Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an unprecedented federal loan that is fraught with risk, would enrich a private company at public expense and threatens the people of my state, Minnesota, as well as one of our state's most treasured institutions--the Mayo Clinic. The Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad, DM&E, is seeking a massive federal government-sponsored loan of $2.5 billion through the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program to expand rail infrastructure in order to transport coal from fields of Wyoming's Powder River Basin. To sell this taxpayer-financed scheme to Congress and residents along the proposed line, the railroad is making big promises. But go beyond the promises and a troubling picture emerges-- one stained with questionable accounting, dubious ethics and the threat of real harm for Minnesota communities and institutions. As a Member of Congress, I am strongly opposed to asking taxpayers to provide an unsecured $2.5 billion loan to the DM&E, a company that an established, independent firm, Bearing Point, found to be ``a poor credit risk.'' Bearing Point's assessment of the railroad concluded: ``DM&E currently appears to be a thinly-capitalized, low-volume railroad,'' whose ``asset acquisitions were funded largely by government loans and subsidies.'' Mr. Speaker, I have attached a description and summary of the Bearing Point analysis for the Record. A recent report from the federal Office of Management and Budget shows the stakes for taxpayers are high since the federal government-- U.S. taxpayers--would be responsible for covering all losses if DM&E defaults on the loan. Still, the railroad and their powerful friends in Congress who have greased the wheels for this scheme show no hesitation in taking taxpayers for a ride and offer no assurances that $2.5 billion of our tax dollars will be paid back. Our nation is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while federal budget deficits are adding trillions of dollars of debt on the backs of our children. Yet some of my colleagues in Congress appear eager to gamble unprecedented public funds on a risky railroad scheme that will profit politically connected business executives and leave hard working taxpayers with all the risk. This is bad public policy and it is bad business. The proposed $2.5 billion, no-collateral loan is more than all the loans ever granted by the Federal Railroad Administration combined. In fact, this loan would be one of the largest ever granted by the federal government to any private company. Why does the DM&E need to seek this massive federal support? Could it be that private sector investors who have a fiduciary responsibility to invest soundly know a boondoggle when they see one? Unfortunately, it appears the DM&E has been far more successful in attracting Members of Congress who seem willing to ignore their responsibility to the American people to ask the tough questions and demand protections and accountability. It is not Congress' role to be the lender of last resort for high risk, private sector boondoggles. This is all the more true considering the threat the DM&E project poses to Minnesota. The proposed DM&E line would send dozens of mile-long coal trains through the heart of Rochester, Minnesota every day. Any threat to Rochester's continued growth is a serious concern for Minnesota since it is one of the fastest growing cities in the state and an anchor of Minnesota's high-tech economy. Rochester is best known as the home of the renowned Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic is one of the world's premier medical centers, an economic engine for Minnesota and a health care asset for our entire country. This week's US News & World Report ``Best Hospital Issue'' celebrates Mayo's success, ranking the Clinic among the country's top medical facilities for treating illnesses ranging from cancer to kidney disease. The 95,000 residents of Rochester expect the trains to tie up traffic and cause daily headaches for local business owners. Mayo Clinic doctors and researchers anticipate the trains will create an environment hostile and incompatible with the work of a world-class medical facility that relies on sensitive medical equipment and conducts delicate scientific testing. In addition to impacts on the community's long-term economic prosperity and quality of life, the railroad expansion also raises imminent safety concerns. The DM&E's proposed expansion would annually direct thousands of trains through downtown Rochester at a speed of 50 miles an hour. Several of Rochester's downtown rail crossings are only hundreds of yards away from the Mayo Clinic. A derailment or hazardous materials spill at any of these locations would be disastrous for local residents and Mayo's vulnerable patient population. In fact, the DM&E has one of the worst railroad safety records in America. In the past 6 years, 17 people have been killed and 93 people have been injured in 227 DM&E accidents at public and private rail crossings. In 2004, the DM&E reported train accidents at a rate over 13 times higher than the national average, and one of these accidents created a hazardous material spill that forced the evacuation of 100 citizens in my home state. The Federal Railroad Administration itself announced as recently as October 2005 that DM&E has ``serious safety problems.'' I urge the Federal Railroad Administration to take into account this dreadful safety record and the risk to Minnesota residents this proposed expansion poses. Wrapping a profit driven scheme in the thin veneer of public good, the DM&E and its supporters in Congress are pushing a bad deal for Minnesota and imposing a financial risk upon America's taxpayers that is irresponsible and unjustifiable. The Federal government does need to make major new investments in transportation infrastructure, but investments consistent with our national goals and in a transparent process that allows Congress to conduct necessary oversight and stewardship of scarce tax dollars. Public dollars should support taxpayer priorities, not the whims of one company and their patrons in Congress. As is too often the case today, Congress has had no opportunity for oversight, no opportunity to ask hard questions of the DM&E and protect taxpayers from one corporation's sweetheart deal that smells worse by the day. This $2.5 billion loan to the DM&E should not be allowed take place and taxpayers in Minnesota and across the United States should be outraged at this pork barrel corporate welfare giveaway. Letter of Presentation--May 8, 2006 This purpose of this report is to inform Members of Congress, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration (``FRA''), and others of issues surrounding the $2,500,000,000 loan application of the Dakota Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation (``DM&E'') under the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (``RRIF'') program. The broader purpose of the RRIF program is the improvement and expansion of the nation's railroad system. Nevertheless, the program is organized as government loans, not government grants. Therefore, borrowers must exhibit the ability to repay the loan. In its RRIF loan review capacity, the FRA is charged with responsibility for assessing applications. Each loan application must be approved on its own merits, taking into consideration (among other things) the creditworthiness of the borrower. DM&E has filed an application for a $2,500,000,000 FRA loan. Based upon our review, we have serious concerns about the ability of DM&E to repay such a loan. We believe that the applicant may not meet the minimum requirements for the approval of such a loan. Based on the limited available data, DM&E appears to be an undercapitalized and financially precarious company. However, because DM&E is a private company with little financial disclosure, we are limited in our ability to fully assess the company's financial strength or weakness. As a result, no concerned citizen has adequate information to fully assess DM&E's FRA loan application. The nondisclosure of the DM&E financial data has been rationalized by the competitive nature of the information contained therein, on the belief that disclosure of even rudimentary financial information would compromise the company's ability to compete in the railroad industry. However, many railroad companies are publicly held, fully disclosing detailed financial information without compromising their competitiveness. We believe that the primary risk to DM&E of disclosure of its financial status may not be the loss of any competitive advantages, rather the disclosure of its financial weaknesses and unsuitability for the RRTF loan. Given the available public information concerning DM&E's plans, supplemented with the expertise of consultants in the railroad industry, we have endeavored to construct a reasonable facsimile of what we believe to be DM&E's current economic realities and to forecast the results of the proposed Powder River Basin project assuming extension of the FRA loan. Our financial projections and assessments utilize dated materials from DM&E's Surface Transportation Board (``STB'') application of 1998, as well as more recent information, taking into account the fact that costs, markets, and industry financial conditions have changed materially since that date. We have updated these projections based on the comprehensive knowledge provided by railroad industry consultants, G. W. Fauth & Associates, Inc., and Gerald E. Vaninetti. If the FRA believes that it should disregard the economics associated with DM&E's proposed project and that non- financial, public policy reasons require approval of its loan application, then FRA must require collateral in the form of a Credit Risk Premium (CRP). Under current law, this CRP must now be based on DM&E's potential ``going concern value.'' Based on this approach, we have determined that FRA should set a CRP of approximately $1.4 billion which represents 57% on the loan amount. To the extent that our information or assumptions are dated or at variance with DM&E's financial statements, internal projections or the contents of its loan application, we welcome the opportunity to review those financial statements. We note that the DM&E's submissions to the STB were public documents. While the FRA is allowed to keep application data private, it is not required to do so. Like the STB, the FRA could disclose this information to lawyers and independent consultants under a protective order. This is by far the largest FRA loan of its kind, suggesting that the FRA may want to reexamine its nondisclosure policy. We believe that citizens whose taxpayer dollars may be at risk have the right to inform the FRA of concerns regarding DM&E's $2,500,000,000 loan application. Only with transparency of the loan application and approval process can the integrity of a fair and honest system be assured.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this effort to override the President's veto of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation, which expands stem cell research and ensures that the federal government can implement ethical guidelines. This bill will provide hope and opportunity for millions of Americans suffering from chronic and life threatening health conditions. This legislation will also ensure that the federal government can implement ethical guidelines over federally-funded research, which will help to set high standards for all research. To be clear, H.R. 810 only allows federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in cases where the cells were created for fertility treatment and will otherwise be discarded. The expansion of funding to stem cell research has the power to make a real difference in the lives of Americans. Stem cells offer remarkable potential contributions to medical science and improve the lives of millions of people who suffer from incurable diseases such as juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, AIDS, and spinal cord injuries. It may also help us to understand abnormal cell growth that occurs in cancer, as well as change the way we develop drugs and test them for safety and potential efficacy. It is Imperative that we move our health care policy in a new direction and support efforts to improve the quality of life. This research is supported by 72 percent of Americans and the majority of the Congress. H.R. 810 is supported by over 200 patient groups, universities, and scientific societies, and has been endorsed by more than 75 national and local newspapers and 80 Nobel Laureates. For President Bush to use his first veto to ignore this overwhelming support for stem cell research and at the same time extinguish the hopes of millions for cures to chronic and dangerous diseases is an outrage. This veto has made it clear that President Bush has chosen radical ideology over American lives. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to override this misguided veto.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, once again this Republican led Congress is exercising an election year ploy with their attempt today to demonize gay and lesbian Americans. H.J. Res. 88 is an attempt to write hate and discrimination into our Nation's Constitution and disgracefully use this House to advance a cynical and cruel political agenda. While my Republican colleagues are actively working to transform the Constitution into a document of discrimination by passing H.J. Res. 88, the rest of America is concerned about very real and serious issues that this Congress is ignoring. American families are concerned about real issues that affect their daily lives like the price of gasoline as it rises above $3 per gallon, the deteriorating situation in Iraq that is costing the American people the lives of their loved ones and $3 billion per week, and they are deeply concerned about the skyrocketing cost of healthcare and prescription drugs while at the same time insurance and drug companies report massive profits. The American people are not threatened by men and women in loving and committed relationships. They are threatened and at risk by a do-nothing Congress that ignores the real challenges facing America. President Bush and his followers seek to permanently enshrine discrimination and hate as part of our Constitution. Nothing could be more disgraceful and fundamentally un-American. I am committed to defeat this intolerance and work tirelessly for equal rights, justice and respect for all Americans. Gay and lesbian Americans are citizens who must never be treated as second class citizens, as H.J. Res. 88 proposes. They must be guaranteed what America's founding fathers called for in the Declaration of Independence when they stated, ``all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.'' I urge my colleagues to reject discrimination and hate by voting against H.J. Res. 88.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act (H.R. 4761). The ``DOER'' Act is yet another lost opportunity to develop real solutions to our energy challenges and a reckless raid on the Federal Treasury that even the Bush Administration opposes. The DOER Act will repeal a 25-year, bipartisan moratorium on oil and gas drilling off most of the U.S. coastline. In place of the moratorium, a weak system of protections will be established that allows individual states to sanction drilling within 100 miles of their shores. To entice states to permit drilling, the bill increases states' share of drilling royalties from the current ceiling of 27 percent to 64 percent. Bush administration officials released a statement today strongly opposing the revenue-sharing provisions of the bill, which are expected to add several hundred billion dollars to the federal deficit over the next 60 years. The diversion of more drilling royalties to states is a transparent, irresponsible ploy that will cost the government billions. But Republican leaders are so unconcerned about runaway federal deficits they decided to waive the rules of the Congressional Budget Act that are supposed to protect taxpayers from deficit spending. While the bill's proponents argue this revenue-sharing arrangement is a matter of states' rights, the language of H.R. 4761 actually gives the administration enormous new powers over states. The bill limits states' ability to block pipeline construction and to review oil drilling activities once drilling is allowed. H.R. 4761 also allows the Secretary of the Interior to threaten states with a loss of funding if Congress passes legislation restricting oil drilling in any way. And, by rolling back environmental reviews and mitigation responsibilities for oil companies, the bill imposes hidden costs on states and their tourism industries, which will be left with the tab for drilling- related mishaps. The Republicans declared this week ``Energy Week'' in the House and then moved one bill, H.R. 4761 to the floor. This legislation, apparently the Republicans' solution to America's complex energy challenges, includes no new incentives for energy conservation, no increases in fuel efficiency, no new support for mass transit and no boost for home-grown renewable energy technologies such as biofuels or wind energy. This bill falls far short of the bold, comprehensive energy policy America so urgently needs. Only House Republican leaders could call a bill that balloons the federal deficit, undermines states' rights, rolls back environmental protections and fails to reduce demand for fossil fuels a ``commonsense compromise.'' It's time to hold a funeral for common sense.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. I rise in strong opposition to this sham budget proposal offered by Republican Leadership. This legislation will not reduce the deficit or spending through earmarks and will grant unprecedented power to the Executive Branch. The line-item veto proposed today will expand Presidential power and challenge the separation of powers critical to the function of our government. It is an extreme dilution of the authority of the legislative branch if the President can hold a member's priorities hostage in order to garner votes for other initiatives. We have already seen an increase in abuse of power by the leadership in this House in order to force members to vote with the President, particularly during the debate on Medicare Part D, CAFTA, and last year's budget reconciliation bill. Republicans today are decrying the practice of earmarking projects. However, since 1996, under the Republican watch, the number of earmarks has grown from 3,023 to 13,012 last year. As the Majority party, Republicans have had the power for the last 12 years to reduce earmarks and to add oversight to this process. But as former Reagan official Bruce Bartlett stated, ``George W. Bush has turned out to be one of the most free-spending presidents on records . . . Apparently there is no pork barrel program so egregiously unjustified that he won't sign it into law''. This Republican Majority has lost all credibility on fiscal responsibility. Since President Bush took office, the Administration and Republicans in Congress have turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into a $3.2 trillion deficit. Our federal debt is $8.3 trillion--much of which is borrowed from foreign countries. In fact, this Administration has borrowed more money from foreign nations than all 42 previous U.S. Presidents combined. And under Republican rule this Congress has had to raise the debt limit four times. A line-item veto will not solve this problem. In fact, the way this bill is written, it could actually increase spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office, giving the President this extraordinary new authority will allow the Chief Executive to pressure Members to support Administration priorities in return for promises not to cancel projects. Studies of states that have a line-item veto have documented this effect in state legislatures. Mr. Spratt offered a substitute measure in the Rules Committee that would have taken a real step in addressing our budget deficit. This bill would restore pay as you go rules, forcing Congress to face our spiraling deficit. It would also reduce earmarks by mandating public disclosure, and prevent reconciliation from increasing the deficit. Unfortunately, as is too often the case, the Rules Committee denied the House the opportunity to vote on this alternative. Mr. Chair, if Republicans were serious about restoring fiscal discipline we would be having a real discussion today about the Democratic substitute. I believe strongly that it is our moral responsibility to reduce the deficit and to relieve our children and grandchildren of this reckless legacy. However, the bill on the floor today is another attempt to ask the American people to believe the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility, while actually making our budget situation worse. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, today the House will temporarily extend for 3 months the Higher Education Act. I rise today to support this extension and to express my concern for the dangerous direction in which this Congress has taken our country's college students and our Nation's valued higher education system. The Republican leadership has failed college students and their families by pushing through a reauthorization bill that does nothing to make college more affordable as tuition continues to increase at a rate faster than inflation. Instead of helping students and families deal with the rising price to attend college, Republicans also passed legislation cutting $12 billion from the student loan program--the largest cut in the history of federal student financial aid. In addition to cutting Federal aid, the Republican leadership has made loans more expensive. And the bad news keeps coming. Recent reports confirm what struggling families already know--students and families are going deeper and deeper into debt to finance a college education. The Project on Student Loan Debt, a non-profit advocacy group, has found that the percentage of graduate seniors who have debt loads of $40,000 or more have increased from 1.3 percent to 8 percent between 1993 and 2004. Another recent report done by the Public Interest Research Group's Higher Education Project shows that 25 percent of public school graduates and 38 percent of private school graduates who become new teachers can't afford to pay their student debt on their salaries. Social workers in the same situation number even more--37 percent of public and 55 percent of private school graduates can't afford their student loan payments. More and more students are graduating with student loan debt numbers in the six figures. This is unmanageable and unfair and Congress can be a better partner in making the possibility of going to college more attainable--especially for middle- and low- income students. Another troubling statistic has emerged--during the 2004-2005 school year--student borrowing of private loans increased by 30 percent. Private student loans are often used to bridge the gap between traditional financial aid and the cost of tuition--but they are more costly to students and families. In addition to being costlier, these private loans do not share some of the features of Federal student loans that are backed by the government, including deferment of payments and the rates at which interest may accrue. What's more, starting July 1, Federal student loans will carry a higher fixed interest rate of 6.8 percent, an increase from the current 5.3 percent. That's why I support Democratic plans to provide substantive increases to the Pell Grant and to cut the student loan interest rates in half. As a co-sponsor of the Reverse the Raid on Student Aid Act, I believe that Congress can be a better partner for those students and their families who--as we debate these very issues that affect them--are sitting at kitchen tables across the country trying to figure out how to piece together the finances to attend college this fall. There is some good news in this extension. The good news is that the current law that will be extended today is better than the Republican bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, H.R. 609, which does nothing to make college more affordable for students--the expressed purpose of the Higher Education Act. It makes no sense to make college more expensive by amending a law that exists to promote access to a college education. College students should not be forced to bear the weight of President Bush's and this Republican Congress's irresponsible fiscal policies that have slashed student aid in order to pay for tax cuts that only benefit one percent of the nation's wealthiest. As I've stated in earlier extensions--today, this temporary extension is necessary, but I will continue to work to ensure that students will not be forced to pay for this enormous deficit now through financial aid cuts--or in the future as taxpayers.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National History Day program. A basic knowledge of history is essential for our Nation's children to become informed participants in our democracy, and National History Day is promoting history education in Minnesota and throughout the Nation. National History Day empowers teachers to improve history education so that every student will have historical knowledge and skills to contribute to the public good of our Nation. As Representative to the citizens of the 4th Congressional District of Minnesota, it brings me great pleasure to pay special tribute to Emily Brown, on this date, June 15, 2006, as she is recognized for her scholastic achievements in National History Day. Emily Brown, a student at Sunrise Park Middle School in White Bear Lake, was one of twelve students chosen out of hundreds of thousands across America, to display and present her project at the White House. Emily will be presenting her project on Alice Paul. Alice Paul took a stand against a president to secure women's right to vote: she was the first to picket outside the White House. She later had to take a stand against other women leaders and against the American public who told her to stop picketing during WWI. The National History Day program allows students to create exhibits, documentaries and performances, by using their critical thinking and research skills in the subject of history. I congratulate Emily and commend her for her dedication and commitment. I join with Emily's family, friends and teachers in wishing Emily well in all her future endeavors.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to put my statement in the Record on House Resolution 861.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker today we mourn the death of the 2,500th American soldier in Iraq and are disgusted by the headline in yesterday's Washington Post stating, ``Iraq Amnesty Plan May Cover Attacks on U.S. Military.'' With another American soldier killed and the news of Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki seeking amnesty for insurgents who have killed and maimed U.S. troops, this House debates H. Res. 861, a meaningless, nonbinding Republican resolution that is a political document designed as a partisan campaign ploy, not a serious attempt to address the failings and mismanagement of this disastrous Iraq policy. Our troops in Iraq are in harm's way, they are sacrificing tremendously for all Americans and the Iraqi people, and this Republican Congress honors their sacrifice with a farcical debate--it is shameful. A majority of Americans know that the Bush administration's Iraq policy is strategically bankrupt and it has put U.S. troops in the untenable position of refereeing an Iraqi civil war. It is a policy that has made America less safe and more at risk in a dangerous world. Earlier this week President Bush returned from a 5-hour visit to Baghdad and said, ``I sense something different happening in Iraq.'' This profoundly unenlightened observation after 5 hours inside the safety of the ``green zone'' contrasts with U.S. troops who are on their third tour of duty in the midst of a chaotic, deadly and deteriorating civil war. This White House has made ``victory'' the basis for an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but the only exit strategy this president has thus far developed was his own--for his departure from Baghdad after only 5 hours. Outside of the safety and security of Baghdad's ``green zone,'' there is ``something different happening'' and U.S. troops are surrounded by it--the depravity and brutality of an Iraqi civil war. Murderous militias, government sponsored death squads, paramilitary brigades, insurgents and organized criminals who kidnap and kill children--these are the forces that control neighborhoods, rule the streets and are on the payroll of Iraq's Ministry of the Interior. Let me cite a May 7, 2006 article from the Los Angeles Times to underscore how different Iraq is today, ``More Iraqi civilians were killed in Baghdad during the first 3 months of this year than in any time since the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime--at least 3,800, many of them found hogtied and shot execution-style. Others were strangled, electrocuted, stabbed, garroted or hanged. Some died in bombings. Many bore signs of torture such as bruises, drill holes, burn marks, gouged eyes or severed limbs.'' This horrific depravity does not reflect a global war on terror, it is a civil war and American troops have no business separating religious groups determined to kill each other in order to settle old scores or accumulate political power. ``Now the killings are systematic, personal. Masked gunman storm into houses, and the victims--the majority of them Sunnis--are never seen alive. Such killings now claim nine times more lives than car bombings, according to figures provided by a high-ranking U.S. military official, who released them only on the condition of anonymity,'' the same Los Angeles Times article states. Is this the vital American interest for which 2,500 Americans have given their lives? If we don't stop these barbarous murders in Iraq does it really mean they will then bring their torture and executions to America's towns and neighborhoods as the Republican scare tactics purport? Of course not; this simple-minded ``fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here'' Republican rhetoric reflects their blindness to the real situation on the ground in Iraq. Iraq's endless domestic atrocities and brutality is their domestic tragedy, not a global phenomenon, but the Republicans are more interested in using this argument in their political campaigns than they are in bringing our troops home from this civil war safely. We know that President Bush's stated premise for the war in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, was a fabrication and a deceptive exaggeration. But is it now the duty of U.S. soldiers to police the death-squads that are operating within the Iraqi police and committing gross human rights violations? Is it the duty of our brave troops to disarm Shiite militias that are extensions of the Iraqi Government and responsible for imposing religious law and hunting down violators of their sect of faith? Absolutely not. The mantra from President Bush and the Republican Congress is ``stay the course.'' It is an outrageous and irrational strategy that reflects the bankruptcy and myopic nature of this administration's assessment of the situation inside Iraq. An occupied Iraq will keep U.S. troops as targets of Iraq's nationalist insurgents and never allow that country to escape the current security crisis, political crisis and financial crisis. Only if this occupation ends is Iraq capable of truly being a sovereign nation that is responsible for its own problems and future. Instead of allowing Iraq to determine its own destiny, President Bush has made an indefinite U.S. military commitment to Iraq, almost, assuring tens of thousands of additional U.S. soldiers will be sent to confront Iraq's problems. Since U.S. forces are in the fourth year of a war that was intended to last only months and the concept of a U.S. victory over all the various factions of murderers, criminals and armed insurgents is delusional, one can only surmise that U.S. troops will be in Iraq when the Bush administration leaves office in January 2009. For this reason, Congress needs to dictate a clear position that will allow for the redeployment of U.S. troops within the region to defend U.S. interests and refocus our attention to the war on terrorism. This will allow for a restoration of Iraqi sovereignty and the opportunity for Iraqis to determine their own future. The Bush administration's mismanagement of its Iraq policy from a military and geopolitical perspective is only exacerbated by the tremendous investment of U.S. tax dollars that have yielded such unremarkable results. To date, more than $320 billion has been borrowed and spent in Iraq. Every single dollar has been added to our Nation's national debt with the burden for the financial cost of this war on the backs of all of our children and the grandchildren, including those of the very soldiers who are now fighting and sacrificing in Iraq. Image, this Congress and White House have looked the other way as almost $9 billion has simply disappeared into a system in which corruption is endemic and financial mismanagement the norm. Every American should feel betrayed by this Congress and its disregard for oversight and accountability with regard to the hard- earned tax dollars of U.S. citizens. As Americans fight and die in Iraq and Americans pay hundreds of billions of dollars for this war, it is remarkable to hear the words of Iraq's Prime Minister al-Maliki. President Bush earlier this week, in a moment of poetry, looked into the prime minister's eyes. It was unclear what the president saw, but we do know the words the prime minister has used on June 1, 2006 to describe U.S. troops when he said, ``They (troops in the American led coalition) crush them (Iraqi civilians) with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion. This is completely unacceptable.'' The Prime Minister called the U.S. violence against Iraqis a ``daily phenomenon.'' Now, President Bush's soul-mate wants to provide amnesty for those who murdered and maimed as many as 20,000 U.S. troops. Is this why the Republicans in Congress want to stay the course in Iraq? Mr. Speaker, there is a civil war--a 21st Century civil war--raging in Iraq. It is based on religion and historical events that can never be remedied by 130,000 U.S. troops whether they remain as an occupying force for 1 more year or 50 years. What we have achieved in Iraq is certain. The end of Saddam's regime, three elections, an Iraqi constitution, a new permanent government and the training of more than 250,000 Iraq security forces are the frequently stated highlights of this war. These achievements are the sole result of U.S. troops and their sacrifice and bravery. Yet, this mission is confronting a reality that is darker and much more ominous in large part because this ill- conceived pre-emptive war has unleashed forces that are beyond the control of U.S. troops that are antithetical to U.S. interests. On May 26, 2006, Tom Lasseter reported for Knight Ridder that ``Southern Iraq, long touted as a peaceful region that's likely to be among the first areas returned to Iraqi control, is now dominated by Shiite Muslim warlords and militiamen who are laying the groundwork for an Islamic fundamentalist government, say senior British and Iraqi officials in the area.'' Even with 130,000 U.S. troops and thousands more from coalition partners, Iraq is not on a path that will yield a free, democratic state in the Middle East. The occupation has cleared the way for the establishment of a theocratic order that will ensure clerics and militiamen dictate obedience to religious law--Sharia law--with absolutely zero tolerance for any form of pluralism. The current situation in Basra only highlights the incomprehensible ignorance of the designers of U.S. Iraq policy to consider the powerful cultural and religious forces the U.S. invasion of Iraq unleashed. Tragically, the 2,500 U.S. troops who have been killed, the almost 20,000 who have been wounded and the tens of thousands of Iraqi women, children and men who have been killed--often times brutally--have suffered the consequences of President Bush's Iraq policy. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 861 purposely avoids the dangerous reality and dismisses the tremendous challenges confronting U.S. troops in Iraq and America's real challenges with regard to terrorism and extremist threats. This resolution is a dishonest attempt to inject raw politics into a congressional debate that will do nothing to keep America secure or bring U.S. troops home safe and soon. As we look to the future, my intention is to continue to support a comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism, keep America secure from real strategic threats and to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq's civil war. All Americans support our troops, but it is time for Congress to support a policy that ensures U.S. troops have an exit strategy from Iraq. This resolution should be defeated and I will vote against it.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, Federal telecommunications law was last reformed in 1996. Many new technologies have been developed since then that have changed how Americans receive and seek information. This reform legislation is long overdue. I support reforming telecommunications law that will encourage investment, innovation, and competition in both telecommunications software and hardware. The delivery of telecommunications services to consumers, such as universal service, community access, and public safety must be protected. And, most importantly, any changes to telecommunication law intended to enhance competition must ensure consumer protections. Unfortunately, the bill before us today does little to meet those goals and instead the consumer protections and community access we have come to expect could be in jeopardy. In addition, this bill forces unfunded mandates onto State and local governments and does little to prevent businesses from discriminating against consumers in order to enhance profit margins. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that intergovernmental mandates on State and local governments would increase over time-- adding up to $100 to $350 million by 2011. This cost will ultimately be passed along to the families who use these services. And, while the bill maintains the rights of cities to manage rights-of-ways requirements, such as where telecommunications infrastructure can be laid and what city streets can be disrupted, this legislation prevents State and local consumer protection laws from applying to national franchise holders. While the bill includes some ``anti-discrimination'' requirements intended to prevent providers from servicing areas based on income levels, these provisions are weak because the bill does not require companies to offer service to all communities within a specific area within a certain period of time. Weak anti-discrimination policies undermine the universal service principles that have been the pillars of fair access to U.S. telecommunications. I am concerned that the anti- discrimination policy contained in the bill does not go far enough in ensuring fair access to service and in allowing fair access to group claims and protections in the event that consumers feel that they and their neighbors have been discriminated against. I also continue to remain concerned that this bill does not contain a stronger network neutrality provision--which would prevent Internet providers from discriminating against Internet content--whether through pricing or speed of delivery. The Internet has been a communication medium that has flourished due to the fact that content has moved freely and equally without interference from network providers. Financial incentives to move some content through the Internet faster than other content would undermine the innovation that has spurred competitive Internet content and services. It is my opinion that the network providers should not be the ones in charge of favoring one application over another--consumers should be in charge of that. A broad coalition of groups opposes this bill for a variety of reasons, including the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Telecommunications Offices and Advisors, and the National Governors' Association. Other groups share in the concern about the need for strong network neutrality provisions, including a broad coalition representing AARP, the American Library Association, colleges and universities across the country, and many others. I share in their concerns and that is why I rise today to oppose passage of this bill.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, the recent tragedies of the Sago and Aracoma Alma mine disasters have been a difficult lesson in the efforts to improve mine safety regulations effectively and permanently. I rise today in strong support of long overdue coal miner safety legislation. Unfortunately, the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, S. 2803, while an improvement over current law, neglects to address three simple, much-needed reforms that could save lives. I cannot support the bill before us today because I support stronger improvements to miner safety--which have been supported by miners, miner families, and industry. This legislation would be made stronger with three additional requirements: Provision of no less than a 2-day supply of breathable air for trapped miners; Assurance that within 15 months, communications and tracking devices will be available to find and communicate with trapped miners; regular inspections of miners' individual oxygen packs, known as self-contained self-rescuers, by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration. Congress can do better for working men and women by adopting these three provisions. In fact, since this bill passed the Senate, reports have indicated that these reforms could be easily implemented at very little cost. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership would not allow these simple and agreeable provisions to be offered as amendments to the bill. The Bush administration has failed to make miner safety a priority and instead has proposed budget cuts and deregulation. Despite six U.S. mine tragedies and more than 30 miners' deaths this year already, the President did not request funding for additional safety enforcement personnel in his Fiscal Year 2007 budget. This proposal is after years of budget cuts to the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, resulting in a decline of 170 full-time employees at MSHA and a decline of 217 employees in coal enforcement. In addition, President Bush has appointed former mining executives to the top political positions at the Mine Safety and Health Administration. I will continue to support efforts to implement stronger miner safety laws. I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues in joining with me to fight for stronger regulations that will save lives and to fight for our working men and women.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the Royal Thai Government to immediately cease any further destruction of Hmong burial sites and stop the exhumation of Hmong graves located inside and surrounding Wat Thamkrabok monastery. Furthermore, I would ask that the Royal Thai Government address the serious plight of Hmong- American families that I represent who no longer know where their loved ones' remains are located. Mr. Speaker, between 1995 and 2003 many Hmong families living in Thailand as refugees from Laos had buried their deceased loved ones in the Wat Thamkrabok sanctuary. In December 2003, the U.S. Department of State announced the last resettlement of 15,000 Hmong refugees residing in the Wat Thamkrabok monastery, which concluded last year by bringing nearly 5,000 new arrivals to Minnesota, a significant number of whom have settled in St. Paul and surrounding communities which I represent. It has been reported that between November 4 and December 30, 2005, approximately 900 Hmong graves were exhumed with the human remains taken to unknown destinations. Hmong-American families were shocked and profoundly disturbed to see the horrific video images of human remains, possibly of their own loved ones, being treated in a disrespectful and unspeakably offensive manner. To this day, Hmong-Americans remain unable to receive reliable information regarding the whereabouts of their loved ones' remains. As a Member of Congress representing more than 35,000 Hmong-American constituents, I join them in expressing shock at this disturbing episode. The dignity of their deceased ancestors deserves respect. There can be no doubt that this entire situation has caused considerable anguish and emotional distress to relatives now living in the United States and elsewhere. The Royal Thai Government is a friend and ally of the United States. Our bilateral relationship is vital and it would be my desire to see a strengthening of all aspects of this relationship. Yet, in Minnesota today, it is very difficult for me to champion this relationship with the pain and distress felt by so many of my constituents as a result of the desecration of their ancestors' graves. Once again, I would urge the Royal Thai Government to work to prevent any further Hmong grave exhumations, while fully investigating the circumstances surrounding this action in order to help facilitate long-lasting healing for those families affected by this terrible situation.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act--H.R. 5254. This bill wrongly attempts to streamline environmental regulations in an effort to spur construction of new refining facilities, while doing nothing to move the country toward energy independence. The Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act--H.R. 5254--mandates additional Federal oversight and requires State and local governments to comply with a new Federal schedule for approving permits to site, construct or expand a refinery. This bill fails to address legitimate concerns over the slow pace of expansion and increasing geographic concentration of America's oil refining facilities. Supporters of H.R. 5254 blame state and local environmental regulations for obstructing the construction of new refining facilities. But private oil refining companies are choosing not to construct new facilities based on their own economic projections rather than local environmental hurdles. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Exxon is not building new refineries because it expects growth in U.S. demand for gasoline will be too insufficient to justify the capital investment. The chief executive officer for Shell Oil testified before Congress in 2005 that he knows of no environmental regulations that have prevented his company from expanding refinery capacity or siting a new refinery. Clearly, undermining State and local laws will do nothing to change the market-forces that are the true basis of companies' decisions regarding refinery construction. In addition, H.R. 5254 does nothing to promote home-grown biofuels, a critical element of America's energy independence strategy. In the last 30 years, 97 new bio-refineries have been built in the U.S. and more are needed. But this bill will not expand America's biofuel industry for the same reason it fails to expand oil refining capacity--State and local regulations are not the barrier to growth. Biofuel industry experts have testified that State and local regulations have not prevented the siting or permitting of new bio-refineries. It is time for leadership, vision and commitment from Washington to make the smart investments that will protect our Nation's economic security and our planet's future. In Congress, we should start by rescinding the billion of dollars in subsidies for oil and gas companies to expand drilling. We must invest in research and extend incentives for alternative energy sources such as wind, biomass and biofuels that keep energy costs down, create jobs and make us more competitive in the global economy. A clean energy future that addresses oil dependence and environmental concerns such as climate change is achievable. But we should not expect our energy situation to change until the Bush administration and the Republican leaders in Congress get serious about tackling our oil dependence. H.R. 5254 is a thinly veiled second attempt by the Republican majority to pass the controversial Gasoline for America's Security Act--H.R. 3893--which the House narrowly passed in 2005 and the Senate ignored. As with that bill, H.R. 5254 has had no hearings, no markups, no opportunity for Congress to make necessary inquiries. Real solutions to America's energy challenges will result from a transparent legislative process, bipartisan cooperation and visionary ideas. The Republican majority has once again offered energy legislation that falls far short of a real solution.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2007, H.R. 5386. As a vigorous supporter of our national parks and natural resources, I object to this bill's dangerous cuts and I regret the message of waning support for our natural treasures that it sends to the youngest generation of Americans. H.R. 5386 provides $25.9 billion for federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This bill represents a $145 million cut from the funding level enacted for fiscal year 2006. It eliminates the successful and popular state matching grants, which are delivered through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It cuts $200 million in federal assistance to the clean water activities of states--over the last 3 years, the Clean Water Fund has been cut by 50 percent, or over $660 million. H.R. 5386 also cuts $100 million from the National Park Service's budget at a time when parks are struggling to cope with past reductions. The number of rangers in Yosemite National Park has fallen from 45 to 8 over the past 5 years. These dramatic reductions make it impossible for the remaining rangers to fulfill their vital and far reaching duties, which include educational programming, ensuring safety and security and management of historical, cultural and natural resources. Visitors to America's National Parks this summer are saddened to see that Congress has made America's cherished park ranger the most recent addition to the endangered species list. ABC news reports that the number of rangers has dwindled to a point where visitors are now seen photographing them. In reality, these cuts represent a pattern of calculated disinvestment in the agencies and programs that exist to protect the health of our communities and safeguard our natural resources for future generations. Year after year of cuts to environmental and natural resource spending are seriously eroding the ability of these agencies to improve our air and water quality and to protect and restore our wildlife and natural spaces. The Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress are choosing to mortgage America's natural resource legacy to pay for the spiraling costs of the Iraq war and the unconscionable tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society. These decisions do not reflect my priorities or the priorities of my constituents in Minnesota. Ijoin the National Audubon Society, National Parks Conservation Association and many other conservation organizations in opposing H.R. 5386 as insufficient, unsustainable and unacceptable.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act (H.R. 4200). This legislation rolls back responsible forest management practices and threatens to undermine vital environmental protections. Proponents of H.R. 4200 claim that the bill would ensure prompt implementation of recovery measures in Federal forests following weather events such as wildfires and hurricanes by expediting the evaluation of forest conditions and accelerating the recovery of downed and damaged timber. But in reality, the legislation aggressively auctions off public resources to private interests in the name of responsible stewardship. It goes too far in promoting the economic value of harvesting timber over the ecological benefits of preserving trees. Proponents of H.R. 4200 use the words ``recovery'' and ``restoration'' to excuse logging practices that will slow the recovery of forests, streams and wildlife. Forest scientists from 169 universities across the country oppose this bill, arguing that no reliable evidence exists to support the assertion that fire-adapted forests might be improved by logging after a fire. These experts point to a series of studies that concluded just the opposite--that post- disturbance logging impedes the process of regeneration by compacting soils, spreading invasive species, causing erosion and degrading water quality. Most outrageously, H.R. 4200 would degrade forest ecosystems by exempting ``salvage logging'' activities from the environmental protections guaranteed in the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. Through exemptions and waivers, H.R. 4200 offers a blank check to pollute waters and harm endangered wildlife. H.R. 4200 is both unwise and unnecessary. The success of the timber salvage effort following Hurricane Katrina demonstrates that existing Federal laws do not prevent land managers from implementing timber recovery. Using their existing authority, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management quickly and effectively completed one of the largest timber salvage projects ever, recovering 676 million board feet of timber from the national forests in Mississippi impacted by the hurricane. When properly managed, timber harvesting is a necessary and appropriate use of our Federal forests. But careful environmental stewardship of our forest resources is needed today to ensure that genuinely healthy forests--with all the benefits they offer--will be available to future generations. H.R. 4200 falls dangerously short of this standard.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose H.R. 5429, the so-called American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act, which attempts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to industrial development. In March we were reminded of the potential environmental consequences of drilling in the refuge when an Alaskan pipeline leaked 200,000 gallons of crude oil onto the surrounding slope. This is the largest spill ever in the North Slope and a timely caution against opening the Arctic Refuge to drilling. Because I have visited the Arctic Refuge and seen its unique wilderness first hand, such news strengthens my resolve to protect the refuge and press for real solutions to our country's energy challenges. This bill would do nothing more than continue our pattern of unchecked consumption. It is another attempt to sell Americans the false promise of easy answers on energy policy. Our energy situation will not change until Congress gets serious about tackling America's oil dependence. With the booming economies of China and India squeezing global oil supply, and political instability among key oil producing countries like Iran, Nigeria and Iraq, we should expect rising oil prices for some time to come. This proposal to open ANWR is a short-sighted answer to a long-term problem. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of expanding critical stem cell research and to urge the Senate to take action on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (S. 471). One year ago, on May 24, 2005, the House of Representatives passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 810) by a vote of 238-194. I voted for this legislation because it increases funding for stem cell research, offering hope and the possibility of a cure for millions of Americans suffering from chronic and terminal illness. H.R. 810 also provides for the implementation of ethical guidelines to govern this research. H.R. 810 would help to make significant advances toward finding a cure for currently incurable diseases such as juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injuries. Furthermore, expanding this research would increase our understanding of the abnormal cell growth that occurs in cancer and birth defects, which would help create a safer and more efficient way of developing effective drugs. For millions of individuals and their families, stem cell research provides hope for a life without the stress and suffering that accompany these serious health-related conditions. Expanding funding for this science is an effective way to cultivate the remarkable potential of a technology which could increase our understanding of causes, improve the effectiveness of treatments, and advance our ability to find cures for a wide range of debilitating diseases and other conditions. Unfortunately, despite widespread, bi-partisan support for this legislation, including over 200 patient groups, universities, scientific societies, more than 75 national and local newspapers, and 80 Nobel Laureates, the Senate has yet to bring it to the Floor for a vote. It is time for the Senate to act to expand stem cell research. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the importance of continuing efforts to improve the quality of life for all Americans by implementing legislation to expand stem cell research.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose this rule, the attempt to open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to industrial development. We have just heard previous speakers on the other side of the aisle talk about safe development, high-tech, and how there is no risk in drilling in ANWR. Well, just this past March, we are reminded of the potential environmental consequences of drilling. In the Alaskan refuge area, we need to protect this pristine environment. Why? Just recently, an Alaskan pipeline leaked 200,000 gallons of crude oil, just this past March. This is the largest spill ever in the north slope, and it should be a timely caution to all of us against opening the Arctic refuge to drilling. Because I have visited the Arctic refuge and seen its unique wilderness firsthand, such news as leaks in pipelines, dumping 200,000 gallons of crude oil onto the Alaskan soil, strengthens my resolve to protect this refuge and press for real solutions to our country's energy challenges. This rule would do nothing more than to continue our pattern of unchecked consumption. It is another attempt to sell Americans the false promise of easy answers to our energy policy. With the booming economies of China and India squeezing the global oil supply, and the political instability among key oil producing countries such as Iran, Nigeria, and Iraq, we should be expecting rising oil prices for some time to come. Our energy situation will not change until this Republican-led Congress gets serious about attacking America's oil dependency. The proposal to open ANWR is a shortsighted answer to a long-term problem, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the bill.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the FY 2007 Department of Defense Authorization bill. This legislation includes many necessary provisions to improve the quality of life for our military and their families. I strongly support the 2.7 percent pay raise for active duty members and the funding increases for equipment and body armor. The legislation also includes an important provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress with a report on the Department's 10-year strategy for addressing threats related to Iran, Iraq and the Middle East. It is critical that our country deals with these complicated issues in a thoughtful and deliberate way with a clear plan for a successful outcome. However, I do have some very real and serious concerns about the bill. First, this legislation increases co-pays for military families that purchase their prescription drugs from a pharmacy. While I am pleased that the committee rejected the President's proposal for Tricare premium increases, it is unfair to add to the out of pocket health care costs of our military men and women that serve our country. This Congress has the responsibility to have a real discussion about the future costs to the American taxpayer of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, H.R. 5122 includes authorization for a $50 billion bridge fund for the costs of the wars once again through supplemental funding. We are entering our fifth year in Afghanistan and our fourth year in Iraq. It is time for this Administration and Republican House leadership to be honest about providing for the costs of these conflicts and account for these dollars in the regular budgeting process rather than passing the entire cost on to our children and grandchildren. I am also extremely disappointed that the Majority would not accept an amendment offered by Mr. Israel regarding military chaplains. Mr. Chair, this amendment simply would have added language requiring that chaplains show ``sensitivity, respect, and tolerance'' for members of the military of all faiths. It continues to guarantee that military chaplains pray in accordance with their own faith but would have realigned the language with current military guidelines. However, overall this bill makes important changes that will increase the safety and quality of life of our military and their families. I am proud to support our troops serving around the world and at home and to vote in favor of this bill today.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, tonight we should be working to ensure security and peace for Israel and more hope, opportunity and peace for the Palestinian people. Among our colleagues in the U.S. House, there is unanimous intolerance and condemnation for the current Hamas-led government of the Palestinian Authority. The refusal of the political leadership of Hamas to recognize the State of Israel, renounce violence and terrorism, and agree to previous agreements and obligations of the Palestinian Authority is unacceptable and therefore they must continue to be isolated by the international community. Congress should be here tonight unanimously passing a bill that supports Secretary of State Rice as she leads the international community to keep firm pressure on Hamas until they agree to an internationally recognized civilized standard of conduct. At the same time, Congress should be working to support the Bush administration and the international community to avoid a serious humanitarian crisis among the Palestinian people. On May 9, 2006, Secretary Rice said as she announced $10 million of medical assistance to the Palestinian people, ``We will continue to look for ways to assist the Palestinian people and will encourage other countries to join us in this effort. We will not, however, provide support to a Hamas-led government that refuses to accept the calls of the Quartet and the broader international community to renounce terror and become a partner for peace.'' I strongly support her efforts and it is unfortunate that a bill could not be drafted to come to the floor this evening that was supported by the State Department. The State Department's comment regarding H.R. 4681 is ``this bill is unnecessary.'' Unfortunately, instead of advancing the U.S. interests, H.R. 4681 does not recognize the three criteria set forth by President Bush-- demanded by President Bush and the international community--for Hamas to commence any form of engagement with the U.S. and the international community. H.R. 4681 sets an elevated threshold which will make U.S. leadership for peace in the Middle East nearly impossible even if Hamas does agree to recognize Israel, does renounce terrorism and does agree to abide by all previous agreements. The outcome of this bill, if it were to become law, would be to isolate Palestinian leaders who have been committed to advancing the peace process, isolate leaders who have denounced terrorism, and isolate leaders who are working with Israel for peace and a permanent two-state solution. How does this bill advance U.S. goals in the region? It doesn't. This bill's real result will be to isolate the U.S. among members of the international community that are working for a peaceful and just solution between Israel and the Palestinians. One of our partners in isolating Hamas and delivering humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people is the United Nations. A section of this bill calls for withholding a portion of U.S. contribution to the United Nation as if this valuable partner were the enemy. For this bill to target the United Nations--a member of the Quartet--in such a fashion is a clear sign that this bill is intended to undermine the Bush administration's multilateral leadership. This bill places extreme constraints on the delivery of humanitarian assistance by nongovernmental organizations to the Palestinian people. This bill's unnecessary obstacles have the potential for very negative human consequences and would exacerbate a humanitarian crisis. Palestinian families and children must not be targeted for deprivation of their basic human needs by this Congress. Instead let this House ensure that Palestinian families and children will treated in a fashion that reflects our values and the belief that their lives are valued. NGOs with significant experience delivering humanitarian assistance have expressed serious concerns that the lack of flexibility in H.R. 4681. An April 6, 2006 letter from United States Conference on Catholic Bishops to Chairman Hyde expressing concerns regarding the substitute amendment to H.R. 4681 states, ``the legislation should provide for the urgent needs of the Palestinian people. A further deterioration of the humanitarian and economic situation of the Palestinian people compromises human dignity and serves the long term interests neither of Palestinians nor of Israelis who long for a just peace.'' In it present form, this bill will not allow NGOs to properly carry out the very assistance determined to be necessary by Secretary Rice-- ensuring suffering and misery among the Palestinian people. Finally, my opposition to H.R. 4681 is based on policy grounds that reflect my support for a Middle East peace process which will ultimately yield security and freedom from terrorism for the State of Israel and the Israeli people, as well as a democratic, secure and peaceful state for the Palestinian people. H.R. 4681, will result in no greater security or opportunities for peace than exist today with current law and the administration's present policy course. But this bill may in fact have the result of fueling a humanitarian crisis. Passing this bill undermines U.S. interests and has potential long-term negative consequences for the Israeli people and the Palestinians. Later this week, in this chamber, we will be honored by the presence of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In an interview last week, Primer Minister Olmert said the Palestinians ``are the victims of their own extremist, fundamentalist, religious, inflexible and unyielding leadership, and we will do everything in our power to help these innocent people . . . We will pay if necessary out of our own pockets. We wouldn't allow one baby to suffer one night because of a lack of dialysis. We care,'' Olmert said. 'We want to save their lives.'' I wish to strongly associate myself with the honest and courageous comments of the Prime Minister and his desire for security, peace and the value of human life. I oppose H.R. 4681 because this is a missed opportunity to keep the pressure on Hamas, ease the suffering among the Palestinian people and ensure that Israel is secure and without a humanitarian crisis on its doorstep. Current U.S. law already prohibits funds from going to Hamas because it is a foreign terrorist organization. As the State Department says, ``this bill is unnecessary.'' I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Let us send a message to the people of Israel and the Palestinian people that the U.S. Congress has not given up working for security, peace, and a better future in the Middle East. Let us oppose and isolate Hamas--and let us also work for peace and a generation of Israeli and Palestinian children who know no violence, only hope. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4681.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the reckless budget proposed by President Bush and House Republicans. H. Con. Res. 376 is a $2.7 trillion budget that will add $1.1 trillion to our debt over the next 5 years. If this becomes the law of the land, our budget deficit will hit near record levels in 2006 and 2007. But that's only part of the story. The budget provides for no funding for Iraq and Afghanistan past 2007, although we have heard from President Bush that this war will last at least until 2009. Nor does it address tax issues facing middle class families--such as the alternative minimum tax. In addition, this bill includes a provision to raise the debt limit for the fifth year in a row--resulting in a $3.7 trillion increase since 2001. This budget imposes painful cuts on children and families while allowing our national deficit to continue to spiral out of control. Cuts to health care, education, veterans' services, and the environment are all made in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. But because even these devastating cuts do not equal the level of tax giveaways proposed, this budget forces future generations to pay for the mistakes of today. Mr. Speaker, this budget does not reflect American values. It cuts education--from early education through higher education--when we need to reinvest in American global competitiveness. It cuts funding for public health and health research--shortchanging potential lifesaving research and health care providers struggling to serve current populations and to prepare for a possible pandemic. It cuts homeland security funding by $6 billion--as our Nation is involved in conflicts around the world and American good will is waning. Most outrageously, this budget cuts funding for veterans' health care by $8.6 billion over 5 years. At a time when we're asking more of our service men and women and their families, this type of across-the-board disinvestment is short-sighted and negligent and should be rejected. Congress can and should pass a budget that is fiscally responsible and protects the priorities of the American people. Democrats offered an alternative plan investing in education, health research and veterans' benefits while balancing the budget by 2012. This plan, offered by Mr. Spratt, would keep America competitive by making needed investments and reduce the burden of staggering Federal debt on future generations. I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt substitute and reject the dangerous owe-as-you-go policies put forward by the Bush Administration and the Republican Majority in Congress.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican's tax reconciliation bill. This legislation is a cynical tax giveaway for the wealthy paid for by slashing services critical to families and heaping debt on future generations. H.R. 4297 includes $70 billion in tax breaks--primarily an extension of capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Almost half of that $70 billion will benefit those making over $1 million a year. In Minnesota, 68 percent of the benefit of this bill will go to only 2 percent of taxpayers. Those making $200,000 or more will see an average benefit of over $6,000, while those making under $75,000 will see a return of only $55 on average. The Majority party has focused tax relief on a chosen few rather than providing tax relief for everyone. Even though tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have already provided millionaires with an average tax cut of $109,000, Republicans have again chosen to prioritize further gains to those who need it the least at the expense of middle-class families. The alternative minimum tax, which is a critical problem facing middle- class families, is shortchanged by this proposal. This bill provides only a one-year extension instead of honestly dealing with this issue. In addition, because these tax cuts are partially paid for by cuts to student loans and health care, working men and women are paying twice in this Republican plan. This bill also fails to address critical issues such as extending the research and development tax credit, the tax deduction for student loans, and the deduction of state and local taxes--provisions that make an enormous difference in the lives of families across the country. For example, the student loan tax deduction provides opportunities for more families to access higher education, resulting in better paying jobs, which fuels our economy. Our national debt is nearly $9 trillion. In the last 5 years, President Bush has borrowed more than $1 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. It is clearly not the time to add billions of dollars to the debt in order to provide more wealth for those most fortunate. This is a fiscally and morally irresponsible plan and should be rejected. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not reflect the priorities of Minnesota or American families. With our country facing a growing deficit, a stagnant job economy, and spiking gas prices, it is not the time for reckless spending through tax cuts. Democrats have offered an alternative that targets relief for families without adding to the debt burden facing our children and grandchildren. I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless bill and support economic policies that benefit families, increase our competitiveness, and reduce our national debt.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, tonight we should be working to ensure security and peace for Israel and for more hope, opportunity and peace for the Palestinian people. Among our colleagues in the U.S. House, there is unanimous intolerance and condemnation for the current Hamas-led government of the Palestinian Authority. The refusal of the political leadership of Hamas to recognize the State of Israel, renounce violence and terrorism and agree to previous agreements and obligations of the Palestinian Authority is unacceptable, and, therefore, they must continue to be isolated by the international community. Congress should be here tonight unanimously passing a bill that supports Secretary of State Rice as she leads the international community to keep firm pressure on Hamas until they agree to internationally recognized and civilized standards of conduct. At the same time, Congress should be working to support the Bush administration and the international community to avoid a serious humanitarian crisis among the Palestinian people. On May 9, 2006, Secretary Rice said as she announced $10 million of medical assistance to the Palestinian people, ``We will continue to work and look for ways to assist the Palestinian people and will encourage other countries to join us in this effort.'' She goes on to say, ``We will not, however, provide support to a Hamas-led government that refuses to accept the calls of the Quartet and the broader international community to renounce terror and to become a partner for peace.'' I strongly support her efforts, and it is unfortunate that the bill tonight could not have been drafted to come to the floor that would be supported by the State Department. The State Department's comment regarding H.R. 4681 is, ``this bill is unnecessary.'' Instead of advancing the U.S. interests, H.R. 4681 does not recognize the three criteria set forth by President Bush, demanded by President Bush and the international community, for Hamas to commence any form of engagement and to work with the U.S. and the international community. H.R. 4681 sets an elevated threshold which makes U.S. leadership for peace in the Middle East nearly impossible, even if Hamas does agree to recognize Israel, does renounce terrorism and does agree to abide by all previous agreements. The outcome of this bill, if it were to become law, would be to isolate Palestinian leaders who have been committed to advancing the peace process, isolate leaders who have denounced terrorism and isolate leaders who are working with Israel for peace and a permanent two-state solution. How does this advance the U.S. goals in the region? It does not. This bill's real result will be to isolate the U.S. among the members of the international community that are working for peaceful solutions between Israel and the Palestinians. One of our partners in isolating Hamas and delivering humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people is the United Nations. A section in this bill calls for the withholding of a portion of the U.S. contribution to the United Nations, as if this valuable partner were an enemy. For this bill to target the United Nations, a member of the quartet, in such a fashion is a clear signal that this bill's intent is to undermine the Bush administration's multilateral leadership. This bill places extreme constraints on the delivery of humanitarian assistance by non-governmental organizations to the Palestinian people. This bill's unnecessary obstacles have the potential for very negative human consequences and would exacerbate a human crisis. Palestinian families and children must not be targeted. They must not be deprived of their basic human needs by this Congress. Instead, this House should assure that Palestinian families and children will be treated in a fashion that reflects our values and the belief that their lives are valuable. NGOs with significant experience in delivering humanitarian assistance have expressed serious concerns with the lack of flexibility in this bill. On April 6, 2006, a letter from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to Chairman Hyde expressing concerns regarding this bill states, ``The legislation provides for the urgent needs of the Palestinian people. A further deterioration of the humanitarian and economic situation of the Palestinian people compromises human dignity and serves the long-term interests of neither the Palestinians nor of Israelis who long for peace.'' In its present form, this bill will not allow NGOs to properly carry out the very assistance determined to be necessary by Secretary Rice, ensuring suffering and misery to the Palestinian people. Later this week in this Chamber, we will be honored by the presence of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In an interview last week, Prime Minister Olmert said the Palestinians ``are the victims of their own extremist, fundamentalist, religious, inflexible and unyielding leadership, and we will do everything in our power to help these innocent people.'' I strongly associate myself with the honest and courageous comments of the prime minister and his desire for security and peace. I oppose this bill because it is a missed opportunity to keep pressure on Hamas.

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Federal Energy Price Protection Act (H.R. 5253). By protecting consumers at the gas pump, this legislation takes an important step towards a more responsible federal energy policy. H.R. 5253 bans price gouging in the sale of fuels, permits states to bring price gouging lawsuits against wholesalers or retailers and sets meaningful penalties for those convicted. After nearly a year of opposing these consumer protections, Republicans have finally realized this is a necessary and appropriate action to addressing rising gas prices. However, this is only a first step--it is what we do next that really matters. We should not expect our energy situation to change until Congress gets serious about tackling our oil dependence. With the booming economies of China and India squeezing global oil supply, and political instability among key oil producing countries like Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria and Iraq, it is likely that world oil prices will remain volatile and could continue rising for some time to come. Unfortunately, the Republicans are proposing to meet this serious challenge with an ill-conceived policy of distraction. The Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act (H.R. 5254) is a cynical attempt to relieve public pressure for new energy policies and divert attention away from meaningful solutions. It empowers the Secretary of Defense to evade state environmental laws and overrule the wishes of local communities by ``streamlining'' siting and permitting of new refineries on closed military bases. I strongly oppose this bill, which blames state environmental regulations for rising gas prices and would undermine local control in a misguided attempt to ease them. H.R. 5254 is another attempt by the Republican majority to sell Americans the false promise of easy answers. With families burdened with gas at $3 per gallon, it is time for real leadership, vision and commitment from Washington to make the smart investments that will protect our BNation's economic security and our planet's future. A clean energy future that addresses oil dependence and environmental concerns such as climate change is achievable. It starts by rescinding the billion of dollars in subsidies for oil and gas companies and with investments in research and extending incentives for alternative energy sources such as wind, biomass and biofuels that keep energy costs down, create jobs and make us more competitive in the global economy. As Robert Samuelson stated in today's Washington Post, the United States has the energy policy it deserves but not the one it needs. It's time for real solutions. [From the Washington Post, May 3, 2006] How We Got to $3 a Gallon (By Robert J. Samuelson) The United States has the energy policy it deserves, although not the one it needs. Having been told for years that their addiction to cheap gasoline was on a collision course with increasingly insecure supplies of foreign oil, Americans are horrified to discover that this is actually the case. But for all the public outcry and political hysteria, high gasoline prices haven't significantly hurt the economy-- and may not do so. Since 2003 the economy has grown about 3.6 percent annually. It's still advancing briskly. That may be the real news. But first, how did we get to $3 a gallon? The basic story is simple enough. Oil was cheap in the 1990s. From 1993 to 1999, crude prices averaged about $17 a barrel. Low prices discouraged exploration and encouraged consumption. China emerged as a big user. In 1995 global demand was about 70 million barrels daily; now it's almost 84 million barrels daily. Spare production capacity slowly vanished, meaning that now any supply interruption--or rumor of interruption--sends prices up sharply. An Iraqi pipeline is attacked; prices jump. Nigerian rebels menace oil fields; prices jump. These pressures get transmitted quickly to the pump, because there are few fixed-price contracts in the oil business. At each stage of distribution--from producers to refiners, from refiners to retailers--prices are adjusted quickly. They're often tied to prices on major commodities exchanges, where oil and other raw materials are traded. ``A gas station will get a delivery every four to eight days at a different price,'' says Mary Novak of Global Insight. Even between deliveries, station owners may push prices up because they know that ``for my next tankload, I'll have to pay the market price.'' Of course, profits have exploded. Production and refining costs haven't risen in tandem with prices. To the extent that oil companies have their own crude reserves--as opposed to buying from producing nations--they've reaped a bonanza. From 2002 to 2005, profits for most U.S. oil companies more than quadrupled, to almost $140 billion a year, the American Petroleum Institute reports. But the really big winners are the oil-producing countries. In 2005 their oil revenue exceeded $750 billion, up from $300 billion in 2002. (Crude oil and taxes represent about three-quarters of the retail price of gasoline; refining, distribution and marketing account for the rest.) It's conventional wisdom that big increases in oil prices usually trigger a recession--or at least a sharp slowdown. Why haven't they? One oft-cited reason is that the economy has become more energy-efficient. True. Compared with 1973, Americans use 57 percent less oil and natural gas per dollar of output; compared with 1990, the decline is 24 percent. Cars and trucks have gotten more efficient, though not much more so since 1990. New industries (software programming, health clubs) use less energy than the old (steelmaking, farming). But there's a larger reason: The conventional wisdom is wrong. Big oil price increases in the past (1973-74, 1979-80 and 1990-91) did not cause recessions, though recessions occurred at roughly the same time. The connection has been repeated so often that most people probably accept it as gospel. But much economic research has concluded that it's a myth. These recessions resulted mainly from rising inflation--inflation that preceded higher oil prices--and the Federal Reserve's efforts to suppress it. Higher oil prices merely made matters slightly worse. In 1980, for example, consumer prices rose 12.5 percent; excluding energy prices, they increased 11.7 percent. This may explain the economy's resilience. One hopeful sign: most nonenergy companies aren't yet passing along higher energy costs to their customers. ``Businesses have had wide profit margins,'' says Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com. ``They may be willing to eat the higher costs.'' In 2006, he expects the economy to grow 3.5 percent, with average unemployment of 4.7 percent. Indeed, he thinks oil prices may retreat to about $50 a barrel, from today's levels of about $70, later this year. Higher prices will slightly dampen demand, and added supplies will create some spare production capacity. Naturally, he could be wrong. Energy economist Philip K. Verleger Jr. thinks oil could be headed for $100 a barrel, with inflation going to 5 percent and inducing a recession. Continuing strong oil demand will collide with rigid supply (both production and refining). The conventional wisdom--wrong in the past--could be right in the future. Whatever happens, the larger question is how Americans build on this episode. It may feel good to vilify the major oil companies and the oil cartel. But that won't help. We now import 60 percent of our oil; large imports will continue indefinitely. So far, we've escaped a true calamity. We may not be so lucky in the future. We could minimize our vulnerabilities to supply interruptions and price increases. We could open up more acreage (including Alaska) to drilling. We could orchestrate--through tougher fuel economy standards and a gradually rising energy tax--a big shift toward more- efficient vehicles. Once again, we've been warned. Will we contine to ignore it?

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of the seventh annual National Charter Schools Week, and to congratulate charter schools and their students, parents, teachers, and administrators for their commitment to innovation in public education. I am proud to represent the district that is home to the first charter school in the United States, City Academy, which opened in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1992. Minnesota was the first state to pass charter school legislation in 1991. Today there are more than 120 charter schools in Minnesota that enroll more than 20,000 students. Charter schools fulfill an important role in our nation's public education system. They encourage new ways of learning and require strong partnerships with the community. Charter schools often provide children who struggle in a traditional classroom the opportunity to thrive and grow. In St. Paul and surrounding community there are more than two dozen charter schools. Each one provides a unique learning environment for its students--from the Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School which integrates Latino cultural values in its learning environment to the Community of Peace Academy that provides a violence-free environment for inner city children. Each of the charter schools in my district have focused their missions around a core set of values in order to provide a quality educational experience for their students. It is with appreciation that I rise today to commend the teachers and students of charters schools, and the communities that support them, for their contributions and achievements.