. In the first 5 weeks of this Congress, we held more hearings on Iraq than the Republicans held in all of 2006. The next step, we should use the appropriations bills to shape policy in Iraq. I strongly support the Skelton-Lantos resolution, which expresses support for the troops and disapproval of the President's escalation. Only a political solution, not a military one, will address the sectarian conflict in Iraq. Yet President Bush has rejected the wisdom of his military commanders, the Iraq Study Group, and many other experts by choosing to send more troops into a Sunni-Shia conflict that we cannot control. Escalation, we know, is opposed by the majority of the American people. More telling, it is opposed by a majority of the Iraqi people. When the White House war plans diverge from the wishes of the people and leaders of Iraq, we must question the relevance of the mission. Our statement on the escalation is important, but our constituents also deserve to know our position on an exit strategy. We cannot make needed investments in our future until we put our involvement in Iraq in the past. This war is straining our military and undermining our ability to deal with domestic challenges. We must force Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security by directing an orderly redeployment of the troops and promoting a political solution in Iraq with a focus on transition to Iraqi control. Recent experience shows that the U.S. must impose deadlines with consequences so that Iraqi leaders will be compelled to take responsibility. An indefinite U.S. military experience in Iraq creates a climate of dependency that undermines the goal of having the Iraqi Government control internal security. It is not in our national interests to have U.S. troops placed between warring factions in a sectarian war. To achieve this goal, I support H.R. 645, a bill introduced by Representative David Price and Representative Brad Miller. The bill terminates, by December 31, 2007, the authorization for military operations in Iraq that passed, over my objection, in 2002. The original mission, eliminating weapons of mass destruction and ousting Saddam Hussein, is no longer operative. If the President believes troops should remain in Iraq beyond 2007, he must come to Congress and justify a new mission, and Congress would have to vote to approve a new mission. H.R. 645 also requires the President to submit a plan and timetable for phasing out troop deployments by December 31, 2007. It prohibits funding for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. It authorizes funding for employment, democracy, and governance programs in that country, and it creates a Special Envoy for Iraq regional security. America's servicemen and women who have been sent to Iraq have served with skill, determination, and courage. We owe them and their families our gratitude and our unwavering support. Like every Member of Congress, I have been to too many funerals not to understand the sacrifice of those who have served, and their families. Neither H. Con. Res. 63 nor H.R. 645 cuts our funding for armor and protective equipment still needed by troops in the war zone. Congress must take a long overdue leadership role in ending this war. This resolution is an important first step, and I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, our country faces great challenges: energy independence, global warming, economic competitiveness, health care, and widening income inequality. But when I visit with people in Maine, the first issue they bring up is Iraq. We cannot address our other pressing issues unless we solve our most urgent problem: Iraq. We cannot make many needed investments in our future until we put our involvement in Iraq in the past. The war in Iraq is straining our military and compromising our ability to address vital priorities like global terrorism and nuclear proliferation. It is diverting attention from dealing with Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan. Since the President will not, Congress must lead to force Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security by directing an orderly redeployment of troops and promoting a political solution in Iraq with a focus on transition to Iraqi control. Recent experience shows that the U.S. must impose deadlines with consequences so that Iraqi leaders will be compelled to take responsibility. An unending U.S. military presence in Iraq creates a climate of dependency that undermines the goal of having the Iraqi Government control internal security. There is a growing consensus that only a political solution, not a military one, will address the sectarian conflict in Iraq. Yet President Bush has rejected the wisdom of military commanders, the Iraq Study Group, and the voters by choosing to send more troops into the crossfire of a sectarian civil war. If the President won't provide an exit strategy, Congress must take the lead in ending the war. To achieve this goal, I have cosponsored H.R. 645, a bill introduced by Representatives David Price and Brad Miller. The bill would, by December 31, 2007, terminate the authorization for military operations in Iraq that passed, over my objection, in 2002. The original mission Congress authorized, eliminating weapons of mass destruction and ousting Saddam Hussein, is no longer operative. If the President wants U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year, he should justify his plans and seek new approval from Congress. I am confident that the new Congress will not give the President a blank check, as the congressional majority wrongly did in 2002. H.R. 645 also requires the President to submit a plan and timetable for phasing out troop deployments by December 31, 2007. It declares that U.S. policy is to withdraw forces in order to transfer responsibility to Iraqis; prohibits funding for permanent U.S. bases; authorizes employment, democracy, and governance programs; and creates a special envoy for Iraq regional security. America's servicemen and -women in Iraq have served with skill, determination, and courage. We owe them and their families our gratitude and our unwavering support. Our legislation does not cut off funds for armor and protective equipment still needed by our troops in the war zone. No exit strategy will succeed unless it has broad public support. I support H.R. 645 as a responsible approach to ending the war by focusing on U.S. policy and on the now outdated congressional authorization for the use of force. Citizens deserve to know where their elected officials stand on the war and not just on the escalation. I have let my constituents in Maine know where I stand and how I believe Congress should take a long overdue leadership role in ending this war.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, Hanley Graham Denning was only 36 when a terrible traffic accident in Guatemala took her away from us on January 18. She was revered in Guatemala where she was known as ``El Angel del Basuero,'' the Angel of the Dump. Hanley was a native of Yarmouth, Maine, and a Bowdoin College graduate, with a master's degree in early childhood education from Wheelock College. After college, she helped children affected by AIDS in Roxbury, Massachusetts, and then taught impoverished children at a Head Start program in North Carolina. Because so many children were from migrant families and spoke little or no English, Hanley decided to go to Guatemala to learn to speak their language. While in Guatemala City in 1999, the Portland Press Herald reported, a friend suggested she visit the garbage dump. There, Denning began the work that would come to define her life. On that trip to the dump, the largest in Central America, Hanley was shocked to see a tiny hand reaching out from a cardboard box. ``At first she thought it was a doll, then she realized it was a baby,'' her friend Rachel Meyn told the Press Herald. ``The image kept playing over and over in her head,'' Meyn added, ``and from then on she decided she had to do something.'' What Hanley Denning did was to sell her car and her computer, convert an old chapel near the dump into a drop-in center for the children, and give 40 Guatemalan boys and girls a refuge from the filth and stench of the dump. Hanley soon learned that the health hazards at the dump were only a small part of the danger facing these children. Most came from single- parent households, where mothers scavenged the dump, often helped by the children, to find scrap to sell in order to buy food. Drug abuse, crime, child abuse, and predation were rampant. Hanley decided to create an environment where the children could escape harm and find the kind of encouragement that she as a former Head Start teacher knew would give them a better chance to grow into healthy successful adults. She called it ``Camino Seguro,'' Safe Passage. The mothers and the children of Guatemala call Hanley Denning ``Angel del Basuero,'' Angel of the Dump. Eight years later, Hanley's modest effort has grown into a program that helps more than 500 needy children at three sites. It has an annual budget of $1.6 million and 100 Guatemalan staff members, including teachers, social workers, cooks, and other support staff. There is a three-story educational reinforcement center, with 13 classrooms, a fully stocked library, a computer lab with 13 computers, a kitchen for preparing 550 lunches daily, a medical clinic serving all children and their family members, and a garden. Teens can receive vocational training, mothers and grandmothers can attend adult literacy and parenting classes. In addition to their daily hot lunches, each child who attends regularly receives a monthly food bag for their family. Nearly 600 children fated to scavenge the dump like their parents are now in school. ``I used to look into the children's eyes and see the adults they would become,'' Hanley once told the reporter. ``Now they have a little hope. I see a bit more spark.'' But the success of Safe Passage is only part of Hanley Denning's legacy. Her angelic touch reached beyond the Guatemalan slums and into the lives of hundreds of volunteers, many of them teenagers, who worked for Safe Passage over the years. There are 50 volunteers working at Safe Passage in any given month, including 20 long-term volunteers who make a 1-year or 2-year commitment to the program. As Jason Moyer-Lee told the Portland Press Herald's Bill Nemitz, ``I couldn't believe that someone from my town who went to my high school could actually make something like that happen. When Hanley sat down and talked to you, she made you feel like, without your help, Safe Passage couldn't happen,'' he said. ``It didn't matter how much you gave or how little, she made you feel like you were the number one contributor.'' ``I've never loved more than when I was combing lice out of children's hair,'' added Aly Spaltro, a Brunswick High School senior who volunteered at Safe Passage in the past and plans to return before she returns to college. Although his sister Hanley died young, her brother Jordan said at her memorial that she had lived a much fuller life than most people, and she inspired everyone who loved her to ``give every ounce of ourselves to what we truly believe in.'' Mr. Speaker, I refer to safepassage.org for on Hanley Denning's life. Catherine Lopez Reyes, a five year old at Safe Passage, best summed up the feelings of all whose lives Hanley Denning changed for the better: ``Hanley, te quiero mucho, We love you very much, Hanley. To learn more about Hanley Denning and her Safe Passage program, visit the website safepassage.org. See safepassage.org for the extraordinary story of the life of a remarkable woman.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act. A college education is the foundation of economic mobility in America. College graduates enjoy higher incomes, better career opportunities and more financial stability. College has never been more important than it is today and, sadly, never more expensive. But in the last few years Federal support for higher education has declined. We have been moving in the wrong direction. That is why H.R. 5 is so critical. It will save middle and low income students thousands of dollars in debt. The bill cuts the interest rates on federally subsidized Stafford loans in half over 5 years. It will save the average college student in Maine who starts school next fall $2,170 over the life of his or her loan. Maine students starting in 2011 or after will save an average of $4,200. Sixty years ago, the GI bill sent a generation of veterans to college. Thirty years ago, Pell Grants and Stafford loans extended this opportunity to more working class Americans. The future economic prosperity of America turns on giving today's students the same opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, this day has been a long time coming for many of us. Back in 1998, I was hearing from my constituents in Maine about the high price of prescription drugs, and I introduced a bill to tie drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries to the negotiated prices that the VA gets. The Congress didn't act, but in Maine we enacted Maine Rx. We negotiated lower prices, and we got them for so many people in Maine who were really desperate for lower-priced prescription drugs. The Congress, under Republican leadership in the House and Senate, delayed and delayed. Eventually, it got to be too hot to handle and we passed Medicare part D. Today, the defenders of Medicare part D are saying, Well, it is doing well because it doesn't cost as much as we thought it would cost. In truth, the real winners are on Wall Street. Last November, in reviewing pharmaceutical profits, the New York Times said: ``For big drug companies, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit is proving to be a financial windfall, larger than even the most optimistic Wall Street analysts had predicted.'' Well, if it is a financial windfall for PhRMA, it is a lousy deal for the American taxpayer. Market forces, some say, will yield the lowest prices, but the VA gets lower prices, Medicaid gets lower prices, other countries get lower prices than the Medicare D plans. It is very clear that negotiation will drive down prices, particularly if the Secretary negotiates especially strongly on those highest priced drugs, those drugs that are most out of line. Secondly, the advocates are arguing that PhRMA and its allies are saying that negotiated prices will reduce revenue so much they will have to cut R&D. We have heard that for over 20 years; it has never happened. This bill, finally, will be a good deal for taxpayers and a good deal for our seniors. ``For big drug companies, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit is proving to be a financial windfall larger than even the most optimistic Wall Street analysts had predicted. . . . Wall Street analysts say they have little doubt that the benefit program. . . has helped several big drug makers report record profits.''(NYT, 11/6/06)

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and thank her for her strong leadership on this issue. The bill that we are considering today addresses shortcomings in current stem cell policy while maintaining strict ethical standards in stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research offers promise to millions of Americans suffering from spinal cord injuries and chronic illnesses, including cancer, Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, and diabetes. Neither Congress nor the administration should prohibit the medical community from pursuing a promising avenue of research that can improve the lives of millions of Americans. Embryonic stem cell research is supported by the majority of my constituents in Maine and has overwhelming bipartisan support across this country. I have heard from hundreds of constituents who support this bill, including Virginia, from Gardiner, Maine, whose mother is stricken with Parkinson's disease. She describes the conditions of limited mobility her mother faces as horrific. Celia, in Madison, Maine, says her twin sister, Maura, was paralyzed from an auto accident and hopes for a better life. We need to ensure that our scientists can pursue the promising research of embryonic stem cells to help these people and millions like them. We cannot allow the politics of this issue to undermine groundbreaking research, impede science and place at risk the health and well-being of victims and their families. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 5, to provide for the rules package of the 110th Congress. I am proud that the first act of this new Congress is to pass long-overdue ethics and lobbying reform. Today, we end the era of Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay, when the levers of government were used less to help American families and more to reward monied special interests. Today, we take a major step to restoring Americans' trust in the legislative branch of government. We will ban gifts from lobbyists, trips funded by lobbyists, and the use of company planes. We will shut down the K Street Project. We will force Members of Congress to take responsibility for their earmarks. And we will ban arm-twisting for votes. The need for reform is obvious. The alliance between the previous leadership and K Street lobbyists came at a disastrous cost for democracy, decency, and the public interest. The best example is the industry-written Medicare D prescription drug bill passed in the middle of the night. The majority leadership held the vote open for 3 hours as they twisted arms and levied threats. Thousands of Maine seniors can see today that the program was designed to serve the insurance and pharmaceutical interests more than the people on Medicare. I am pleased that the ethics package includes reforms that Congressmen David Obey, Barney Frank, David Price, and I introduced 1 year ago. I thank Chairwoman Slaughter and Speaker Pelosi for incorporating our ideas, simple ideas, like ensuring that we all have time to read bills before they are voted on. H. Res. 6 will restore the people's voice to the people's House. Every American family will benefit by legislation that is advanced in an open and transparent manner, rather than written by lobbyists behind closed doors. I urge the adoption of this resolution and the entire Democratic rules and ethics reform package.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4956, the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. This bipartisan legislation is the product of tireless negotiations over the last year. The bill will sustain both the fish stocks and our fishing communities. I was proud to work so closely with our ranking member, Nick Rahall, on this particular legislation, to strengthen key conservation provisions and also to protect our fishing communities from excessive consolidation of the fishing industry. I do care deeply about the Limited Access Privilege Program, or LAPPs. These programs are market-based management tools that allocate percentages of the annual catch's quota shares among fishermen. LAPPs can be a legitimate fisheries management tool, but without strong Federal standards, they privatize the public resources by granting shares of the fishery in perpetuity. Moreover, in the drive toward industry efficiency, they can cause excessive and inequitable consolidation at the expense of small-scale fishermen. For the past 3 years I have been advocating for a LAPPs legislation that would protect public ownership of the fishery and ensure that managers and program participants are held accountable for program success, while still allowing LAPPs to be used. This bill reaches that result. The bill includes a 10-year renewable term limit on quota shares granted under a LAPP. This will also protect smaller fishermen by keeping quota prices affordable. Maine has a fishing industry that is hundreds of years old. It is part of a heritage that defines our State and makes our State a special place. Maine fishermen want policies that not only allow them to catch fish today but also ensure a long-term sustainable fishery so that they can pass their way of life on to their children and they grandchildren. Maine fishermen and fishermen throughout the Nation need policies in place that ensure a level playing field that give them economic certainty and protect the fish stocks. This bill serves those ends, and I am proud to support it. I do want to thank Mr. Rahall for his leadership and support; and his staff, Jim Zoia, Jeff Petrich, Lori Sonken, and Charlotte Stevenson, have been terrific to work with and deserve great praise. I also want to thank my friends George Miller, Bill Delahunt and Sam Farr for their support. Thanks also to Chairman Pombo and his staff for their work on this bill, as well as the work done by Senators Stevens, Inouye, and especially my Maine colleague, Senator Snowe, and their respective staffs. Finally, I do want to thank Emily Knight, my sea grant fellow, for her enthusiasm and hard work on this bill; and Jim Bradley, my legislative director, who oversaw the negotiation so effectively.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5450 and applaud Representative Ehlers, Chairman Boehlert and the members of the House Science committee for their work on this bill. However, I am also deeply concerned with H.R. 5450. My concern, however, is not what is actually in this bill, but what is missing. Because the House Resources Committee refused to consider this important legislation, we are now debating a bill that does not include authorization for the oceanic component of NOAA. This greatly disappoints me. As a co-chair of the bipartisan House Oceans Caucus, I have worked closely with the line offices of NOAA that handle ocean stewardship, and I have always been amazed at the size and importance of their mission considering what little Congress gives them in the way of guidance or funds. Funding that should go to NOAA to bolster ocean research and management already pales in comparison to other natural resource programs, and now, we are about to authorize only the atmospheric component of NOAA. This is just another example of the failure of this Congress to make the management of our oceans a priority. This amazes me, considering the size and economic value of our oceans. We have been called to make our oceans a greater priority for more than 6 years now. When are we going to act? After our fish stocks are fully depleted? After global warming have caused rising sea levels to erode our beaches and the oceans to become so acidic that coral reefs have wasted away? In 2000, with the passage of the Oceans Act, Congress called for a National Commission on Ocean Policy to conduct a nationwide fact-finding mission on the state of our oceans. The goal was to develop policy recommendations that would lead to a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. The independent Pew Oceans Commission underwent a similar process to identify the root problems threatening our nations' oceans. The products of these two commissions are nothing short of remarkable. Both commissions independently came to the same clear message: our oceans are in peril. It is NOAA that must tackle these challenges. As the lead agency on ocean management, both commissions acknowledged the size of the task that NOAA faces. Americans are facing declining fish stocks, beach closures due to poor water quality, and laws that are inadequate to protect America's oceans. Both commissions have called on Congress repeatedly to provide NOAA with an organic act. In fact, both have listed an organic act as one of the highest priorities in taking steps towards better management of our oceans. NOAA already administers the core programs that manage our ocean resources, and again, does so under an ever tightening budget. For example, National Marine Fisheries Service manages all Federal fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management administers the Coastal Zone Management Act that protects our coasts from pollution and erosion. Congress sure likes to give NOAA a lot to do, but nothing to do it with. Furthermore, NOAA also administers a number of completely unauthorized programs that Americans depend on. The Ocean and Atmospheric Research office played a lead role in helping institute an integrated ocean observation system based on what we already have in the Gulf of Maine. Analogous to the routine monitoring of weather and climate, ocean observation collects a myriad of temperature and current data that enhances the prediction of hurricanes and storms, the impacts of global warming, and is used by search and rescue teams and shipping fleets for navigation. Despite the multiple uses of ocean observation, the regional associations are now at risk of shutting down because as an unauthorized program, they are unable to find a sustainable funding path. It is ridiculous. In essence, this innovative program may have to shut down for being too ahead of its time. The challenges NOAA faces are only going to increase over the next century. More than 50 percent of the population already lives in coastal counties, and the numbers are rising. To support NOAA in their task, Congress must provide it with a full organic act. With an organic act, the offices that run the core programs that Americans nation-wide depend on would be provided with an established mission. A clear mission would help NOAA prioritize and justify itself during appropriations, perhaps heading off the crippling cuts that are leveled against it each year. Guidance from Congress would also help NOAA reorganize and enhance inter-office and inter-agency communication, thus making NOAA operations more efficient and streamlined. While I support H.R. 5450 for taking us toward the goal of authorizing NOAA, we must remember it only takes us halfway. By authorizing only the atmospheric and educational components of NOAA, we fail half of this vital agency, and I urge Congress to make a full organic act for NOAA a priority.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I thank you all for the opportunity to be here and discuss some of these important issues that we don't get to do during any debate on resolutions or legislation. These are among the most important issues we deal with. I was down in New Orleans and in the gulf coast of Mississippi where the incompetence of this administration was on display for everyone to see. The same incompetence is on display with respect to the problems we have created in Iraq. And I say ``created'' because I do believe that in many ways this administration has created more problems in the Middle East than they have solved. I agree with the gentleman from Washington that a good part of this has to do with the inadequate leadership at the Department of Defense, but we should never forget that this policy is driven by the President and the Vice President and there is a unanimity of thinking in this administration about the Middle East, the conviction that we could simply force our will on several hundred million people and bend them to become something that we want them to become, regardless of their own intentions. But I wanted to speak for a minute tonight about how Congress, this Republican Congress, has aided and abetted the administration by giving up its constitutional role of exercising oversight over the executive branch. It is absolutely stunning to me how both the House and the Senate have done everything that they could to rubber stamp administration policies in Iraq and cover up for them. A few examples, going back to when Democrats controlled the Congress in the 1980s, there was an Oversight Subcommittee on Armed Services, and that oversight subcommittee discovered those $500 hammers and $6,000 toilet seats and put an end to much of that kind of overcharging. But when Republicans took over, they eliminated the Oversight Subcommittee on Armed Services and billions of questionable Halliburton contracts have gone unexamined, unexamined by either Armed Services or by the Intelligence Committee or the Committee on Government Reform. The minority staff on the Committee on Government Reform has identified over 200 specific misleading statements made by the administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. Over on the Senate side, remember they had Phase II, the Senate Intelligence Committee was going to do a Phase II investigation. What they meant by that was instead of beating up on the intelligence agencies like the CIA themselves, they were going to look at the misuse of intelligence by the administration. That was Phase II of their study. It hasn't happened. Years have gone by, and the chairman of the committee has said several times, ``We are going to get to that later.'' But they are clearly not going to do it before any election. In 2005, House Republicans voted down a resolution demanding an investigation of Iraq intelligence. When you look at the House and you look at the Senate, there is no question what this Republican Congress has been doing. Rather than gather information, evidence, that could clarify what has happened in the past and guide us to a better policy in the future, it is all politics all the time and that means protecting the President from being exposed, protecting the Vice President from being exposed, protecting Donald Rumsfeld from being exposed for having not spoken the truth. So this entire Congress is complicit. The Senate held a few hearings after Abu Ghraib, but no Senate committee has conducted a comprehensive public probe of the alleged abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram or the secret CIA facilities that the President just acknowledged yesterday. In the House, the majorities on three House committees voted down resolutions seeking documents about detainee abuse. Democrats have been saying we need the information in order to do a better job in the future, and Republicans have circled the wagons around the administration and refused to basically allow oversight. On Iraq reconstruction, you go back to 2003, Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon awarded a $7 billion sole-source contract to Halliburton for reconstruction. And 3 years later, auditors identified more than $1 billion in questionable and unsupported costs under that contract. A billion dollars in Washington is still real money. If Congress was simply doing its constitutionally mandated function, we would be holding hearings on that. But no, the Republicans are not prepared to investigate Halliburton. Vice President Cheney was once the CEO of Halliburton, and this is ground we dare not go into, apparently, and yet we have to, to fulfill our constitutional responsibility. That is what we are basically saying here. This Republican Congress has failed the country. The administration has failed the country. And when Democrats control this chamber again, whether you have a Republican President or a Democratic President, we are going to make sure that this Congress acts like the Congress contemplated in the Constitution and do our jobs.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement (FTA). We need a new trade policy that recognizes today's realities of the global economy by promoting worker rights, environmental protection and access to health care. This Oman deal fails to meet that test. Expanding trade opportunities can lead to job growth and economic vitality in Maine and around the country. Trade policy should reflect all our important societal values, not just commercial concerns, in order to create a stronger and more competitive America, encourage broader prosperity at home and abroad, and create a better, healthier future for ourselves and our children. Inevitably, trade agreements create winners and losers within the U.S. economy. No trade deal can be considered independently of other policies designed to help those who will be shortchanged. Unfortunately, recent U.S. economic policies will make matters worse. The President's budget, adopted by the majority in Congress, cuts programs vital to helping Americans displaced by new trade agreements: job training, vocational education, adult education, community development, and small business aid. It is irresponsible and immoral to inflict a double blow on our most economically vulnerable citizens. If we do not reverse the disturbing disappearance of manufacturing and information technology jobs, the American economy will suffer even greater job losses and long-term damage. The U.S.-Oman FTA falls short in the area of worker rights. Its only enforceable labor obligation is a requirement that Oman enforce its own labor laws, even though Oman's laws fail to comply with basic international standards in 10 specific areas. We should mandate Oman abide by core labor rules, to be fair to their own workers and keep trade on a level playing field. The Oman pact continues a dangerous trend of using trade policy to extend anticompetitive protections for the highly profitable brand name drug industry. Although generic drugs lower prices and therefore improve public health, the intellectual property provisions inserted by the Bush Administration would delay entry of generic prescription drugs by imposing restrictive rules on the developing countries covered by the agreements. I fear these provisions could come back to hurt Americans, as Congress' ability to legislate on health care could be restricted by international trade obligations. In essence, the Administration is giving powerful drug makers legal standing to challenge domestic U.S. health care laws through trade dispute mechanisms. We see the double standard. The Administration champions international trade standards when they protect pharmaceutical industry profits, but reject them when they protect workers' rights. I voted against the fast track/Trade Promotion Authority bill, in part because I believed that it ceded too much authority to the Executive Branch. The experience with this Oman deal validates my concern. In June, the Senate Finance Committee approved an amendment to the pact stipulating that goods made in Oman with forced labor may not benefit from the trade agreement. When the White House later submitted the agreement to Congress, it left the forced labor provision out. The Administration has ignored the will of Congress. The blank check permitted by this fast track authority is a clear case where bad process leads to bad policy. I urge my colleagues to reject the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement, and insist on a new, balanced trade policy guided by consensus, not ideology.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, hard work and perseverance are supposed to be the key to success in America; yet many people who work full time are barely scraping by, earning just $10,712 per year on the Federal minimum wage, which is now $5.15 an hour and has been at that level for nearly 10 years. That is an income, $10,700, that is $6,000 below the Federal poverty line for a family of three. That number cheats millions of American families and children out of the chance for basic financial stability every year. It directly contradicts what we often describe as the promise of America, that if you work hard and play by the rules, you have a reasonable chance for a life of some prosperity. Families are struggling because the buying power of the minimum wage is now at its lowest level in the last 50 years, the last 50 years. But if you look at the changes that families are undergoing just in the last 10 years, here is what you find. Americans pay 136 percent more to heat their homes and drive their cars than they did 10 years ago when the last minimum wage increase was passed. Health insurance costs have gone up 97 percent during that same period. The cost of a 4-year public university has gone up 77 percent as well. Families who once lived comfortably on their incomes have been steadily falling out of the middle class and into poverty. We need to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour, a level that will really mean something to the parents who are struggling to provide for their children. An increase would boost the wages of 6.6 million workers directly. Another 8.2 million workers earning up to $1 above the minimum wage would also get a boost due to the so-called ``spillover'' effects, and that influence would affect the lives of 54,000 people in my home State of Maine. Despite what some opponents of a wage hike may claim, wages have not risen significantly on their own. They have been eaten away by inflation. Even though the American workforce has increased its productivity by 14 percent over the last 5 years, real wages have gone up by only 2 percent for nonmanagerial workers. Meanwhile, the average CEO in America makes more than 1,000 times the minimum wage. Americans CEOs earn in one day what most workers earn in a year. America prides itself on providing opportunity for all. Yet it is clear that the wealth being generated in our economy is only lifting a few. We need an economic plan that allows our citizens, especially our families and our children, to support themselves, educate themselves and continue to achieve and move forward in their lives. Now, it frankly is an embarrassment that Congress has not addressed the minimum wage issue in almost 10 years, especially in light of the issues that we have found time to address here. Last week, this body gave an estate tax break worth $280 billion to a few thousand wealthy individuals. For the past year, the Republican leadership has been intent on giving more tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent and paying for it with cuts in education, Medicare, and other programs on which Americans depend to maintain their quality of life. What does it mean to the average American that Congress has raised its own salary over and over again since 1997, but not the minimum wage? Income inequality in this country is a scandal, and this Congress is contributing to making it greater. This is not only bad for the middle class and lower-income Americans in this country, it is bad for our democracy. Twenty States, including my home State of Maine, and the District of Columbia have already passed increases in the minimum wage. They understand that this is fundamentally an issue of fairness and good economic sense. We need to see this kind of economic leadership at the Federal level as well. We need economic policies that do not leave the majority of our citizens behind. The Republican leadership does not want a minimum wage increase to come to a vote here, but eight in 10 Americans do. They support it. Frankly, I wish this Congress would do as much for the average American as it does for corporations and the wealthiest 1 percent. The minimum wage must allow workers to earn enough to support themselves and their families. $5.15 is not enough to live on. I hope we can finally start to work together on this issue and enact a long, long overdue increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I took a trip to Kabul, to Bagram in Kabul, about a week after the invasion, a week or two after we invaded Afghanistan. I cannot tell you how proud I was of the men and women who are serving in our forces there, doing what they had to do in order to deal with that particular threat. But Afghanistan, when we now read the books that have come out about how the administration rushed to war against Iraq, and how they essentially were planning a conflict in Iraq even before September 11 and how immediately after September 11 Secretary Rumsfeld was suggesting, find some evidence that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected so that we can attack Iraq as quickly as possible, it is very clear this administration was not living in the real world, the real world of evidence and information. They had a contempt for the State Department and for the expertise of those who had spent their entire lives in the Middle East. So what they did was essentially, and this I think has to be laid particularly at the feet of Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, they wanted to try out a new theory in Iraq, and that was to go in with a minimum amount of force, and basically go in, take out Saddam Hussein, and leave, with no thought given to what would be left, and now we know what was left. I mean, people like Paul Wolfowitz, the Defense Secretary, who said to a congressional committee before the invasion, fortunately, Iraq has no history of ethnic conflict. Somebody who has studied Iraq for as many years as he had, ought to know better than to say that. They wanted to do the war. They had a war of choice. They chose it and they wanted to go, take out Saddam Hussein. I just wanted to say a couple of things about where we go from here. We have had all sorts of debates in here, not a lot on the floor but a few debates, at least one debate one day, on where we go from here. I think there is a case to be made for a draw-down this year and a withdrawal next year. The most important part of that case to me is we do not want the Iraqi politicians to be dependent on us. We want to put them under a timeline, some pressure to come to an agreement. You read the press and you see some of the comments out of the administration. It sounds like major trickery that they were able, after 5\1/2\ months, to agree who would be the defense minister and who would be the interior minister. Well, they have got another issue in front of them: how are they going to divvy up the oil. That is a lot tougher than any decision that the Iraqi Government has made to date, and they are making it in the face of ongoing violence every day in Baghdad and other dangerous places in the country. I think what we need to do is we need to refocus our attention on diplomatic solutions. We need to get people in other countries in the Middle East engaged, and we have to give the Iraqis a sense that we are not going to have permanent bases there and we are not going to stay, we are going to be drawing down our forces. The responsibility rests on them to make the very tough political compromises that need to be made to give that country a chance, and that is all they have got now is a chance for some greater stability than they have today. With that, I thank the gentleman for the yielding.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill, H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this environmentally reckless and fiscally irresponsible attempt to bribe State governments to allow drilling off our coasts. There is more to the sea than just oil and gas. For more than three centuries, Maine fishermen have made their living from the ocean. The fishing community represents the heritage and social fabric of my State, and it has been that way for more than 300 years. Oil derricks and gas platforms on Georges Bank would despoil this abundant fishing ground. The pollution associated with deep sea oil and gas exploration would devastate the already suffering ground fish industry. It would undoubtedly impact other species as well, and to what end? The United States has 3 percent of the world's population and consumes 25 percent of the world's fossil fuel. We cannot drill our way out of that equation. There has got to be a better way. Instead of bringing back tired old ideas, we should be pushing for new technologies, for incentives for renewable energy sources and for cleaner, more abundant fuels. Drilling off our coast is not the answer. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, as a cochair of the House Oceans Caucus, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest to increase the base funding for NOAA. Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the independent Pew Commission have called on Congress to increase NOAA's budget to more than $6 billion. Yet this bill funds NOAA at roughly half that, $3.4 billion, a cut of more than $500 million below last year. Relative to their size and economic value, funding for ocean research and management pales in comparison to other natural resource programs, like management of public lands and space exploration. When we derive so much from our oceans, how can we invest so little in the understanding of them? This amendment will allow us to better manage our fisheries, institute an integrated ocean observation system based on what we already have in the Gulf of Maine, and protect our coast from erosion and pollution. I urge support of the Gilchrest amendment.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to oppose this resolution and to call for a significant reduction of U.S. forces this year and an end to the occupation in 2007. I voted against the invasion in 2002 because I believed the war would be a strategic blunder of historic proportions. And it has been. We owe the men and women we sent to Iraq and their loved ones more than a few hours of grandstanding on this floor and an empty resolution of support. We must work toward a national consensus to end this war, a war born in deception and managed under a delusion. Today's news that the American death toll has surpassed 2,500 is the grim reminder of the danger and sacrifice our Armed Forces face daily in Iraq. We need to end our occupation of Iraq so America can rebuild our economy at home and regain respect abroad.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on June 14, 2006, through an inadvertent error during voting on H.R. 5576, the Transportation-Treasury-HUD Appropriations bill, I was recorded incorrectly as voting no. I ask that the permanent record indicate that on rollcall vote No. 281, the Hastings amendment, I should have been recorded as having voted in the affirmative. Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts