Brian Baird

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague and rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 366, a resolution to commemorate the first flight of the Space Shuttle STS-1 and to honor its crew, Commander John W. Young and Pilot Robert L. Crippen. It is hard to believe now, but 25 years have passed since the Space Shuttle Columbia took off on its maiden voyage on April 12, 1981. The space shuttle was the first and remains the only reusable crewed orbital spacecraft in the world, and its design represented a dramatic step towards human space flight. Parenthetically, I might say I was talking to some of my younger staff today, and we who have been around for a while remember that flight well. But when you try to explain to young people, or to anybody for that matter, that these people were landing in this enormous and weighty bird that had never been tested, and it had no power, never been tested in this kind of conditions and it had no power, you understand the undertaking that these courageous crew members had set themselves up for. This vehicle, of course, had the capacity to carry twice the crew members of its predecessors, to launch large scientific instruments such as the Hubble Space Telescope, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, as well as interplanetary probes like Galileo and Ulysses. On that same subject, I must say that, personally, I believe the deep space image of Hubble is something that struck me as powerful as the first images we saw of Earth in the early Apollo days. When that telescope looked off into the heavens at a tiny speck and saw thousands of galaxies, it is an awe inspiring sight that I think the entire world should perhaps contemplate what it means to us. More recently, of course, the shuttle has served as a workhorse for the assembly of the international space station, and on April 12, 1981 those accomplishments were still in the future. On that day as the space shuttle crew carried two intrepid astronauts, John Young and Robert Crippen, into the heavens on that courageous journey, we all held our breath because therein lay the future of manned space flight and womaned spaced flight as we would later see on shuttles. We should not underestimate the magnitude of that task. STS was not the first time that the space shuttle would carry a crew of astronauts; it was the first time the space shuttle would be flown into space, period. The willingness of these brave commanders to accept this mission shows that they certainly had the right stuff and it is entirely fitting that this Congress commemorate their accomplishments on this, the 25th anniversary of the first flight of the space shuttle. I think it is also appropriate to express our appreciation to all of the individuals, whether civil servants or contractors, who have worked so hard over the many years on the space shuttle program and over, particularly, the last quarter century. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of H. Con. Res. 366. I hope that action will be followed by speedy adoption in the other body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I wish to begin by thanking Dr. Ehlers for his distinguished leadership on the committee, on the subcommittee, and it has been a privilege to serve with him. It is nice to have a fellow scientist on the Science Committee who can speak so eloquently to these matters and actually understand the kind of research that these Nobel Prize winners have conducted. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of H. Res. 541, a resolution I introduced along with a number of my colleagues to honor the 2005 Nobel Laureates in the fields of physics and chemistry, as well as to acknowledge the importance of National Institute of Standards and Technology, its research and its contributions to the United States industry and the academic world and government. On October 10, 2005, two of America's finest scientists, Richard H. Grubbs and Richard R. Schrock, along with Yves Chauvin of France, shared in the Nobel Prize in chemistry. The basic research of these scientists was recognized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences as ``a great step forward for `green chemistry,' reducing potentially hazardous waste through smarter production.'' Their research on metathesis reactions and the development of the metathesis model in organic synthesis has served as an important tool in the creation of new pharmaceuticals, including drugs that will help fight many of the world's major diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer's and AIDS. They also are used to develop herbicides and new polymers and fuels. Another scientific prize was also conferred on October 10, 2005. Again, two American scientists, this time Roy J. Glauber and John L. Hall, along with Theodor W. Hansch of Germany, shared the Nobel Prize in physics. Their pioneering research in the fields of optics and contributions to the quantum theory of optical coherence and development of laser- based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique, has led to improvements in the accuracy of precision instruments such as GPS locators, atomic clocks, and navigation systems. It is true this year, as in preceding years, that research conducted at such well-respected universities such as MIT, Harvard, and Caltech has produced Nobel Prize-worthy research. However, what is rarely acknowledged is the work of Federal labs and the additional Federal investment that supports and produces such prize-worthy results from such outstanding scientists. Such is the case with the work of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST. Their collaboration with the University of Colorado at Boulder resulted in the third Nobel Prize awarded to an NIST scientist, John Hall, a scientist emeritus from the NIST Quantum Physics Division. Interestingly enough, NIST was founded in 1901, around the same time as the Nobel Prize Foundation in 1900. Since that time, both institutions have served a similar purpose in supporting research that produces, in the words of Dr. Alfred Nobel, ``the greatest benefit to mankind.'' NIST, with its laboratories and collaborations with academia, has contributed to the achievements of present and past Nobel Prize winners by supporting research that strengthens the global economic competitiveness of the United States through the development of technologies, measurement methods, and standards. Today, I am pleased to have the opportunity to honor the work of these scientists representing academia and research labs from across the globe. It is my hope that the passage of this bill and continued support for the Nobel Prizes in the fields of chemistry and physics will inspire a new generation of students to eagerly pursue careers in math and science. Additionally, I believe we must continue our investment in our research infrastructure if we hope to take advantage of the innovative potential emerging from our basic research laboratories. I am happy that the Optical Society of America, the American Chemical Society and other organizations have supported this bill. These organizations provide a vital service in supporting peer collaboration and career development important for scientific advances and innovation. I would like to particularly thank our chairman, Chairman Boehlert, and Ranking Member Gordon for their support and assistance on this bill, as well as my colleagues Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Holt and Mr. Wu for their cosponsorship. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H. Res. 541 and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and honoring the 2005 Nobel Laureates. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would close my comments by sharing with Dr. Ehlers the observation of how important this research is. Our Nation, as a whole, just celebrated the men's and women's Final Four, and I am sure many Americans could list the names of who hit the final jump shot and who the star players were. That is fitting and appropriate. But on a daily basis, our lives are affected far more by the basic research conducted by the individuals we are honoring today, as Dr. Ehlers so eloquently put it. When the GPS system helps keep an aircraft on track, when radar works more efficiently, when medical devices work more successfully, when environmental applications are more efficient, all of that derives from the kinds of basic research that we are acknowledging and recognizing today. And while I think it is unrealistic to expect most Members of this Chamber, or certainly the general public, to know the names or the accomplishments of these individuals, it is absolutely fitting that this body recognize these individuals, and I think especially because some of them are Federal Government employees who well deserve our recognition and our honor. And so I join Chairman Ehlers in celebrating them, and I thank him for his support on this and for his leadership in the committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and the gentleman from Louisiana as well, and want to begin by extending my condolences to Jimmy Duncan and his family at the loss of Congressman Duncan's mother. I rise today to support H.R. 4826, a bill to extend section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 until December 31 of this year, 2006. This is a commonsense bill that will save jobs and continue to promote economic growth. Section 214 was enacted in WRDA 2000 to permit non-Federal public entities to contribute funds to the Army Corps of Engineers to help expedite the processing of corps permits. This provision has allowed municipalities and ports to move forward with vital infrastructure projects; and in doing so, these entities that are providing funding are given no partiality by the corps in their review of the projects. By funding additional staff to work on specific time-intensive permits, the staff in the corps' budget is freed up to work on the permit backlog. Let me give an example of this: the Army Corps' Seattle district has been utilizing this authority very well. They have seen their total average review time per project reduced from 804 days to just 69 days in the first 3 years of implementation. The city of Seattle alone estimates that for $114,000 spent, they have saved over $5 million. This is particularly urgent as the Corps staff have volunteered to assist in Hurricane Katrina response efforts, as well as reconstruction and rebuilding efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Seattle Corps alone has deployed a total of 233 civilian and military staff, or approximately 29 percent of their staff, to these areas, and that leaves a limited number of staff to handle the urgent needs of local areas. It is during times of emergency response that expedited processes such as 214 become particularly vital in continuing to support regional growth and economic need. Let me underscore a few points. Section 214 was extended last year unanimously as H.R. 3765 in both the House and the Senate, and is currently set to expire on March 31, 2006. That is the need we face today. An extension of the provision was also passed in the House WRDA bill in 2005, and a permanent extension is included in the other body's WRDA bill. Unfortunately, WRDA is not likely to pass both Chambers before March 31 when the provision expires, so we are seeking an essential short-term extension until the end of this year. This provision is absolutely vital to Corps activities. Although the authority exists for all regions, it has been utilized primarily in the Pacific Northwest by the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, the city of Seattle, the Port of Los Angeles, as well as the city of San Diego, and by public entities around Sacramento due to the huge backlog of Corps permits in those regions. In addition, it has been utilized by a number of ports in my home district along the Columbia River. In the Pacific Northwest, we have seen the backlog of permits with the listing of endangered species grow to over 1,000 permits in the last years, and the residual effects have been harmful to our region's economy, resulting in expensive and costly delays. Without extension of this authority, the Corps will need to make up the shortfall in funding the analysis of projects either through project delays or layoffs in Corps staff. I am pleased to have the support of this legislation of all of the House Members representing my home State of Washington, our friends and neighbors in Oregon and Idaho, as well as Members representing California. I want to join my colleagues in thanking Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar, reiterate my gratitude toward Mr. Duncan and the gentlewoman, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson. I appreciate their leadership. I also want to acknowledge the outstanding work performed by the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, and my own staff, Katie Stevens, on this issue.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). I appreciate the courtesy and I appreciate very much his leadership on this legislation and on the broad issue of methamphetamine in general. Our Nation is truly safer for the efforts of Mr. Souder, and it has been a pleasure to work with him on the amendment we offer today. I also want to compliment my good friend and colleague, Mr. Cardoza of California, and Ms. Hooley from Oregon. Recent articles, a series in the Oregonian and also a Frontline special, have articulated the challenges that we face in fighting methamphetamine due to international supply of the methamphetamine precursor, pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. We have done good work just recently with the passage of the Combat Meth Act to curtail the supply coming directly into the United States, but transshipment of pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and other precursors is a terrific problem that is really leading to the supply increases that we are seeing on our streets. The good news on the meth front is that we are seeing a reduction of the local clandestine labs. The bad news is that the international trafficking has increased. Indeed, recent DEA reports show that the purity of methamphetamine on the streets has reached the 70 percent level. Now, we know from clinical and historical data that what happens in that case is an increase in the number of addictions, an increase in the number of drug-related crimes, of hospital admissions, et cetera. For that reason, we are offering today's amendment, and what it does is quite simple. It asks the administration to conduct an international summit to work with the other methamphetamine precursor producing countries to try to reach international accords that would curtail the production and shipment of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine and other precursors that would ultimately be manufactured into methamphetamine. It is a commonsense amendment. I think this is a drug that we can actually defeat if we can choke off the air supply of the precursors. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) who has been a champion of the meth issue and has been a leader in passing legislation that would help combat this drug.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquent remarks and for her leadership. In closing, I would like to reiterate my gratitude for Mr. Souder. He has been a champion of this issue. I also want to acknowledge, as he did, the Caucus to Control and Fight Methamphetamine, which is cochaired by my dear friend, Rick Larsen from Washington State, along with Len Boswell from Iowa, Chris Cannon, and Ken Calvert. It is truly a bipartisan, nationwide effort. And now what we need to do with this amendment is expand that effort internationally. If we can stop the international supply of these precursors, our communities will be safer, our families will be safer, and a lot of people whose lives would be ruined will never have to suffer that tragic fate. I am grateful for the support of Mr. Souder for this amendment and I urge its passage.

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

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. I thank my good friend and colleague. This is an important topic, because it strikes at so many issues important to our families back home and the people we represent. This administration has said repeatedly, no new taxes. What they are not telling you is while they say on the one hand no new taxes, they are in fact passing a host of hidden fees that are tantamount to taxes onto the backs of the American people. Let me give you some examples that directly impact my constituents, the first of which is, indeed, according to the administration, a new tax. If you listen to President Bush and our friends on the other side of the aisle, they will tell you that if we do not extend the capital gains and dividend tax cuts that go to the wealthiest Americans, that is equivalent to raising taxes. In other words, if you don't extend the tax cut, then you have effectively raised taxes. Yet the President's budget does not extend deductibility of the State sales tax that affects people in my State of Washington and six other States across the country. How much is this matter worth? Last year our deduction for sales taxes, which we fought to put in on a bipartisan basis, saved the taxpayers of Washington State alone $500 million. If the President believes that we don't need to extend that, then the President, according to his own logic, would raise taxes on Washington State taxpayers to the tune of $500 million a year, which would be $5 billion over the next decade. A second effective tax increase that is going to strike the Northwest comes from the President's ill-conceived proposals for dealing with Bonneville Power Administration revenues. The President would force Northwest taxpayers and the Bonneville Power Administration to take additional revenues from Bonneville and send them to the Federal Treasury to disguise the true cost of the deficit, rather than using them to lower the power rates, which currently are 50 percent higher than they were before the 2001 energy price crisis, which, not coincidentally, was precipitated by the actions of this very administration. Friends, if policies of this administration increase your utility bill 10 percent above the current levels, that is equivalent to a tax from an administration that swore it would have no new taxes. The President also is going to shift critical fees and expenses that also amount to an effective tax onto our local communities through their proposals to cut dramatically the Secure Rural Schools Initiative. In my district, two of the highest recipients in Washington State, two counties are the highest recipients, Lewis and Skamania Counties, absolutely depend on this money to make their counties operate. As we have seen curtailments in timber harvests and resulting revenues, these counties have come to depend and desperately need this money for public infrastructure, education and safety, yet this administration would first cut the funding for this program and, second, require that we sell off Federal lands again in a short-term effort to disguise the deficit, that we sell off Federal lands in order to provide the meager funds that would remain. Our local communities depend on this creative, collaborative effort by environmentalists and timber companies and timber interests to get responsible, practiced harvests in the woods, that would be decimated. We cannot let this go forward. That the Federal Government would also renege on its fundamental commitment to community safety by cutting this figure is astonishing, up to 80 percent of Federal support for local law enforcement programs. Come to my district, Mr. President and my friends on the other side of the aisle. Talk to my local sheriffs and police officers who fight the daily battle against the scourge of methamphetamine, other drugs and other crimes. Ask them, can you do without Byrne Grants? Can you sustain the kind of cuts we are talking about in the COPS program? Can we really support further cuts in the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area? We are making progress in the battle against methamphetamine, but increasingly international supplies are coming through our virtually open borders. Our young people, even middle-aged people are getting addicted to this horrific drug, and this administration says, now is the time to cut funding that the Federal Government provides local communities. It is bad policy, friends, and it amounts to a tax on our local communities because they will be left to pick up the tab of the reduced Federal dollars. And it is a tax on you if your home is burglarized, if your family is assaulted, if your workplace no longer functions effectively because of the effects of this drug. It is a tax, my friends, and it is being levied by the policies of this administration. Finally, last month, we had a number of folks from our local school boards in my office. And they talked to me about the proposed cuts to critical education programs and the shortfalls in key educational opportunities. We all know that this administration and this Republican-led Congress has proposed to increase the cost of student loans even as college costs are skyrocketing. But we need to know too that folks who are not planning to go to college, the folks who need a vocational education, who want to learn a trade or a skill will be dramatically and adversely impacted by this ill-conceived budget. The President has proposed zeroing out the Perkins Grant program which local high schools and community colleges and voc programs absolutely depend on to sustain their voc education program. It happened to me last month that we had school board members and community college board members in my office one day talking about how devastating these cuts would be. The next day I heard from Josh Bolten, the President's OMB Director, who said everything is going to be just fine. Mr. Bolten, Mr. President, please come to my district. When we finish talking to law enforcement about what you are going to do to them, we will come talk to our educators about what your proposals will do to them. It is a tax on our schools. It is a tax on our students. It is a tax on our families if you cut these resources. You cannot continue to do this. You are funding a war without paying for it. You are funding tax cuts without paying for it. You are passing the debt onto our children and our grandchildren, and all the while you are cutting vital and essential services and you are trying to disguise the costs of our cuts by increasing the rates on our northwest electrical ratepayers, by shifting costs to local communities, and by trying to sell off the Federal lands. None of that is responsible policy. The American people should know about it. And we must reject this ill-conceived budget plan by this administration, and our friends on the Republican side. I yield back to you.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of local communities in my State and throughout this country that are fighting a terrible battle against methamphetamine, its production and use. And I rise to express grave concern about the impact of our President's budget proposal on that fight. Let me share with you some troubling figures. The President of the United States has proposed to cut COPS funding by $376 million, he has proposed to cut the Meth Hot Spots program by $23.5 million, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program by $353 million, and he has proposed to completely eliminate Byrne grants. Now, I can tell you that when I go back home and I talk to my sheriffs and police officers and treatment specialists, they tell me meth is a catastrophe in our communities and we must fight it. Regrettably, this President's budget cuts the funds we need to prevail in that fight. We need to restore those funds, and we need to emphasize to this administration that we have terrorists operating right here at home in our communities, and methamphetamine is their weapon of choice.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, Robert L. Von Roch was born on May 10, 1942 in New York, New York. The son of a German immigrant father who passed away in late 1946, Robert, along with his brothers and sisters, was later placed in a Long Island orphanage around 1951. The children grew up in that orphanage where Robert lived until he graduated from high school and entered Allegheny College in Pennsylvania and enrolled in the Air Force ROTC. When Robert finished college he entered the United States Air Force on September 30, 1964 as a 2nd lieutenant. He later became a captain and served in the Air Force until he was honorably discharged as a veteran on September 29th, 1968. Following his service in the Air Force Mr. Von Roch went on to graduate school to pursue a law degree at Villanova. While studying at Villanova Mr. Von Roch was recruited to work on security at U.S. embassies around the world. Mr. Von Roch was hired to provide security at different embassies as well as heading security during construction and reconstruction at various embassies. He served in Russia, Finland, Jordan and Kuwait, among other countries. Robert Von Roch's final assignment was in Africa where he became ill and was transported to Vienna for treatment. He was later sent home to recuperate fully, but unfortunately Robert never recovered. Mr. Von Roch passed away September 3, 2005. His family misses him greatly.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday December 3, I was proud to join more than 4,350 volunteers to conduct the largest single-day food drive in the State of Washington. Throughout Clark County, Washington, members of social service clubs and volunteers from all walks of the life gathered at 31 staging areas to canvass the entire county. I was pleased to join a young group of Brownies as we went door to door. By 4 p.m. we had collected more than 114 tons of food at an approximate value of $365,000. Collections will now continue through December 9, bringing the total to an expected 130 tons. In the 21-year history, Clark County Walk and Knock has collected more than 4.9 million pounds of food valued at $6 million. Walk and Knock is 100 percent volunteer, and 100 percent of any money donated by the public is used for the exclusive use of purchasing additional food. Organizers included members of the local Lions, Kiwanis, Rotary, Optimist and Sertoma clubs, as well as members of the Clark County Amateur Radio Club and the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America. Local businesses donated valuable resources, and together we produced an incredible success. I am proud of the commitment of southwest Washington's citizens, and urge my colleagues to support their local food banks. The organizers of Walk and Knock are members of local Lions, Kiwanis, Rotary, Optimist, and Sertoma clubs, members of the Clark County Amateur Radio Club, and the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America. Additional donated services were provided by Longshoremen Union Local 4, The Columbian newspaper, and Burgerville USA. Supportive funding was provided by Riverview Community Bank, all of the Clark County Les Schwab Tire Centers, Fred Meyer, Weyerhaeuser, US Bank, Columbia Credit Union, and British Pretroleum.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, since I first came to Congress, I made it a priority to restore sales tax deductibility for my constituents in Washington State. Last year, working with a bipartisan coalition lead by Mr. Kevin Brady and myself, we did successfully do that. This deduction saved Washington State taxpayers over $500 million last year alone. Unfortunately, the sales tax deduction will expire at the end of this year, and we must extend that deduction. Accordingly, I applaud both the Democrats and the Republicans for including in their packages a 1- year extension. Frankly, I would like to have made it a permanent extension. Nevertheless, I am concerned at a time of war in the aftermath of this country's most devastating natural disaster how we can in good conscience support a tax bill that will add at least $20 billion to our national debt to provide a tax break that goes predominantly to the wealthy, and by that I mean the capital gains and dividend tax cut. Earlier, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said the American people get it. I have to say, I just had five town halls in my district; the American people do get it. They get that this bill, the Republican majority bill, is passing on enormous deficits to our children. Debt to our children, that is what we are doing. The Democratic substitute, by comparison, is revenue neutral. It extends the tax breaks that benefit small individual taxpayers and small businesses, and it extends sales tax deductibility without increasing the deficit. What is more, the Democratic substitute protects taxpayers against the AMT hit as people's income brings them into the AMT category. If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to say if we do not extend the dividend and capital gains tax cut, we have an automatic tax increase, why not say the same about the AMT fix? You have not chosen to put the AMT fix in your bill. Does that not constitute an automatic tax increase? I believe it does. The Democrats have prevented that. The difference is this: when Republicans talk about choices, the choices they are talking about is whether the most wealthy people in this country will choose to take their earnings, or winnings, from capital gains or dividends. The poor people in this country have to choose between heating their houses and providing food for their children.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the issues with AMT. The issue with me is this: you have not paid for it; the Democrats have. What you are not talking about is you are passing deficit on to our kids. You are passing debt on to our kids. I visited with high schools and had town halls last weekend, and people said they are desperately concerned about the size of the Nation's deficit and the size of the Nation's debt. The Democratic package is paid for; the Republican package is not. The Democratic package does support small businesses and low-income folks and supports the middle class. The Republican package, the bulk of the economic benefits from these tax cuts go to the people who need it least at a time when we are fighting a war and trying to recover from a disaster. I think that is a mistake. We support tax cuts, but we would target them to the people who most need it; and you target them to the people who most want it, but least need it. That is the fundamental difference, and I think the American people see that difference.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, earlier the gentleman from Indiana said that budgets are about choices. Unfortunately, here is what they mean when they say choices. They are asking the wealthiest Americans to choose between realizing their investment profits through dividends or capital gains while they are asking the poorest Americans to choose between health care or heating their home. That is the kind of choice that is being imposed by this budget. That is not a profile in courage. It is a profile in cowardice.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for expediting the passage of H.R. 3765, a commonsense bill that will save jobs and continue to promote economic growth. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell for their efforts in reaching a compromise with their colleagues and ensuring swift passage by the Senate. Although I was hoping for a longer extension of section 214, I was pleased that both Chambers were able to pass a temporary fix before the delay caused irreparable economic damage to the Pacific Northwest. I have been a strong proponent of the section 214 provision since its enactment in WRDA 2000. This provision permits non-federal public entities to contribute funds to the Army Corps of Engineers to help expedite the processing of corps permits. In the Pacific Northwest, we have seen the backlog of permits grow to over 1,000 in past years and seen the residual effect that this has on our region's economy. This provision has allowed municipalities and ports to move forward with vital infrastructure projects. By funding additional staff to work on specific, time-intensive permits, existing corps' staff is freed up to work on the backlog. It is important to emphasize that these entities providing funding are given no partiality by the corps in their review of the project. This provision was extended in 2003 in the FY04 Energy and Water appropriations bill, and expired on September 30. The temporary extension passed today, will allow the Army Corps to continue section 214 projects until this bill expires on March 31, 2006. It is my hope that we can permanently extend this provision by passing WRDA this year, a bill that is long overdue for reauthorization. Additionally, some of my colleagues have expressed interest in a thorough study of the use of section 214, and I would urge these efforts to be expedited. It is my view that a report by the GAO to study the effectiveness of this program in the Pacific Northwest would only yield valuable information that can be used to improve and, perhaps, expand the program. I am proud to be the primary sponsor of this bill and have the endorsement of the entire Washington State delegation. I thank my colleagues for their vote to pass this bill today and promptly send it to the President for enactment.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding me this time, and my colleagues on the committee and the gentleman. I also want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), as well as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), subcommittee Chair, for their support and recognition of the urgency of this matter. The sense of what we are about today is trying to extend a bill that is already law that is included in the WRDA bill, which we have already passed in this body but that has not passed the other body. The reason we need to do this is common sense, and it is about preserving jobs. The listing under the Endangered Species Act of salmon in the Pacific Northwest overwhelm the Corps of Engineers and other regulatory agencies in their ability to process permits in a timely manner. Section 214(d) of the Water Resources Development Act allows local entities to provide financial assistance to the corps to provide for the resources needed to process permits more efficaciously. It does not in any way prejudice the outcome of that permitting application. It merely expedites it and provides valuable needed resources. This has been used successfully in partnership throughout the Northwest and the west coast and has saved literally millions of dollars and thousands of jobs in our region. I reiterate that the bill has passed the House already in its portion of the WRDA, that it is existing law. So we are not really trying to change anything. What we are trying to do is extend this vital provision for several more years so that permits in the process right now are not immediately stopped, which they otherwise would be without passage of this. Again, I thank my colleagues for their leadership and recognition of the importance of this bill. I urge its passage.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment designed to address a problem that most people are unaware of but I believe adversely affects thousands of children across this country. Every week, child protective agencies throughout the U.S. receive more than 50,000 reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. A total of 2.6 million reports were filed in 2002. In approximately two-thirds of these cases there is sufficient evidence to prompt an assessment.

Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my personal condolences, that of my family and all of the constituents I am privileged to represent, to the families and victims of this terrible natural disaster. I almost did not come down here today because I am painfully aware that nothing we can say here is going to make the kind of difference that we would like to make. The $10.5 billion will make some difference, but it is very small in comparison to the magnitude of the suffering. What I think myself and all of my colleagues would rather to be doing is being down there in New Orleans helping with the effort. We would like to be giving water to those thirsty, comfort to those who have lost loved ones, and help begin the rebuilding progress with our own hands. We are not able to be there because we are not needed as much as the rescue personnel. While we would like to be there, we have constituents calling and asking tough questions, and I think it is incumbent upon us to respond to some of those tough questions. Constituents are asking: Why was the preparation not better? Why is it taking so long to rescue people and provide basic food and shelter and clothing? Why are oil companies who are already enjoying record profits being able to take what seems to be exorbitant profit from even this catastrophe? I do not have the answer to all of those, but some things we should consider and the American people have a right to know, the American people have a right to know that for the past 5 years the administration has proposed draconian cuts to the Corps of Engineers' budgets, including nearly a 50 percent cut to hurricane flood prevention in the very area now affected by this tragedy. It would be fair to call it a natural disaster, but in this case this natural disaster was aided and abetted by budget cuts that inhibited the ability of the Corps of Engineers to prevent the devastating damage that we have seen, and I think the American people have a right to know that. Government in the end is about choices, and choices have consequences. If we choose tax cuts in the short term for some of the wealthiest Americans, and in exchange for those tax cuts we cut the budget for the Corps of Engineers for flood control, for harbor maintenance and for all of the other things that the Corps does, we see the consequences. I serve on the Water Resources Subcommittee, and we have oversight over the Corps, and when the administration has come with these proposed cuts they have been supported by groups like Taxpayers for Common Sense. And I and some of my colleagues have asked, help us understand something. If we spend a few dollars today to save hundreds or thousands of dollars and countless lives tomorrow, how is it common sense to not spend those dollars? It may look in the short term more politically appealing that we have cut the terrible Corps of Engineers and we have saved pork spending, but if in the long run what you have done is failed to maintain your levees, failed to provide flood control prevention, failed to prepare for precisely this disaster, you have been beyond penny wise and pound foolish, you have been irresponsible. And I regret to say that I believe the policies of this administration with regard to Corps of Engineers projects have been precisely that. And tragically, the people of New Orleans are suffering the consequences. We have made other choices. We have chosen to send the National Guard and military and American dollars and other resources overseas to Iraq, and now we are stretched in our economy's ability to fund this relief effort. We will do so because we must and should do so, but the $300 billion spent in Iraq could be certainly better used by the people in the southeast. We have chosen to allow energy companies to raise their prices without any constraint at all, and now consumers who used to be paying $20 to $30 to fill their tanks are paying $80 to $90 and this will have a devastating effect on our economy. In closing, I want to commend the citizens in the region affected who are pulling together in spite of what they see as a lack of government support to help one another in a time of need, and I want to commend the people of my own district and districts around the country who are digging deep in their wallets and resources. I know school groups are gathering clothing and having fund-raising drives. These young people deserve to be commended, and I urge all Americans to pitch in and do whatever we can to help the victims of this tragedy.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend from Oregon for yielding me this time, and commend her for her leadership on this, along with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). My colleagues have defined for us what this amendment is about. Essentially, we are desperately trying to stem the tide of precursors from Mexico that are leading to the increase in methamphetamine on the streets. But let me put a human face on this, if I might, in the brief time I have. Mr. Chairman, I try to visit every high school in my district every 2 years. Last fall, I spoke to a small rural high school about the dangers of meth. Having treated meth addicts as a psychologist before, I know a little about what I am speaking about. After talking to them for about 15 minutes, a young girl said to her classmates, you really need to listen to what he is saying. And I turned to her and kind of gently said, you must have some experience with this. And she said, I do. My mother died of methamphetamine 3 months ago. A 16-year-old had lost her mother to this terrible drug. We must do everything in our power to stop this. The Hooley amendment we have all joined together with will help do that, and the other amendments offered earlier by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and others. I applaud their leadership on this and join wholeheartedly and urge passage of this important amendment.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from New York have repeatedly said that this will be a nearly unanimous passage. That may be true because the only thing we can unanimously agree on is the lower number. The Republicans will not agree on the higher number, which is what the veterans need. The Democrats will agree on the lower number because it is all they are really willing to give us. But if they truly cared for the veterans, they would agree with us and we would have unanimous vote on the $1.5 billion.