Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. My favorite Member of Congress is the gentleman who just spoke, Robert Andrews of New Jersey. I consider him the most articulate Member of Congress; but I think as articulate as he was on this issue, he is missing the whole point. This is a bill that spends more money and increases taxes. And we believe with all our hearts and souls that when we added 58 percent more on veterans' spending in the last 4 years, that is a spending increase for a very good cause and has enabled us to improve veterans' services every year, we are continuing to include more and more for our veterans. Only in Washington when you spend so much more money do people call it a cut. On No Child Left Behind, we have increased spending by 40 percent in the last 4 years. It is not funded at the highest level the authorizers have allowed but we are spending far more than we have ever spent. We are at war. We are at war not just in Iraq, but against terrorism around the world. And I think a 9 percent increase in Defense and Homeland Security is a huge increase in spending. The huge increases in spending that we have in our entitlements shows a tremendous amount of concern that our government has for the people of our country. But when President Bush inherited a recession and then inherited September 11, and then inherited a breakdown in the structure of the business community with Enron and WorldCom, it is remarkable how well our economy has grown, with new jobs being created and new revenue coming into our coffers, and an incredible increase in productivity. We believe in large measure growth in our economy is the result of economic policy centered around tax cuts. And so for me I am happy to have this debate, happy to go into the election this fall and emphasize we are against tax increases and ever increasing spending. When we had the budget meeting and the budget votes, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said we voted against veterans, we voted against this, we voted against that. They failed to say in each one of those amendments was a tax increase. We voted against the amendments because there were tax increases at a time when we think it is unwise. So we have a difference of opinion that we will obviously fight out this fall. So I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for providing this opportunity to distinguish the differences between the two parties. We do not want a tax increase. We do not want a lot more government spending. Let me end by saying this: 5 percent of the American people pay 55 percent of the taxes. 50 percent of the American people pay 96 percent of the taxes. When we passed our tax cuts, we gave the tax cuts to the people who pay taxes. That is the reality of what we did.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and it is a privilege to speak on the resolution of two people for whom I have the utmost respect, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations. I thank them for this resolution. I have been in Iraq five times, and four of those times I have been outside the umbrella of the military as well as being under the umbrella of the military. I have talked to everyday Iraqis, attended a wedding, visited schools, hospitals, businesses, met with community and religious leaders, as well as visited the very poorest of the poor in their own homes, and slept in Iraqi villages. I cannot tell you how important June 30 is. There is not an Iraqi I spoke to who did not tell me they want this to be an Iraqi revolution, not an American revolution. They are eager to run their own country. Now, we have made some mistakes. It is clear that we should have prevented the looting. It is also clear to me we should not have disbanded the government, the army or the police. Certainly the bad folks within should have been taken out. So we have made some mistakes. When you speak to Iraqis, they will tell you they are suspicious of the United States because to them we are strangers. As good a Nation as we are, and as important as removing Saddam is, they never had a government they could trust. So why would they trust a foreign government to lead them for a year? They blame the United States for the sanctions, not Saddam, ironically. And they also told me of the loved ones they lost when we told them to rebel against Saddam, but we left the Republican Guard in place to kill their loved ones. They ae angry about this. They would tell me all those things, and they mean them. But in spite of their suspiction and anger they are so grateful to be free from Saddam. The most important decision the President made was to say, against the opposition of some, on June 30 sovereignty will be passed to the Iraqi people in an interim government. It is their country, and they should run their own country and they are eager to do it. I am so proud to be in the presence of those Iraqis who have taken the mantle of leadership. If you asked me are their lives in danger and how likely is it they will be there a year from now, I cannot tell you with any confidence they will survive. But they are willing to take on this task in spite of the dangers they face. So I salute our troops for the 840 men and women we have lost and for the thousands that have been injured, I salute the Iraqi people, who have done everything they can to be free people and now have the chance to run their own country. I particularly appreciate that we have an opportunity to speak on a resolution that says, uncategorically, on June 30, the Iraqi people reign. They will run their own country. Ambassador Negroponte will not be a Mr. Bremer. He is our ambassador who is there at the invitation of the Iraqi people. May God bless Iraq, may God bless the United States of America. I put my hand to my heart in appreciation for what we are doing and with appreciation and gratitude for the friends I have made with so many good and brave Iraqis.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not think I need to use the whole debate, particularly given the gracious support of both sides of the aisle, the chairman of the full committee and ranking member, and say that they have always been a pleasure to work with. I thank the gentlewoman from California so much for all the work that she does and the gentleman from Florida. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) has been a tremendous supporter for our efforts. The gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) has really brought out a lot in the hearing that we had. We know that we could not allow the sanctions to deprive Iraqi citizens of food and medicine. The problem was they did not get the food they paid for and they did not get the medicines they paid for, because Saddam Hussein was basically allowed to run the program with the oversight of the U.N. that chose not to provide oversight, particularly the Chinese and the Russians who did not believe that there should even be sanctions and did not go out of their way to make this system work. So we had countries that knowingly allowed Saddam to rip off his own people. He undersold oil and then got huge kickbacks, and he overpaid for commodities and got huge kickbacks, $4.4 billion in the overcharges, the surcharges for the oil and the kickbacks on humanitarian purchases and an estimated $5.7 billion going through Syria. The Syrians and the Russians and, frankly, the French were not helpful in this process. What I rejoice in was that this story was really outed by the free press in Iraq. We all knew that this was a corrupt program; but what happened was the Iraqi Governing Council, some in it, leaked information to their now free press that printed the names of almost 300 people. Well over 200. They were high-ranking government officials including, frankly, Kofi Annan's son allegedly involved, Benon Sevan in charge of the program, and so we have now an investigation of the U.N. But Mr. Volker will tell you, it is kind of like being in the Senate. It is unanimous consent. He has to get the cooperation of everyone. He does not have the ability to just say, I want this information. If I don't get it we're going to subpoena it. So he is first looking at the U.N. and what they are doing to try to, in my judgment, go carefully to build credibility so he can go after what he thinks are more serious problems. The bottom line is we need to encourage much more aggressive activity on the part of the U.N. We can only do that if we get the information, information from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and our criminal justice system. I want to also compliment the Committee on International Relations. They are working so well with our subcommittee and our subcommittee is working so well with them. We are trading information. There is more than any one committee can do, and ultimately I think we will get to the truth of it. I just would say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) was absolutely correct when he said that this is one of the largest rip-offs to any country, and it was a community rip-off by other nations. They allowed Saddam to make billions of dollars at the expense of his own people. And it really suggests why in some cases some countries may not have been interested in our allowing the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, getting this information that will expose him. I think they all thought it would just be quiet and that this program would continue ad infinitum. I have spoken longer that I have chosen. I do not really have anything else to say other than to thank my colleagues and to them on a bipartisan basis we are going to get at the truth. From its inception in 1996, the United Nations' Oil-for-Food Program (OFF) was susceptible to political manipulation and financial corruption. Trusting Saddam Hussein to exercise sovereign control over billions of dollars of oil sales and commodity purchases invited the illicit premiums and kickback schemes now coming to light. But much is still not known about the exact details of Oil-for-Food transactions. That is one reason my Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations convened a hearing on April 21st: to help pierce the veil of secrecy that still shrouds the largest humanitarian aid effort in history. This much we know: The Hussein regime reaped an estimated $10.1 billion from this program: $5.7 in smuggled oil; $4.4 in oil surcharges and kickbacks on humanitarian purchases through the Oil-for-Food Program. There is no innocent explanation for this. At the hearing, the Subcommittee heard the program, while successful in many ways, was riddled with corruption and the independent efforts of the Iraqis to investigate the fraud was being stifled by the Coalition Provisional Authority. We want the State Department, the CPA, the intelligence community, and the U.N. to know there has to be a full accounting of all Oil-for- Food transactions, even if that unaccustomed degree of transparency embarrasses some members of the Security Council. Two months ago, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan assured me he wants to get to the bottom of this scandal and restore faith in the ability of the U.N. to do its job. Subsequently, the Secretary General appointed Paul Volcker to lead an independent panel to look into the Oil-for-Food Program. While Mr. Volcker brings expertise and prestige to the task, we are concerned about the slow pace of the U.N. investigation. The Volcker panel has just announced the hiring of senior staff. Nevertheless, they continue to say an interim report, possibly this summer, will address the conduct of U.N. employees and allegations about the Secretary General's son involvement. But we also need to know more than what just happened at the U.N. We also need to know what happened at the U.S. Mission. We need to know what our intelligence community knew and knows. Many of the allegations are true, we just don't know which ones yet. We should be long past asking whether something went wrong in OFF. It's time to find out exactly what went wrong and who is responsible. Our staff has been through the minutes of the U.N. ``661 Committee'' of Security Council members responsible for sanctions monitoring and oversight of OFF. Those minutes tell a story of diplomatic obfuscation and an obvious, purposeful unwillingness to acknowledge the program was being corrupted. Questions about oil or commodity contracts were dismissed as dubious media rumors beneath the dignity of the U.N. to answer, while Saddam was given the undeserved benefit of every doubt. We cannot ignore the profoundly serious allegations of malfeasance in the Oil-for-Food Program. To do so would be to deny the Iraqi people the accounting they deserve and leave the U.N. under an ominous cloud. This is the Iraqi's money we're talking about, so the Iraqi Governing Council and its successor should get cooperation from the CPA and the State Department in conducting its inquiries. In Iraq, and elsewhere, the world needs an impeccably clean, transparent U.N. The dominant instrument of multilateral diplomacy should embody our highest principles and aspirations, not systematically sink to the lowest common denominator of political profiteering. This emerging scandal is a huge black mark against the United Nations and only a prompt and thorough accounting, including punishment for any found culpable, will restore U.N. credibility and integrity. That is why it is critical to get to the bottom of the corruption. In order to do that we need for the intelligence community to better assist the Congress in its investigations. Mr. Chairman, this Sense of Congress will help address the difficulties many committees have had obtaining information and documents--especially from the intelligence community--pertaining to the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program. This amendment should reinforce the importance Congress places on the Oil-for-Food investigations. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I obviously move the adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read. It is short.

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just take the floor to thank both the chairman and ranking member for their assistance.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SHAYS. I do not believe that. With all due respect, I do not believe it. I do not believe that the passenger aircraft are dependent on cargo in order to be able to take passengers. I just do not buy it. I at least think, though, that the American people deserve the truth, whatever the truth is. This is a debate we need to have, and frankly it needs to be a debate that is more than 40 minutes. The American people are entitled to the truth, whatever that is. When we started out talking about the baggage on passenger aircraft, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) came in with an amendment in 2002, and he asked me to cosponsor it. He said, We do not check baggage. We check some, but we do not check all of it. I said, You have got to be kidding me. He said, We do not. And we have no time line. So we offered an amendment that said by the end of 2004 we would check, and everyone opposed the amendment because they said we could not check by the end of 2004. They said, we do not have the equipment, we do not have the money, it is too costly and the passenger aircraft would just simply not be able to fly. That is what we were told. That is what the record said. Our amendment passed, and an interesting thing happened. When it came back from the conference committee, instead of the end of 2004 that we would check for baggage, it said the end of 2003. I went up to one of the members and said, How come if we could not do it by the end of 2004, we could do it by the end of 2003? What I was told was, We did not want to put in writing that we could not check until the end of 2004 and we put the end of 2003 and we did not quite make that deadline, we met it sometime a little later in 2004, but we met it before the end of 2004. We did it because it mattered and the American people would not fly if they did not think the baggage was checked. But what we at least need to say, I will say it as often as I can, 23 percent of what is in the belly of an aircraft is cargo. It for the most part is unchecked. Saying that we check because we have a known shipper is simply to say that we know who shipped it. It does not mean that we check the baggage. It amazes me that somehow we say that that is a protective system. So for me, it is quite simple. We have got to give them a target. We have got to give them a deadline. We have got to be willing to spend the money. If six planes are blown out of the sky a week from now or 2 weeks from now, are all of us supposed to go back into our district and say, we could not afford to do it? I cannot do that. I cannot look my constituents in the eye and say, we could not afford to do it. When we vote, I want every Member to know what we are saying. If you vote for the Markey amendment, you are voting to say we have got to have this stuff checked. And when it comes back from the conference committee, maybe we will come back with a deadline or something that you feel is more realistic, but we have got to have something better than what we have now. I feel strongly about that. I feel as strongly about that as I have ever felt about anything. I have had 50 hearings on terrorist issues on my subcommittee, and this of anything that we have looked at scares me the most.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate trying to understand what kind of contribution I can make and what kind of things we are listening to, and I feel that three of the most respected Members of Congress, I respect for their knowledge on this issue, are saying things that, if true, are more shocking than what I thought was the case. I mean we have a Member of Congress who basically has said that it is foolish to deal with cargo admittedly for the money and the technology, which are valid reasons that I understand, but because we do not even really check the baggage on the belly of aircraft that we say we do but we do not. And I do not know how to process that because I tell my constituents that we are doing that, and I am not aware of any request on this floor by this chairman or anyone else who has said we need this amount of money to fulfill that act. If that is known by some in some committee, then let us debate it on the floor. Because it is my understanding that we checked the baggage on the belly of an aircraft for explosives, and if we do not, I think we should say where we do not and how long it is going to take and why we are not conforming to the law; and then all of us need to deal with that. That is fair, but to use that as an argument for then not checking the cargo that goes on the belly of an aircraft on a passenger plane to me is just like a weird argument. Now, if we cannot check big packages, then let us check small packages. If we cannot do it this year, then let us have in the law that it will be done by this time. Let us not just be so casual about it that we just say, well, we went from 5 percent to 10 percent, and we need more time to do the technology. So what I was thinking as I was sitting here is that what I would like to do if this amendment does not pass or if it passes and gets lost in conference, I want to come in with an amendment, and it is going to be truth to the passenger, and it is going to spell out to the passenger in plain, simple language what is the risk when they fly. In other words, I think if a plane has not been checked for explosives in the belly of an aircraft that is baggage, then tell them; and if that has been but we have cargo and 20 percent of this cargo or 30 percent of what is in the belly of the aircraft is cargo and has not been checked, then tell them. I know what I know. I will not fly that aircraft, and then I will like to know, and maybe others will, maybe we will just have to suck it up and be brave, but I think it is not safe. And I am living with the fact that someone in my district found out in the middle of the day that maybe her child was on Pan Am 103, and I was at her home at 11:30 at night when it was confirmed and this was her best friend, her daughter.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take a lot of time in this first pass but just to say, when I hear the presentation of both the gentleman from Massachusetts and our very distinguished chairman, it scares the heck out of me, because the bottom line is we are being told, and it is true, you can get explosives on a passenger airplane; and then we are being told we cannot do anything about it because it is impractical, we do not have the equipment, and so on. I think the story is somewhere in between. The bottom line is we have people on passenger airplanes who believe that we check the baggage that is in the cargo of those airplanes. I think maybe at a minimum we should at least give them a little notice when they step on that airplane because it is the truth, that would say that when you go on this airplane, all the baggage brought on by passengers is screened, but the cargo that is on this airplane is not screened for explosives.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few comments. The previous speaker, the gentleman from Montana, gave a very compelling argument, and it is one that I listened to. This is not an easy amendment for any of us; but it is important we have this debate, and it is important we visit each other's districts. I happen to view Yellowstone and the Grand Teton National Park as not owned by Montanans, not owned by folks from Wyoming. They are owned by Americans throughout the United States. These parks are precious and they are owned by all of us. What would have happened if the United States Government had not bought these parks? What would they be? They might be owned by someone in the private sector, and then no one could use them. So I do not have any reluctance whatsoever in standing up and saying I own these parks, as much as anyone else here does. They happen to be in a place that I do not live, but I own these parks; and I have a right to say that my constituents own these parks. They own Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Parks as much as anyone from Montana or Wyoming or wherever else; and they are owned by us to be used as we, a country, want to use them. Our concern is that these two precious places are not being treated the way they need to be treated, and we are saying we would like there not to be snowmobiles in these two parks. We are being asked by those who live there to allow snowmobile use because there is an economy that depends on their use, and I understand that. But that is the difference in this debate. The difference in this debate is we are saying this is a place that our constituents can go to, as much as yours, and the only difference is they have to travel farther to get there. And when they get there, my constituents are saying, they would like to go there and not have to see or hear snowmobiles. The studies are pretty clear. They point out snowmobiles are not healthy to these parks. I was not here for the first part of the debate, and I know my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), wants to make some comments.

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in support of the Holt-Shays-Rahall-Johnson Amendment to protect Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Parks. I believe protecting and preserving our environment is one of the most important duties we have as members of Congress. We simply won't have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways. Our predecessors understood the preservation of our natural resources was a moral and patriotic obligation. It was their vision and foresight that led to the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872. The creation of our first national park was a far-sighted guarantee each new generation would inherit a healthy and vibrant Yellowstone, a park complete with wildlife, majestic vistas and awe-inspiring geysers. But snowmobiles have put the park's health in jeopardy. When they roar through the park, they generate tremendous noise and pollution, forcing our park rangers to wear respirators to combat the noxious cloud of blue smoke in which they work. The harm caused by snowmobile use in Yellowstone has been scientifically proven, studied further, and proven yet again. Over the past decade the Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and independent experts have conducted extensive studies and always reached the same conclusion: a phase-out of snowmobiles is necessary to restore Yellowstone's health. Last winter marked the start of a transition to snowcoaches. Just as the Park Service and EPA predicted, substituting snowcoach access for snowmobile use began to make Yellowstone a safer wintertime destination for the public, especially visitors susceptible to respiratory problems. Visitors and park rangers breathed less carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and benzene than in past winter seasons. Yellowstone was also quieter and less hectic for people and wildlife alike. By a 4-to-1 margin, Americans overwhelmingly support protecting Yellowstone by replacing snowmobile use with park-friendly, people- friendly snowcoaches. This amendment does not restrict winter access to the Park. Rather, it requires visitors to travel in a manner that protects Yellowstone's precious resources. There are thousands of miles of snowmobile routes surrounding Yellowstone National Park including 400 miles near West Yellowstone, Montana alone. In Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, the total is more than 13,000 miles. All of these opportunities will be unaffected by the Yellowstone amendment which involves only 180 miles of routes within Yellowstone National Park. Let's not waste another minute or another dollar of taxpayer money further studying this issue. Let's put into law a scientifically sound, environmentally safe and fiscally responsible decision that protects our nation's first treasure. I urge my colleagues to vote their conscience.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I envisioned when I was elected to Congress that we would have really vigorous debates about a lot of issues, and this issue is an issue we should have a debate about. We can agree or disagree; but we should talk about it and understand in our own minds how valuable we think the arts are to our society, to the well-being of the culture that exists throughout our society, to the well-being of our children and what it says about us as Americans. For me, I want to be on the side of President Bush. I want to be on the side of Mrs. Bush, both of whom believe this is an important contribution to our society. Both the President and the First Lady travel all around the country, and they understand, I think, better than many of us who are focused in our own districts how important this is for the well-being of our country. The question of who should pay for it, is an easy question to answer. The consuming public pays most for it, and then there are individuals who have small resources and contribute, and some who have larger amounts and contribute. We have wealthy people who give a lot to the arts. And then I think businesses are inclined to want to contribute because they know that the fabric of the life in their communities has a lot to do with the well-being of their workers and makes their businesses better places to be because of the arts that exist there. A community without arts is like a desert without rain. Foundations help pay for the arts. And, yes, believe it or not, I think taxpayers should. When I think of what we are asking the taxpayers to do, when you add up the NEA and the NEH, and we add up their budget of $256 million, we will vote like that on billions in entitlements, no debate; and yet we debate for a fairly significant amount of time how we spend a million dollars. I think taxpayers should play a role, a minimal role, but play a role. When I look at it, we are asking each taxpayer to pay, for the entire--the NEA and NEH--budget, 91 cents. This amendment is asking taxpayers to pay 4.5 cents more. The reason we ask taxpayers to do it is because the cost can be spread across all of them, and then it is so affordable for each and every one of us. No one is going to pretend that the arts survive because of what we do as taxpayers, because we are the smallest part. The consumers pay the most. Individuals, businesses, and foundations contribute far more than the government; but the government, I think, is saying we would like to have a role here as well. I salute the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), and I am proud to be a co-chair of the Arts Caucus; but the gentlewoman is the one who is calling the shots on this, and I thank her for all of her work. I may have a particular bias. My mom and dad met in the theater. I grew up almost every night hearing my dad play the piano. I realize how vital the arts are to our well-being as a society. I feel it is almost more important when we are involved in warfare around the world that the other part of us, the part that deals with beauty and grace, is also being heard. I do not want to just be a person who supports the war on terror, supports the war in Iraq, which I am. I also want a part of me and a part of my constituency to be expressed in the love and appreciation for arts. I strongly ask my colleagues to ask the American people to pay 4.5 cents more each so that we can make the arts better, and I strongly ask them to support President Bush and the First Lady. The First Lady rarely asks this Chamber for anything. She has specifically said, please spend more on the arts. I am glad to oblige her. I would like to just conclude by saying that I think that this Chairman has done his best with the limited resources he has and this subcommittee, and I appreciate them for understanding why we have this amendment and that the process is working the way it is intended. The Subcommittee has brought out, I think, what they believe to be a very good bill. We would like to make a slight change to it. I hope ultimately the Chamber will agree.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, protecting our environment and promoting energy independence are two of the most important jobs I have as a Member of Congress. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today is another missed opportunity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower gasoline prices, promote energy efficiency and conservation, and improve our air, land and water quality. We had a chance to devise a forward-looking energy policy that would have increased fuel efficiency, prioritized conservation, made polluters, including MTBE producers, pay for harming our environment, and advanced a renewable portfolio standard. Instead what we have is quite a bad bill. I fail to understand why the major thrust of the bill's tax provisions involve further subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, rather than providing incentives for conservation and renewable sources of energy. These are enormously profitable industries operating in a time of record energy prices. Clearly, these profits demonstrate the market has already provided the fossil fuel industries with sufficient incentive to increase production. Instead of creating a balanced energy policy that provides incentives to make renewable energy more affordable and widely available, we are making fiscally irresponsible and environmentally-reckless decisions for the benefit of a few profitable industries that don't need this kind of help from taxpayers. I strongly oppose a provision in the bill that allows for the permanent activation of the Cross Sound Cable. In doing so, the bill subverts the regulatory process and ignores sound environmental policy. I also oppose provisions in this bill related to the transmission of electricity. For instance, the Energy Policy Act allows the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission (FERC) to preempt state sitting authority when it is determined that a high-voltage power line is of ``national significance.'' The fact is FERC arbitrarily gets to make that determination. While I find the bulk of this bill environmentally-shortsighted, I am pleased it does not include provisions to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and drilling. In my judgment, it would be far better to develop prudent and lasting renewable energy sources than to risk irreparable damage to the wilderness of one of North America's most beautiful frontiers. I look forward to the day when we will have an opportunity to vote for a fiscally-prudent, environmentally-responsible national energy policy. Today is not that day.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I count my blessings for President Ronald Reagan. I count my blessings for this man because he spoke from his heart and he spoke the truth. Obviously he was an exceptional communicator, but he was also extraordinarily honest. You did not have to wonder where Ronald Reagan was coming from. He had core principles: confronting tyranny, expressing strength to the world, believing in our market economy, reducing the size of government. The bottom line is, he had extraordinary faith in our country, in the promise of America that the best of America is yet to come. And the best generations of Americans are yet to come. He trusted Americans to spend their own money and lead their own lives. In the process he knew our country and the world would benefit. I am absolutely convinced President Reagan totally changed the debate. He helped our country recognize that people have their own sense of self-worth and that we trust them to do the right thing.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the Westport Volunteer Emergency Medical Service (WVEMS) on their Quarter Century Anniversary for their outstanding work. The men and women who dedicate their time and energy to the WVEMS are shining examples of civic duty. As volunteers, they are vital to the Westport community. The WVEMS volunteers come from all walks of life. Some of them run their own businesses, some are students. They have busy lives, yet they make time because they feel the need to give something back. Some are seniors who worked hard all their life and deserve to sit back and simply relax, yet they go out and volunteer their time and energy for a greater cause. Over the years, the many awards and distinctions from local, State and national organizations--the Veterans of Foreign Wars, designation as a Connecticut Treasure and National Gold Award for Volunteer Corps from EMS Publications just to name a few--illustrate the selfless dedication with which they help countless individuals in need. For two and a half decades WVEMS has gone above and beyond the call of duty to provide exceptional service, providing over half a million volunteer hours to date. Their efforts have formed a truly remarkable tradition. Fifteen of the founding members of the WVEMS are still with the Service, regularly putting in time to help others. Each one of them has been designated an American Red Cross Unsung Hero. Today, I want to sing their praise: Edward and Elizabeth Audley; Patricia Audley; Sharon Barnett; Russel M. Blair; Susan DeWitt; Michael Feigin; Richard Frazier; Neil Harding; Thomas M. Keenan; Kathleen Todd; Alan Yoder; Isabel Blair; Alan Stolz; Nettie Skinner; and Pasquale Salvo--you are heroes! Two other members have been with the WVEMS for a quarter century, and I would like to commend them for their dedication over the years: Jay Paretzky and April Anne Yoder. I would also like to include all the other active members of the WVEMS: William Puterbaugh; Norman Coltin; Sandra McPherson; Jeffrey T. Lea; Andrew Dinitz; Loretta S. Harsche; Marge Costa; Christine A. Evans; Todd M. Smith; Mark A. Blake; Anthony F. Santo; Donald E. Smith III; Thomas F. Burrows; Martha M. McGorry; Elizabeth Slattery; Chris VanDeusen; Diane Salvo; Benjamin Frimmer; Barbara F. Wood; Barbara Babash; Arlene M. Healy; Amy Smith; Linda Canterbury; Albert Bassett; Mary Jane Cross; KC Duffy; Linda Green; Carole Grob; Dorothy Harris; Gordon Joseloff; Chris Sanders; Whitney Cusa; James Flint; Nicole Donovan; Toni Cribari; Mary Minard; Terrence Blake; Michele Brewster; Michael Falbo; Cheryl Jones; Michael Quan; Rico Tiberio; Sylvia Lempit; Susannah Kehl; AnnaLiisa Joseloff; James Hinckley; Nanci Jenkins; David Heinmiller; Rainy Broomfield; Ronald Carkner; Donna Patchen; Robert Redman; Olivia Weeks; Courtenay Quinn; Joseph Devermann; Linda Gale; Jean Marie Wiesen; Nancy Strong; Gregory Coghlan; Paul Resnick; Barbra Utting; Adam Sappern; Nancy Fusaro; Wendy Hill; Megan Watson; Kristin Ancona; Kathryn Min; William Min; Susan Parks; Jamie Talbot; Michael Rickard; Marc Hartog; Michael Engelskirger; Craig Kupson; Elizabeth Jennings; Glenn Eisen; Angela Chichila; Anna Dowdle; Ashley Hawley; Andrea Hoboken; Dustin Schur; Jackie Stenson; Carol Boas; Yannick Passemart; Kerry Volmar; Michael Wilmot; Danielle Faul; David Bodach; Christin Giordano; Zack Klomberg; Jordan Kunkes; Alma Loya; Whitney Riggio; Kimber Roberts; Alicia Wong; Karen Bizzak; Margaret Russell; Richard Arriaga; Carol Dixon; Gabrielle O'Halloran; Daniel Rappaport; Dora Sweet; Lois Benfield; Adele Donohue; Susan Shewchuk; Nancy Toll; Pamela Nenham; Matthew Rees; Richard Celotto; John Sommers; Caroline Andrew; James Gray; Stephanie Howson; Rebecca Kamins; Kaitlyn Mello; Elizabeth Parks; Christian Renne; Rob Stewart; Emma Trucks; Christina Voonasis; Maryanne Boyle; Robert Dowling; Yashasvi Jhangiani; Maribeth Nixon; and Steve Brothers. Your service is outstanding!

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to recognize two Fourth Congressional District members of our military, Wilfredo Perez, Jr., from Norwalk, Connecticut; and Tyanna Avery Felder from Bridgeport, Connecticut; both lost their lives in Iraq fighting for freedom and fighting for justice and fighting for the United States of America on behalf of a better world. We have lost 773 in Iraq. We have lost 122 men and women in Afghanistan. And I think it is just absolutely essential we recognize all who have lost their lives by wearing this red poppy on Memorial Day and asking all Americans do that. I thank the sponsors of this legislation for advocating that kind of recognition. I close by saluting one community, in the 4th Congressional District, Greenwich, Connecticut. In Old Greenwich the community rings a bell for every American who has lost his or her life fighting for America, and that goes back before the Revolutionary War. We are a great Nation, with an extraordinary history. We must never forget those who served in battle and came home draped in an American flag.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as we have developed this fiscal year 2005 budget resolution, I have listened carefully to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The one common theme for the many budget alternatives offered by the Congressional Black Caucus, the Blue Dogs, and the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget on behalf of the Democratic Caucus has been higher taxes and more spending. I have also heard too frequently that my side of the aisle is cutting spending for important programs, like education, veterans, and health care. The fact is when you look at Federal spending for the last few years, you will see few programs that have not received significant increases, in most cases very significant increases. Only in Washington do we call a spending increase a cut. I think our budget can be summed up in one word: responsible. We think it is responsible to control spending at a time of mounting budget deficits. By freezing nondefense, nonhomeland security spending for 1 year, we are taking a painful, but necessary, step towards fiscal responsibility. I strongly support many of these programs, but I also know being fiscally responsible requires tough choices, like we made in the late 1990s, including Members saying no to increases to many popular programs. We think it is responsible to not raise taxes during a period of economic recovery. The tax relief we passed in 2001 and 2003 fueled the economy to 8.2 percent growth in the third quarter of 2003, the highest growth rate in 20 years; 4.1 percent growth in the fourth quarter of last year; and 4.2 percent growth in the first quarter of 2004. Additionally, the unemployment rate declined from 6.3 percent in June 2003 to 5.6 percent in April 2004. While this substantial growth in the economy is welcome news, we know there is still work to do, particularly with employment. We think it is important to continue the policies that have led to the current economic recovery. The fact is there are more jobs today than ever before, but there are more people looking for work. We also think it is responsible to plan for ongoing military operations around the world. All of us, on both sides of the aisles, want to make sure we provide whatever resources are necessary for the men and women of our Armed Forces who are risking their lives as we speak. I look at the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) as a good example. For this reason, we have provided $50 billion for fiscal year 2005 for the additional cost associated with our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would just add it is absolutely critical we give this budget the force of law. The Committee on the Budget has marked up legislation that would reinstate discretionary spending caps and pay-as-you-go on mandatory spending. I appreciate the leadership's willingness to consider this legislation soon after we return in June. Mr. Speaker, from 1997 until 2001, the books of the Federal budget showed that we were running a surplus. For the 40 years prior to that, the country was running deficits. I was grateful that we played a significant role in crafting the budget in the 1990s that not only got us to balance, but got us there ahead of time. We did it by cutting taxes, controlling the growth of spending, and growing the economy. This budget begins to use that model to address the deficit and get our country's financial house in order.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on May 18, I was returning to Washington from the World Economic Forum in Amman, Jordan and, therefore, missed three recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 180, ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 181, and ``no'' on recorded vote No. 182.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and his bill, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act, and thank his staff as well for the fine work they have done. This legislation is a needed addition and an improvement of existing law. H.R. 2432 would increase the transparency and effectiveness of government and lessen the burden associated with taxation-related paperwork for small businesses. In 1980, the Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act, which established the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The principal responsibility of this office is to reduce the paperwork burden from Federal regulations on the American public. The burden is considerable. According to a 2001 study, Americans spend an estimated $843 billion annually to comply with Federal regulations. It is our responsibility as Members of Congress to review the new agency rules and regulations. Most importantly, it is our duty to find ways to reduce red tape. In order to fulfill this responsibility, Congress needs detailed information on the costs and benefits associated with each regulation. The Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act would ensure this information is provided to Congress. H.R. 2432 would do three things. It would require the Office of Management and Budget to seek agency input for its annual regulatory accounting report to Congress; permanently fund an independent regulatory analysis function within the General Accounting Office; and authorize OMB to designate at least three agencies to conduct a 2-year study on regulatory budgeting. Based on the results of this study, OMB will report to Congress on the feasibility of regulatory budgeting. We can then determine if it is a useful tool for managing regulatory burdens on the public. Finally, this legislation addresses the challenges small businesses face with regard to the paperwork burden. Small businesses spend an extremely disproportionate amount of resources, time, and money on compliance with regulations. The largest share, almost 80 percent of the paperwork, is taxation-related paperwork. H.R. 2432 would require the OMB and the Internal Revenue Service to jointly develop specific solutions to reduce the paperwork burden on small businesses. It is time Congress paid attention to this pressing problem. Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge all of my colleagues here today to support this sound piece of legislation.