Brad Carson

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for this compromise version of H.R. 3609, which improves pipeline safety. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, which has undergone significant changes since it was first introduced. This legislation importantly accomplishes various improvements in pipeline safety, while recognizing the realities of pipeline operation and its, unacknowledged often, importance to many communities and businesses across the country. Pipelines are a critical mode of transportation for our Nation and by far one of the safest modes of transporting energy materials to needed destinations. It is equally important that the American public have faith in its safety. I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, which improves public confidence in our Nation's pipeline system and allows continued quality service to the many Americans who depend upon the products that pipelines provide.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hanson) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for working on the details of this bill and supporting it and bringing it the floor, and also commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) for his heroic work over many years to finally see this bill come to fruition. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) and I currently represent the majority of the citizens of what has historically been known as the Five Civilized Tribes, which includes the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee, Creek and Seminole Nations. Next session, after redistricting is finalized, my new district will likely encompass all of Eastern Oklahoma, which includes most of my current district and a large part of the gentleman from Oklahoma's (Mr. Watkins) as well. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2880, the Five Nations Citizens Land Reform Act of 2001. This bill corrects an inequity that has long existed in Federal law related to land tenure and land probate for the Five Tribes. Simply put, this bill will bring clarity and equity to restricted lands of the Five Tribes. H.R. 2880 brings clarity by unifying into a single law what is currently contained in numerous Federal laws, applicable to individual Indian allotted lands of the Five Tribes and has created inequities, obstacles and financial burdens for citizens of those tribes. Those obstacles have resulted in the unnecessary loss of land owned by individual Indians residing in Eastern Oklahoma. H.R. 2880 will bring equity by giving restricted property the same level and type of protection afforded the allotted lands of other Federally recognized tribes nationwide. Currently the individual allotments to citizens of the Five Tribes are afforded much less protection to the land than to laws applicable to trust allotments of other tribes. In addition, the Five Tribes are the only tribes where jurisdiction over probates and conveyances of their land is held by the State district courts and not the Secretary of the Interior. H.R. 2880 will correct this by allowing families to have estates probated administratively by the Department of the Interior. This legislation also protects the vested rights of individuals who have acquired an interest in tracts of lands that include restricted interests. As a member of the Cherokee Nation, as an active member of the Native American Caucus, and as an elected representative of a significant percentage of citizens of the Five Civilized Tribes, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help bring clarity and equity to a land issue that has plagued Eastern Oklahoma and citizens of the Five Tribes for far too long.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) who has preceded me in Congress by some two decades of his tremendous work in helping all of the Five Tribes, including this piece of legislation today. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, we as the Congressional delegation from the great state of Oklahoma rise today to extend our congratulations to an individual who is responsible for informing our constituents in Oklahoma of the work we are performing on their behalf in Congress. Jim Myers, the Chief of the Washington Bureau for the Tulsa World, was recently highly honored by his colleagues to be inducted into the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame. Jim Myers, a native of Tonkawa, began his professional work in journalism with the Enid News and Eagle from 1976-77, as a reporter for the Lawton Constitution, 1977-1979, and Lawton Magazine in 1980. He joined the Tulsa World in 1981, where he covered city and county government. In 1984, he was promoted to the World's statehouse bureau and, in 1990, he was named Washington correspondent. In 1992, he was a Paul Miller Fellow for the Freedom Forum and, in 1995, a Knight Center Fellow at the University of Maryland. The veteran political and government reporter is known for his tenacity to get to the truth and the pursuit of fairness and accuracy. An Army veteran, he has three degrees from Oklahoma State University: bachelor's degrees in social studies and journalism and a master's degree in history. Jim, congratulations on an honor well deserved. The dedication you have shown to your profession and the valuable service you continue to provide to the people of Oklahoma is worthy of this high commendation of being selected a member of the Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, Native American sacred sites usually don't have white-washed siding, a high steeple, or a loud bell. Often they are part of the world around us--a mountain, valley, river, or even a tree but they deserve to be respected and protected as much as any traditional church. Native Americans have always respected and honored the land, water, and air from which we receive so much. Oral history passed from generation to generation will explain to a tribe where they came from and the journey taken to arrive. Across the country, Native American sacred sites are being threatened with destruction and few options exist to halt the damage. Over the years Congress has enacted laws to ``consult'' with Indian tribes about sacred areas, and to ``accommodate'' Indian religious ceremonies. The problem is that we have thousands of sacred sites on public lands all across this nation and no firm process to disallow certain activities that will harm or destroy the site. We need to find a way to protect the sacred sites while permitting needed growth and energy development to continue. I know we can find the right balance.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with several of my colleagues, to discuss the most pressing domestic issue of our time, that of Social Security. Let me first begin by thanking my fellow freshman Democrat, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), for his leadership in organizing with me this Special Order about the impending raid of Social Security. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her leadership and assistance in organizing our colleagues here today. Our Nation faces incredible challenges; this we all know as we stand united in a war on terrorism. All of our thoughts and prayers are with our men and women in uniform today. This afternoon I stand before this House to talk about one of the most pressing domestic issues of our time, an issue that cannot be ignored even as we fight a war abroad, and that is Social Security. Around the world as populations of developed countries grow older, the cost of paying for pension and health benefits rise. In the United States, more than 44 million people collect benefits from our Social Security system. Social Security represents one of the most important and depended-upon programs in this Nation's history. Social Security is a great American success story, having reduced the percentage of poverty among our Nation's retirees from over 50 percent to 11 percent since the program's inception in 1935. Moreover, Social Security is not simply a retirement program; it is also a program that provides disability and survivor's benefits to over 13 million workers and their families. Last year this House and this country had a 10-year estimated $5.6 trillion unified surplus, which included $3 trillion in non-Social Security surplus. But how times can change. In less than a year, $4 trillion of that surplus is now gone due to tax cuts, the downturn in our economy, and the war effort. The greatest tragedy is not simply the diminution of the surplus, but also the fact that the proposed budget now before us in this House diverts $1.4 trillion of the Social Security trust fund and $556 billion from the Medicare trust fund to pay for spending and new tax cuts. I have supported and continue to support tax cuts, specific tax cuts, but not tax cuts that undermine our ability to honor our promises and commitments. I support, as do so many Members of this House, a fiscally responsible plan for our Federal budget, a plan that recognizes the current health of the Social Security trust fund, while also recognizing the need in the future to protect it. Because of the current strength of the trust fund, we have an opportunity before us as a Nation that we will not have too much longer to protect the reserves that will be vital in ensuring the program's survival for future generations. The question today is when are we going to stop talking about saving the Social Security trust fund and finally do it. Legislation has been proposed, but no action has been taken. We continue to use duplicitous accounting to hide the real deficits this country faces in the coming years when the largest generation in American history, the baby boomers, begin to retire. It is hard for me to understand how, in what is obviously the most successful and popular Federal program ever conceived, how it can be subtly cut and raided for short-term convenience. The time has come for us as a Nation and as a House to make the tough decisions to save Social Security for our children and for our children's children. There is a very real and looming threat that we may not be able to meet all of the promised obligations unless we commit to make the prudent fiscal choices today. As I mentioned, we have been presented with a budget that proposes a spending deficit in the Social Security trust fund of $1.5 trillion. Before we even begin the debate on long- term solvency of Social Security, I find it irresponsible that the Congress is being asked to force Social Security's obsolescence by raiding the trust fund and risking the fiscal health of a system that has been so successful. When, I ask, are we going to make the hard decisions of financial prudence? I believe that we can achieve our long-term goals of preserving our Social Security system to prevent our Nation's seniors from falling back into poverty while also updating and reforming Social Security to meet the challenges of our modern era. It is true the baby boomers are rapidly approaching retirement. The oldest will be retiring by 2008, and it is true by 2021, the Social Security system will be taking in less revenue than it pays out in benefits. But as we proved in 1983 and as we can prove again today, we can save a program that has worked so well for so many for so many years, and it is incumbent upon us to make these tough decisions. As the recent Enron debacle reminds us, it is critical to have a safety net in place, and a solvent one at that, to protect seniors when they retire. As workers across the country have watched their life savings, their 401(k)s lose 24, 35, even 50 percent of their value, and some regrettably have seen their 401(k)s and pensions evaporate altogether, it is critical that Americans know Social Security will be there to ensure that their minimum needs are met. Mr. Speaker, in the last election perhaps the most used phrase was the Social Security trust fund would always remain in a so-called ``lockbox'' unable to be touched by the spending desires or tax cuts of some in Congress or of the administration. I do not believe any American argues against making sure that there are adequate resources to fighting the war on terrorism or defending the home front. However, we cannot allow the Social Security trust fund to become the credit card on which we charge a smorgasbord of new spending for tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, today is the day, finally, in which we stand on principle as a Congress to send a clear message to this generation as well as the future generations of retiring workers that there will be, forever, a solvent, secure and dependable public Social Security program in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) to also address this subject.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. I know the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) has worked hard on these issues over the last few months as well. We appreciate his comments on the issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) who has also worked passionately on these issues and whose words are always eloquent on this subject. Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I thank the gentleman for allowing us to talk about the important issue of Social Security. I also thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for his efforts. I know that we are all concerned. I also wanted to take this opportunity to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender- McDonald), who is not here but I know who also is concerned and who might join us a little later as well as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson). Let me just indicate that, when it comes to Social Security, it is one of the issues that hits home and it is one of the areas that we forget that, during the time prior to Social Security, we had the largest problems that we had regarding poverty among our seniors. This has been one of the best programs to alleviate poverty among our seniors. So I am pleased to stand today and make some comments as we reach this critical time of reviewing and dealing with the issue of how we respond to the difficulties that we find ourselves in. As a country, we are often faced with challenging obstacles on our quest to do what is just. The resources we have at our disposal are not infinite, as we all recognize. At these critical moments Americans expect their leaders to stand strong and make decisions that reflect all that makes this country great. Our seniors are facing a dilemma, one that threatens the security and trust they have as they reach retirement. We must fight to preserve our Social Security Trust Fund and honor our country's commitment to our seniors. The President's budget does not honor the commitment to our seniors and, in turn, fails all Americans. The President's new budget raids the Social Security surplus to pay for other government programs, not just one year but every year for the next 10 years. Ultimately, the President's plan would spend $1.5 trillion in Social Security surplus dollars to fund programs other than Social Security. This year alone, $262 billion in Social Security surplus funds are redirected. In the year 2003, the President's budget projects using $259 billion. All this money would be taken out of the trust fund and used to fund other programs. One of the things that bothers me and irritates me is that we dealt with the tax cut and at a time right now when our first response should be in terms of defending our homeland, taking care of the war, we are choosing to respond to all the problems with a tax cut, when we ought to be telling those corporations they also have an obligation to pay for defending this country, and our seniors should not be carrying the burden for that to be occurring. Now is the time for us to focus on a long-term budget plan that will recover as the economy recovers, returning us to an era where we can fully protect and even strengthen the Social Security Trust Fund. We need to recommit to the idea of Social Security surplus dollars only for Social Security and paying down the national debt. Our national debt now stands at $3.4 trillion. Paying down the national debt will strengthen the financing of the Social Security Trust Fund over the long term and will allow us to keep our commitment to seniors. Our seniors deserve better than a piece of paper which attempts to guarantee their rights to receive benefits. That piece of paper means nothing. You can tell that to our veterans who have been told that they should have access to health care and we have not delivered for them. This piece of paper also will mean nothing. What we need to do is do the right thing in our budget, be able to pay down debt and be able to take care of our seniors. As we look, and I would hope that we just do not look at those that are now receiving those benefits but we reach out and look at those baby boomers that are getting ready to reach that age, because they have also paid into the fund. In addition to them, we all recognize that the kids of the baby boomers, what we call the baby echo, we also need to consider the baby echo. As we move forward on Social Security, there are special populations, Hispanics, for example, one out of every three Hispanics only have another pension, while one out of two Anglos have other pensions. So there are certain special populations out there that get disproportionately hit and depend on Social Security much more than other populations, especially Hispanic women who are the ones that are hit the hardest and if there is any move to privatize will be in complete jeopardy. One of the things, and I want to thank the Members that are here tonight, because we need to talk about this. There is a great deal of talk right now, but what is transpiring and what is occurring already in the budget has a direct impact on our Social Security. I do not care, and I hate to see people come and talk about it and then they vote for those tax cuts that jeopardize not only our economy but the Nation as a whole and our fight in this war on terrorism. We are fighting this war on terrorism on the backs of our seniors. Every single war we have had, we have always had a tax. When we had the Spanish American War, we had a tax on phones. When we had World War II, we had taxes. This is the only war that we have decided to give tax cuts to the wealthiest at the same time that we burden our seniors by taking their trust fund and their security from them. So it is unfair that we do this, but it is a good opportunity to begin to talk about where we are at. Once again, I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to say a few words. I know we have some additional colleagues that have come on board. I thank the gentleman for his efforts.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for his impassioned words about the future of Social Security and the imperative on all of us, especially those of us with a real commitment to our seniors, and to remember that so many promises to our veterans were made more in rhetoric than in reality and that we should not do the same thing with Social Security. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his well-informed comments, and I also appreciate the fact that he brought up the ill-conceived nature of sending certificates to millions of seniors and Americans out there, certificates that provide no new rights and are not an enforcement mechanism for any existing rights, all at the cost of more than $10 million, all of this in a year when our budgets are strapped and so many very meritorious projects are going to have to go unfunded and left on the drawing room table. So I thank the gentleman for his comments and thank him for being here this afternoon as well. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to someone who is equally impassioned about the subject of Social Security, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her comments today. She is quite right in saying that, if the American public is wise, the upcoming election will be about this important issue, the most successful social program the United States has ever had. A social program that once, in 1935 when seniors were the poorest group in America, has lifted them out of poverty, so that those people in retirement no longer have to worry about making basic ends meet. Indeed, the election and this entire debate about the future of Social Security is between those people who would preserve this important program and those people who, in the name of reform, seek to dismantle it. It is so important that people watching this today and those people who are across America and are going to be casting their ballots recognize the importance of Social Security. It is not as a 401(k) program is, it is not as a pension program is at a private business. Those programs are important; and I in Congress, along with my colleagues, have voted to make those more accessible to our retirees. We should encourage people to invest and to save on their own. But the genius of Social Security has been always that it is a program below which we allowed no one to fall, a safety net, below which no one was allowed to fall. We can make good on the promise of retirement and the harvest of a bountiful life.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to Chairman Hansen of the Committee on Resources, Ranking Member Rahall and the entire Committee on Resources staff for their leadership and hard work in bringing H.R. 2742 to the floor of the House of Representatives. I would like to especially single out the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) for his leadership on this issue as well as my indispensable aide, Jessica Werner, whose passion for this issue and whose expertise is greater than my own. I rise in support of H.R. 2742, a bill to authorize, as the gentleman from Colorado said, the construction of a Native American Cultural Center and Museum in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. As an enrolled member of the Cherokee tribe and representing the most Native American district in the entire country, H.R. 2742 and the Native American Cultural Center and Museum planned for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, carry great significance for me. The area encompassed by the boundaries of the State of Oklahoma, often referred to as ``Native America,'' has had a special relationship with Indian nations since long before it became a State in 1907. Beginning in the 1820s, the five civilized tribes from the southeastern United States were relocated to Indian Territory over numerous routes, the most famous being the Cherokee Trail of Tears. Forced off their ancestral lands by State and Federal governments, the tribes suffered great hardships during the rigorous trips west. This forced march of eastern tribes to the West under the Indian Removal Act of 1830 is the best known movement of American Indians to what is now Oklahoma. Thirty-nine tribes are recognized by the State, including both tribes forced to Oklahoma and tribes native to the plains. These tribes collectively and individually have played an invaluable role in the evolution of the State of Oklahoma. Indeed, the culture and history of Oklahoma are inseparable from that of the 39 tribes. Nevertheless, before the creation of the Native American Cultural and Educational Authority of Oklahoma, there has been little statewide effort to recognize the contributions and sacrifices made by the tribes, and no Federal effort in my State. In 1994, the Oklahoma legislature created the Native American Cultural and Educational Authority to promote the history of Native Americans for the mutual benefit of the State of Oklahoma and its Indian and non-Indian citizens. By that legislation, the authority was authorized and empowered to construct and operate a cultural center and museum on a chosen site in Oklahoma. Since 1994, various entities, including the authority, the State legislature, the Office of the Governor, Native American groups, and a stellar design team have worked together and developed an impressive and extensive plan for the creation of the Native American Cultural Center and Museum in Oklahoma City, which three cities in Oklahoma initially bid for. The approximately 300-acre site donated by Oklahoma City where the center will be located will have a Great Promontory, a Court of Nations, a Court of the Wind, a Hall of the People, Permanent and Temporary Galleries, a ``Who We Are'' Theater, a Multi-Purpose Theater, a Demonstration Gallery, Family Center, Study Center, Discovery Center, a Lodge, Hotel and Conference Center, a Visitor Center and Dancing Grounds. As an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institute, the museum will be able to rotate exhibits with the Native American Smithsonian Institute being built not far from where I stand here in Washington, enriching both of the museum's collections. Some of the main goals tied to the creation of the Native American Cultural Center and Museum are, first, to link the past, present and future of Indian Nations and present them to the visitor in a way that he or she can experience and understand fully; second, to preserve and promote the living cultures of Native Americans, in language and history, dance, arts, cultural values and spirituality; and, third, to strive for economic self-sufficiency and to engender the principles of environmental sustainability. This massive endeavor, representing and promoting all 39 tribes in Oklahoma, is truly awe-inspiring and worthy of Federal financial and technical support. The design team includes Ralph Appelbaum, whose achievements include the United States Holocaust Museum, and Bill Fain, who helped design the TransAmerica Building in San Francisco. The world class team has enjoyed the strong support of Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma, as well as Senator Nickles and Senator Inhofe, and Senator Campbell of Colorado, as well as the Oklahoma State Legislature, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), to name just a few. H.R. 2742, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) noted, would authorize the appropriation of $33 million over a period of four fiscal years beginning in 2003. However, appropriation of Federal dollars is contingent upon private, city and State sources, accounting for 66 percent of the total cost. Thus, the center is neither wholly dependent upon Federal funds nor given access to Federal funds until a local commitment has been adequately demonstrated. Nevertheless, Federal funds are necessary and reasonable. Given the Federal Government's significant role, indeed determining role, in relocating many of the 39 tribes now a part of Oklahoma, it seems more than appropriate for the Federal Government to award grants to the Native American Cultural and Educational Authority for the development of this museum, committed to preserving the history and culture of these tribes. Furthermore, a precedent has been set for the Federal funding of State museums. To name a few examples, from 1986 to 1994, the Steamtown Railroad Museum in Pennsylvania was appropriated more than $80 million in Federal funds. From 1996 to 1997, the Hispanic Cultural Center in New Mexico was appropriated $16 million. Under the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of the 106th Congress, appropriations amounting to over $18 million were authorized for the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place in Fort Pierre, South Dakota. The construction of this museum and, hence, this legislation, is not only necessary for the preservation of Indian cultures, but carries deep significance in the State of Oklahoma and, I believe, to the Nation too. Felix Cohen, in his landmark treatise on Indian law, remarked that, ``like the miner's canary, the Indian marks the shift from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere; and our treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, reflects the rise and fall in our democratic faith.'' With this bill, in a State formed by the cruelties of our Nation's Indian policy, we build finally a monument to all which has endured. We now celebrate what was once despised, and we now preserve what our Nation for too long tried to eradicate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as one of the distressingly few Democrats in support of a grant of Trade Promotion Authority to President Bush. My support of TPA springs from the recognition that trade is really part of a larger debate on the proper role of America in the world today. It is a debate that echoes in the halls of the Pentagon and the National Security Council, as well as those of our trade representatives, and that is waged with arguments in Doha but with arms in the Hindu Kush. Many of my colleagues in the Democratic Party state their belief in free trade, but nonetheless refuse to support TPA unless it includes provisions mandating other nations' compliance with our own environmental and labor standards. Alas, this notion, if enacted, would render TPA a nullity, a mere piece of paper that in the prelude expresses support for trade but which, in the details, mocks that claim. None of the developing nations with which we aspire to negotiate new trade agreements will accept strict labor and environmental provisions. And equally as important, the best way to improve labor and environmental standards, given many nations' social conditions, is to increase the wealth of the developing world, which trade will do, while also increasing our own wealth. It is a no-lose proposition. To reject TPA is, in the end, to reject trade itself, which is a disaster for the country and the world, and, for my own party, a refusal to live up to its historic obligation to support free trade. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as one of the distressingly few Democrats in support of a grant of Trade Promotion Authority to President Bush. My support of TPA springs from the recognition that trade is really part of a larger debate on the proper role of America in the world today. It is a debate that echoes in the halls of the Pentagon and National Security Council, as well as those of our trade representatives, and that is waged with arguments in Doha but with arms in the Hindu Kush. Since Adam Smith first articulated the case for free trade in the 18th century, economists, no matter whether liberal or conservative, have acknowledged with near-unanimity the merits of trade liberalization. Trade increases wealth for participating countries, ensures access to high-quality products, and guarantees the efficient use of resources. As Smith recognized, it pays for a country to specialize in what it does best, even if that country can do everything better than its trading partners. This is the essence of comparative advantage. Many of my colleagues in the Democratic Party state their belief in free trade, but nonetheless refuse to support TPA unless it includes provisions mandating other nation's compliance with our own environmental and labor standards. Alas, this notion, if enacted, would render TPA a nullity--a mere piece of paper that, in the prelude, expresses support for trade but which, in the details, mocks that claim. None of the developing nations with which we aspire to negotiate new trade agreements will accept strict labor and environmental provisions. And, equally as important, the best way to improve labor and environmental standards, given many nation's social conditions, is to increase the wealth of the developing world, which trade will do, while also increasing our own wealth. It's no-lose proposition. It is true that, while the nation tremendously benefits from trade, certain sectors of our economy can be hurt. That is why, as Democrats, we must support and expand Trade Adjustment Assistance, the portability of health insurance benefits, more assistance to the International Labor Organization and other non-governmental organizations that do the heavy lifting on labor and environmental issues, and even wage insurance for displaced workers. But at no cost should we scuttle one of the great achievements of the post-war era: the liberalization of trade. To reject TPA is, in the end, to reject trade itself, which is a disaster for the country and the world, and, for my own party, a refusal to live up to our historic obligation to reach out to the world, bringing prosperity to our own workers and those abroad, too.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their leadership on this complex and difficult appropriations bill; and particularly to express my appreciation for the increase of $10 million to the State Survey and Certification program funded under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The State Survey and Certification program provides States with money to conduct inspections of facilities serving Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, and fund the Nursing Home Oversight Improvement Program. The need for adequate funding of these two programs has become painfully clear when we are reminded that 5,283 nursing homes, one out of three nursing homes, were cited for an abuse violation in the last 2 years. At a time when the Department of Health and Human Services has estimated almost half of all 65-year-olds will use a nursing home at some point during their lives, this is unacceptable and immoral. Today there are 1.5 million people who live in nursing homes, and this figure is expected to rise to 6.6 million by the year 2050. Our loved ones should not be made to fear inadequate care and abuse when entering a nursing home for the first time. Additional funding for this program is sorely needed. This additional funding that we will agree to today will be distributed to the States to cover survey and complaint visit workloads. When the daughter of someone living in a nursing home notices that her mother is not receiving adequate care, she should immediately call her State Department of Health to report a complaint or evidence of abuse. However, in my home State of Oklahoma, as in many other States, these complaints are not investigated in a timely manner. The State Department of Health simply does not have adequate funding to hire and train enough inspectors to investigate all of the complaints submitted. And most family members are left without any other possible recourse, unable to afford home health care or staying home from work to care for their loved one themselves. How, then, can we justify pouring Federal money into these facilities as so much of our taxpayer dollars do flow into nursing homes when the government cannot ensure the safety of the residents? To ensure their safety, we must continue to increase funding to CMS's State survey and certification program. An increase of only $10 million for fiscal year 2002 is a good start but is certain not to address the many needs that will expand in years to come. Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work on this issue and for increasing funding to this important program by $10 million. Nevertheless, I ask that you continue to work for increased funding of this vitally important program in the conference committee and in future fiscal years. Knowing the commitment of both of these gentlemen to this important issue, I know that they will work with me to see that this is done.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that when historians look back upon this era in time they will call it the age of petroleum. In 1859 when the first oil well was discovered in Pennsylvania, we were a Nation that rode mustangs, a short 100 years later we drove Mustangs, and 10 years after that we walked on the Moon, because of one thing, cheap, easily exploitable petroleum products. The sad fact is, Mr. Chairman, we are running out of this precious commodity. World oil production is to peak in 10 to 20 years. Domestic oil production peaked in 1970. We are running out of oil. It is coming faster than we know. We have in ANWR, it is said, the best pool, the best possible source of resources outside the Caspian Sea, the best and largest pool to be found in nearly 30 years. If the optimists are right and we do not begin to run out of oil in 20 years, that is only 7,000 days away. The time to act is now because it takes nearly 10 years to lease and begin production in ANWR. And if, God save us, the pessimists are right and we begin to run out of oil in 10 years or even 5 years as some would suggest, we will need to begin now so that the petroleum products, the jet fuel, the gasoline, the pharmaceuticals, the plastics, everything that has made industrial life possible can continue for future generations.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of legislation that would establish a national energy policy and to suggest as a Democrat that populist rhetoric against energy conglomerates is in fact not only misconceived but entirely counterproductive. America's economic prosperity and national security depend on the availability of reliable, affordable energy. The United States has an overwhelming demand for energy which is ever increasing due to our population growth. Fortunately, we have an incredible wealth of varied energy resources. Conservation and production, far from being competing policies, are in fact complementary solutions to our Nation's problems. Today this energy legislation has a tax credit for oil and gas production for marginal wells that will provide an incentive to keep them producing when oil prices drop and provide economic stability to States such as Oklahoma which have many marginal wells. It has royalty relief to encourage energy companies to go and invest in the deepwater drilling that is so essential if we are going to have more production in this country to meet our energy needs. Mr. Chairman, for these and many other reasons, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bill and to vote ``aye'' on final passage.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Davis amendment to strike the language from the appropriations bill that would stop the Gulf Stream pipeline in mid-construction. The chairman and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) raised great points about the need for an energy policy in this country, and in the interest of consistency it should be noted that I voted to explore and produce in section 181, just as I support opening up other public lands across this country. It is critical that construction of this pipeline be allowed to continue, especially at a time when we do recognize the need for improving our energy infrastructure. I think both of us on both sides of the aisle would agree that improving and increasing our infrastructure and its ability to supply the country with needed energy is a key component of any sensible energy policy. The completion of this pipeline will provide much needed natural gas throughout central and southern Florida, as well as providing many jobs for the people of the Gulf Coast region. After all, pipes have already been ordered and delivered. Commitments have been made to construction companies. Contracts have been signed with customers. Power plants are now being built in anticipation of this project being completed. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) is right that this is not a vote about section 181. I was in the minority of this House in supporting drilling and exploration there. Today, the question is whether in the annals of all the wise policy tools at our disposal whether we shall cut off our nose to spite our face. Passing this appropriations bills with a prohibition would have the effect of stopping this pipeline and its construction. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has already approved the project. The construction materials are already ordered at the cost of $800 million. The current language would prevent FERC from continuing the various approvals that are needed for ongoing construction. Keeping this language in the energy and water appropriations bill would be both bad energy policy and bad public policy. If we are serious about a national energy policy, if we are serious about improving our infrastructure, let us build this pipeline. Let us not act in petulance or in haste just because we lost one vote in this House. Let us work together to improve our national energy policy. I strongly encourage a ``yes'' vote on the Davis amendment to strike this unfortunate language from the energy and water appropriations billing.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to speak in support of House Resolution 168, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). I would also like to commend the leadership of the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) as well for their great interest in this legislation. Recognition by the Nation's schools of the unique role that Native Americans have played in American history, culture and education is long overdue. In 1994, President Clinton invited all of the tribal leaders in America to the White House, and it was the first such gathering since the Presidency of James Monroe in the 1820s. Similarly, President Clinton was the first President, in 1999, to visit Indian country since Franklin Delano Roosevelt did more than 50 years earlier. Native Americans have played integral roles in the history and culture of the United States, ranging from Maria Tall Chief from my own congressional district who was the muse of George Balanchine to contemporary novelists like Louise Erdrich, N. Scott Momaday, and James Welch. The gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) eloquently spoke of the contribution to our national security of the Navajo code talkers whose contributions to our Nation have only recently been recognized. The code talkers, as she pointed out, used a special code based on the Navajo language to transmit messages rendering all attempts by the Japanese to decipher American battle messages about the time and place of attack futile. Of course they were just working on the history of American Indians in combat. The Choctaw Indians from Mississippi and Oklahoma had also used their own language as a code during World War I. About 400 Navajos served from 1942 through 1945 as code talkers, taking part in every assault that the U.S. Marines undertook in the Pacific theater. One major was quoted as saying, ``Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima.'' The incredible service of American Indians has certainly not been limited to the Navajo Tribe. In the 20th century, five American Indians have been among those few soldiers to be distinguished with the Medal of Honor, given for military service above and beyond the call of duty. Two of those were from Oklahoma, a Cherokee from Oklahoma and a Creek as well. Also a Choctaw from Mississippi, a Winnebago from Wisconsin, and a Cherokee from the Eastern Band in North Carolina were awarded our highest military decoration. As we approach Independence Day, it is fitting that we now pass House Resolution 168, considering the critical role that Native Americans have played and will play in protecting our country and the principles Americans have adhered to since our own independence.

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma

Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 74 authorizes use of the Capitol Grounds for the 20th Annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Service, a most solemn and respectful service that honors our fallen police officers, brave men and women who gave their lives in the daily work of protecting our families and us, at home and in our workplaces. On average, one officer is killed in this country every other day. Approximately 23,000 are injured every year, and thousands are assaulted going about their daily routines. During last year, 150 very devoted, brave officers from the ranks of State, local and Federal service were killed in the line of duty. One hundred forty-four men and six women were killed. The average age of those killed in the line of duty was 39 years, and they had an average of 10 years in service. In my home State of Oklahoma, four brave police officers died in the line of duty in 2000. At this time I would like to read their names into the Record: Deputy Charles Floyd Trivitt, Hughes County Sheriff's Department, died February 21, 2000; Correctional Officer Joe Allen Gamble, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Granite Reformatory, died June 6, 2000; Trooper Matthew Scott Evans, Oklahoma Highway Patrol, and Officer Jeffrey Dean Rominger, Oklahoma Highway Patrol, died August 31, 2000. Mr. Speaker, the service to be held on May 15 is the 20th anniversary of this memorial service. It represents a national opportunity to honor the contributions and sacrifices of all police officers. Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this great tribute to our fallen peace officers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.