Brian Baird

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman from Florida be so kind as to join us for just one moment for a colloquy?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just close with this. We have talked a lot about, I think, deception and broken promises. Let me read to my colleagues the comments of a memo from the Park Service administration to Park Service employees. They were talking, trying to prepare the employees in case someone asks, has our budget been cut, and here is what they said in their memo: ``If you think that some of your plans could cause public or political controversy, we need to know which ones are likely to end up in the media or result in a congressional inquiry.'' They then suggested to the administrators of the parks, the local parks, that ``you state what the park's plans are and not directly indicate that this is a cut in comparison to last year's operation. If you are personally pressed by the media in interview, use the terminology of `service level adjustments due to fiscal constraints' as a means of describing what actions we are taking.'' Mr. Chairman, the American people want us to support our parks. The American people want clean air. They want clean water. This budget fails to meet those goals. It fails to live up to the promises made by the administration and our colleagues on the other side. We need to reject this budget and put the priorities where the American people want them, and I guarantee that one of those priorities is environmental conservation and protection of our national parks. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask another question related to that. Our friends all day have been saying the Democrats want to raise our taxes, presuming that everyone over there must be a millionaire, because the only tax increase we have talked about are on people who make $1 million a year or more. But this Land and Water Conservation Fund, is that an income tax? I do not believe it is. That is funding coming from oil and gas revenues from offshore drilling, is it not?

Mr. BAIRD. Yet another broken promise; yet another trust fund raiding.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her insightful words. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my dear friend who is a leader in the Nation on liveable communities and environmental issues. (Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my dear friend a question, if I may. Does the gentleman from Oregon consider the actions of this administration a breach of a promise when it comes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund?

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friends and distinguished colleagues. I would like to begin by acknowledging the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for his good work, as well as my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their support of this. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) was also extremely supportive, and I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Saxton) work and kind remarks in this regard. In addition, I would like to acknowledge Marie Howard of the Committee on Resources and the staff of the BIA for their diligent work on this project. This legislation, as has been mentioned, distributes moneys which were awarded to the tribe in 1973 by the Indian Claims Commission. The ICC awarded the tribe $1.5 million for ancestral lands forcibly confiscated by the Federal Government. The tribe initially refused the funds as insufficient, and the $1.5 million award was sent to BIA to remain in an interest-bearing account until the tribe requested its release. In a wonderful example of the power of compound interest, one which would no doubt make Ben Franklin proud, the original $1.5 million is now worth $13 million. In January of 2002, the tribe was formally recognized, but it has scarce funding with which to manage tribal programs. Accordingly, the tribe unanimously determined to seek the release of its ICC award, to fund tribal programs to care for the elderly, expand health care services, provide housing assistance, cover educational expenses and create economic development opportunities. The legislation before us today requires the vast majority of the ICC fund to remain permanently in an account collecting interest, and only allows the interest collected from the award, from this date forward, to fund tribal programs. This ensures these funds will be available for future generations of Cowlitz people. The tribe is free to spend the interest accrued on this award as they wish, consistent with the legislation. However, to the extent to which tribal programs will impact local communities, I strongly encourage the tribe to work with local officials. The ICC allocated this money to the Cowlitz, and they will ultimately decide how to spend it; but those decisions will inevitably impact nontribal members as well. As a consequence, I strongly encourage the tribe to work with local officials and community members to ensure that this money is used to the greatest extent possible to the benefit of all concerned. Finally, I would say that in seeking this money for the Cowlitz, my goal is to ensure they receive the funds to which they have been entitled. However, the passage of this legislation is not intended in any way to influence BIA's evaluation of the tribe's pending land trust decision. Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, a week ago we all mourned the loss, along with our brothers and sisters and friends in Spain, of so many innocent civilians. Having had the opportunity to live in Spain for 2 years, I would like to take a few moments, if I may, to express my personal condolences in the hopes that our Congress, in its entirety, will do so before long. Como estadounidense y miembro del Congreso de los Estados Unidos de America, quiero expresar mis mas profundas condolencias al pueblo de Espana por la tragica perdida de tantos inocentes en manos del terrorismo. Personalmente, tuve la oportunidad de vivir en Espana durante dos anos, y desde entonces llevo una parte de ese pais y de su gente en mi corazon. Hoy mi alma llora las muertes provocadas por la crueldad del terror. Hoy, todos somos espanoles. Nuestras naciones han sido a lo largo de la historia, aliados y amigos, unidos por los mismos valores y por una herencia comun. Compartimos libertad, compasion, tolerancia y democracia. Tambien es voluntad comun mantenernos juntos y firmes contra aquellos que amenazan esos valores y matan inocentes en nombre del fanatismo politico y religioso. Cuando nuestro pais sufrio los atentados del once de septiembre, el pueblo espanol y el resto del mundo ofrecio a esta nacion y a su gente, apoyo, comprension y solidaridad. Ese ofrecimiento sin condiciones supuso mas de lo que nunca podremos agradecer. Ahora, somos nosotros y el resto del mundo los que debemos alargar nuestras manos hacia Espana y su gente. Permidnos que os abracemos como vosotros lo hicisteis. Permitidnos guardar el luto de vuestras victimas. Queremos agradeceros vuestra lealtad y mantener el compromiso de llevar a la justicia a los responsables de esta atrocidad. Los terroristas nunca venceran. Su brutalidad y sus objetivos son contrarios a la civilizacion, a la decencia y a las aspiraciones de los seres humanos. Nunca venceran, pero hasta que podamos con ellos de una vez por todas, tendran que pagar un precio muy alto. No hay mayor evidencia de sus errores que este acto atroz de crueldad contra gente inocente que iba a su trabajo o a su centro de estudios. Por ello, debemos mantenernos unidos frente al terror, unidos con nuestros amigos y aliados, unidos con Espana. Cuando vivi alli y aprendi su bonita lengua con mis grandes amigos, me impresiono el hecho de que la frase ``I'm sorry'' signifique realmente ``lo siento''. Permitanme decir a mis amigos espanoles que ``sentimos'' su perdida. Sabemos lo que es ese dolor, esa tristeza y la indignacion e impotencia por unas muertes tan injustas. Hemos sentido en carne propia el drama del terror y lo volvemos a sentir con vosotros. No hay palabras que puedan consolar tanto dolor, pero debeis saber que en este momento no estais solos. Juntos, triunfaremos. Llevaremos a los responsables ante la justicia y mas importante: les ensenaremos con el ejemplo de nuestros dos grandes paises, que existe un camino mejor. Un camino que demuestre nuestra fuerza comun y nuestro amor por la libertad. Fuerza, amigos espanoles . . . fuerza, coraje, y animo. Estamos con vosotros, hoy y siempre. (English translation of the above statement is as follows:) As an American citizen and member of the Congress of the United States of America, I want to express my profound condolences to all of the people of Spain for the tragic loss of so many innocents at the hands of terrorists. Having lived in Spain for 2 years, part of my heart and soul will always remain in Spain and part of Spain will always be within me. Today, my heart and soul are saddened by the losses and outraged by the inhumanity of the attackers. Today, we are all Spanish and we have all lost good people and friends. Our nations have long been allies and friends, united by shared values and a common heritage. Liberty, compassion, tolerance, and democratic institutions are dear to all of us. So too is our willingness to stand together against those who would threaten those values and who kill innocents in the name of political and religious zealotry. Because of our shared values, we are now also united in suffering and loss. When our Nation suffered on September 11th, the people of Spain and the rest of the world reached out to offer our own Nation and our people comfort, support and solidarity. That outpouring of kindness and support meant more than we could possibly express at the time. Now, it is we and the rest of the world who reach out our hands to Spain and to all of the people of Spain. Let us embrace you now as you embraced us. Let us comfort you now as you comforted us. Let us grieve with you for your losses. And let us also pledge our loyalty to you and our commitment to bring those responsible for this atrocity to justice. In the end, the terrorist will never win because their methods of brutality and their goals are contrary to civilization, contrary to decency, and contrary to the highest aspirations and realizations of human beings. They will never win, but until they are defeated once and for all, they will exact a heavy, heavy toll. Now, tragically, as so often before, they have taken that toll from innocents on their way to work and school. There could be no greater evidence of the fallacy of their aims and beliefs than this heinous act of cruelty. That is why we stand united against them, united with our friends an allies, united with the people of Spain. When I lived in Spain and was taught this beautiful language by my dear friends, I was struck by the fact that the translation of the English phrase ``I am sorry'' is lo siento, literally, I feel it. Lo siento, I feel it. Let me say to my friends in Spain that we feel your losses. We know something of the feeling, we know the pain, we know the sadness, we know the rage at such pointless, unjust slaughter. We have felt these things ourselves and now we feel it once again with you and for you. No words can take that pain away, but please know in this dark time that you are not alone. Together, we will prevail. We will bring those responsible to justice and, more importantly still, we will show through the examples of our two great lands and peoples that there is a better path, a better way. Let us never lose sight of that higher vision and let the ways we respond to these tragedies show our true strength and or love for freedom and for one another. Courage my friends. Courage, strength, and compassion. We are with you and always will be.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to accept the gentleman from California's (Mr. Filner) time.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, those of us on the Democratic side of the aisle, when we arrived today, we were missing a familiar and friendly face. Ed Pence has been a loyal and valued servant to this country for 25 years. He has reached out to numerous people and he will be greatly missed. He retires at the end of this year. In October of 1978, Ed joined the Capitol Police Force and dedicated over 20 years to protecting our safety and that of the visiting public. He is respected throughout the Capitol because of his professionalism, his compassion, and his friendly nature. Ed also had a brief stint in the gentleman from Missouri's (Mr. Gephardt) office before joining the Sergeant of Arms Office as a trusted member of the Chamber security staff. During this time, Ed has proven himself a trusted source of knowledge by monitoring floor activity and advising Members on upcoming votes. Ed was the man we turned to when we were planning our day or asking questions about the procedures of the day. Mr. Speaker, Ed's dedication, work ethic, and devotion to this institution is worthy of the highest commendation. I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating Ed Pence on his well-deserved retirement, thanking him for his service, and wishing him continued success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I cannot get up and say this bill is awful entirely. I think there are some very good parts, and I think some good efforts have been put into it, but I have two concerns. First of all, side effects. I think the side effects of this bill may well be fatal to some, and more importantly, I believe that most Members on both sides of the aisle have not really read this bill and do not fully understand it. Earlier tonight, I invited the gentlewoman from Ohio to explain a simple passage.

Mr. BAIRD. Reclaiming my time, the point I am making is I do not think the gentlewoman has actually read the bill sufficiently to explain it. I spent 23 years of my life in health care. I hold a doctorate in clinical psychology. I have spent hours on this bill. My eyes are exhausted. I must say I do not know fully well enough what is in it. My colleagues have said to us, and I agree, this is one of the most important bills that we will face in our career, and yet my colleagues have given us less than 24 hours to look at it. The great philosopher Socrates said this when the politicians of Athens imprisoned him, he said to his the young people he taught, he said, These people have imprisoned me for pointing out to them how little they know. Instead of being angry at me for pointing that out, they should be angry at themselves for knowing so little. His advantage was he admitted that he did not know. What I would ask the gentlewoman is a simple request that we almost never do here. Let us break with precedent. Let us say, you know what, this is important, we are moving too fast. I look around this room and I will say to my distinguished colleagues I bet you, you have not read the bill carefully, and you really, fully cannot explain it to your constituents, and if you have not and if this bill spends $400 billion of the taxpayers' money and is going to blow a hole in the lid of this deficit and is going to deprive people who desperately need pharmaceutical care, then why do we not just take a little bit of time and read it? Who knows, I might actually like it well enough to vote for it, but I cannot vote for something you have not given us enough time to read. That is what the people of expect of us when they send us here. That is what a republic is all about it, but we do it a great disservice in this institution of late.

Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. I believe the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has pointed out we have had adequate time to study the legislation. I presume she is going to vote on it. This is a summary provided by her Republican party, yet she fails to be able to explain it. I would invite anyone here present with us today from the majority party, or who plans to vote from the minority party, to please explain what it is we are voting on. I would invite the next person to offer that explanation.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this debate, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules pointed out that this is one of the most important bills we have faced possibly in our careers. Indeed, he is correct. Yet, we are given less than 24 hours to consider this. The most important bill in our careers, 24 hours to consider it. It is part of a very troubling pattern, and I call my colleagues' attention to this: in the last 7 legislative days in this Congress, we have either authorized or appropriated more than $1.26 trillion of the people's money. The defense authorization bill we were given 3 hours to read before the vote. The Medicare bill, we may have a total of about 28 hours, clock hours, if we read around the clock to read this. The intelligence authorization bill, 8 hours. A total of $1.26 trillion, and we are going to have an omnibus appropriation bill shortly. I would like to yield, if I may, to the gentlewoman from Ohio. I have asked one of the pages to take her a piece of text from this legislation, and I would like her to explain this to me. If we have had adequate time to study it, then we should know what is in it. The text reads as follows, and I will invite the gentlewoman to explain what it means. On page 13, actually of the interpretive paper from the Republican party, it reads, ``Plans would be permitted to substitute cost-sharing requirements for costs up to the initial coverage limit that were actuarially consistent with an average expected 25 percent coinsurance for costs up to the initial coverage limit. They could also apply tiered copayment, provided such copayments were actuarially consistent with the average 25 percent cost-sharing requirement.'' I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) to explain what that means.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I profoundly appreciate the hard work that has gone into this legislation but, my friends, we know that it is 1,200 pages long, it spends $400 billion of the taxpayers' money and no one in this body save the conference members have had more than 3 hours to read this. It is a fine thing to stand up and say we support our troops, and we all do. But the fact is we should not be voting on this today because we have not read it. We should vote next week on this, after we have had time to think about this seriously. If we truly care about our veterans, let us care enough to read the legislation, and if we truly care about our troops, let us care enough to read this legislation. I will vote ``present'' because I do not have enough information to vote yea or nay, and I regret that profoundly.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues, and I thank the chairman of the committee for his willingness to accept this. I just want to briefly add my support for this. This is about jobs. It is about national security, and it is about efficient transportation. It is about jobs because we need to preserve the fundamental principles of the Buy American Act. Steel fabricators, steel producers in this country produce a high-quality product. They employ thousands of Americans with family-wage jobs, and the Buy American Act assures that they will continue to do so. It is about national security because we must sustain the domestic steel fabrication and manufacturing industry both for defense purposes and for transportation purposes. And, finally, it is about transportation efficiency. An efficient, quality, modern and economically sound steel fabrication industry is absolutely essential to the viability of our transportation system. I applaud the gentleman for his leadership, and I thank the Chair for his willingness to support this.

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

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification of that.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his leadership, and I wanted to just expand on what was said. President Bush in the State of the Union address, and then later on, made a comment that I strongly agree with, in principle, but not in the way he has put it into practice. The President said, ``See, I ran for office to solve problems, not to pass them onto future Presidents and future generations.'' That is with merit to say that. But what has he, in fact, done? This is the budget outlook under the current Republican policies. And I want to call your attention to a couple of things, and I know it is something that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) raised before. Virtually every Member of this body voted to put Social Security and Medicare in a lockbox. The President said he would put it in a lockbox. But what he did not say is he would keep the key to that lockbox in his back pocket and if budget numbers look bad, he would open up to lockbox and borrow from it to make his deficit projections look smaller. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) pointed out that the deficit is so great under this administration that we could completely eliminate the Department of Education, the National Institute of Health, the National Park Service, transportation funding at the Federal level and a host of other programs, lock up the National Parks, shut down all the research at the National Institute of Health, and we are still not out of deficit. When the President and the leadership of the Republican party say we have a $400 billion deficit, what they are not telling you is we are borrowing hundreds of billions more from Social Security and Medicare. That debt is going to come due at precisely the time that the tax breaks these folks have passed expand. Our friends would have you believe that Democrats want to raise taxes. That is not true. In fact, this party offered a number of constructive and responsible tax breaks. But what we do believe is we should not pass debt onto our kids. Let us look at the debt we are putting on. You hear about all of $400 billion debt or $400 billion deficit or a $500 billion deficit, and the Republicans would have you believe, well, it is not so much. It is a percentage of gross domestic product. But the American people have more sense than that. The American people understand that even in Washington, D.C., $400 billion is a lot of money. And they also know that it adds up year after year after year. Look at this chart. This chart shows the cumulative effects of the Bush deficit and the Republican Congress deficit, because make no mistake about it, the fiscal policies in play in this country right now are solely, solely the responsibility of the Republican majority because they control the House of Representatives, the Senate of the United States, and the Presidency. And their deficit adds up to $7 trillion more debt over the next 10 years. They will double, effectively double the debt in just 10 years. And that is a debt our children are going to have to pay. I would submit to you that this is not an economic policy. It is a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are outlawed because they do not work, because you promise people things that they cannot deliver, and that is what this budget does. They would have you believe it is going to recover magically. The growth fairy will come save us. I will state that in April I gave a speech, and I said we should be aware, and we should hope that the economy is going to recover because, quite frankly, if you give me 2 percent interest rates or any President 2 percent interest rates for a period of a couple of years, and if you pump in a trillion dollars of deficit spending, just like if Disney dads whip out the credit cards and buy their kids all kinds of treats, you will think the economy has gotten better. But the long-term cost of that short-term celebration will be paid by our children and that is not responsible. That is not conservative and that is not compassionate. The American people deserve to know the truth. I applaud the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for being able to tell them the truth and my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) who has been a leader on this.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how I am going to vote on this. Two weeks ago, I visited Walter Reed Hospital, and I met young soldiers who had double amputations, severe burns and head injuries that will be with them for life. Sending those soldiers into the field without adequate body armor, without armored Humvees, was inexcusable, if not criminal. We must act to protect those soldiers right now. But, I say to my friends, I have yet to hear the supporters of this supplemental say how they will pay for it. I will tell you right now, you can possibly get my vote if you will answer that question. I have only 2 minutes, less now, but I would yield at least 30 seconds to anyone who is supporting this bill if they will tell us how you want the American people to pay for it, when we are closing veterans hospitals, when we are $600 billion in deficit every year, when our schools are falling apart, and we cannot rebuild our roads. I yield 30 seconds to anyone who supports this bill to tell me how to pay for it. Mr. Chairman, that is the problem. That is the problem. We want to make lots of promises, but we do not have leadership in the administration or in this body that will tell the American people the hard truth; what programs we have to cut, what taxes we have to raise, whether we will borrow from Social Security or whether we will pass the debt on to our children. That is the problem. I am really sorry. We must support those troops. But they are fighting for a democracy that owes it to its people to be honest with them, honest about the tough choices we must make. But we are not living up to that bargain, and it is a darn shame, because those kids deserve better.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for yielding me the time, and I thank my colleague also from the other side of the Cascade Mountain. The reason I am concerned about this, since I represent Vancouver, Washington, we call it America's Vancouver, it is on the banks of the Columbia River, and it is down river from Hanford. For years, DOE has assured us that they had the cleanup under control. We have thousands of gallons of liquid waste in unlined single-wall tanks, and we were assured that they would not leak into the aquifer for hundreds of years. In fact, we have discovered already that there is nuclear material in that aquifer and that aquifer connects directly to the Columbia River. The solution to our problems of disposing of radioactive waste is not to redefine them and say the problem's gone away because we came up with a new definition. That is essentially what the Department of Energy is asking to do, and I applaud my colleague for this motion. I thank the Chair of the committee for rejecting that. So I am glad we are going to support this, but I would say this is troubling to me that the Department of Energy has even made this request because I think it raises questions about their good faith, that they believe that the solution to cleaning something up is to define that it is already clean and we do not have a problem. I urge the chairman of this committee to insist that such language not be allowed to exist in a final conference report and would urge my fellow colleagues, should that language somehow get in, to reject it strongly.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it is my great privilege to represent portions of Mount Rainier National Park and Mount St. Helen's National Monument. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). I personally know some of the people who work in these fine resources for the benefit of the American people. Our national parks are truly great treasures of the people of not only our country but the entire world. The people who work in these parks are not there, for the most part, for the money. They are there because they value and cherish this resource. I can tell Members, having spoken to some of these folks, that this move towards privatization has had a chilling effect on morale. Let me share two brief anecdotes not just germane to this issue but about the broad effect of privatization. A dear friend of mine works for the U.S. Geological Service, and he told me that when he first began working for USGS he and his colleagues put in typically 60- 70- 80-hour work weeks, not getting paid overtime, just putting in personal time because they so cared about their mission. Indeed, when Mount St. Helen's erupted, many of the geologists who were there had taken vacation time on their own time to be there to study that danger, and some lost their lives in the disaster. Last week, I was flying back here with a member of the civilian workforce who is in charge of safety at naval facilities. She told me that what surprised her most was how dedicated many of her employees were even as they faced privatization. But I also hear that it is only humanly natural, if one believes their job is soon to be put on the block, it is difficult to establish the institutional loyalty to put in that overtime, to develop the career path that will lead to the skilled and the trained and accomplished experienced workforce we need to staff our parks and other Federal agencies. In the name of our dear love for these resources, I plead with the committee to make sure that we do not move forward with this privatization. I thank the sponsors of the amendment for withdrawing it, and I will vigorously oppose the amendment should it reemerge.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?