Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as I prepare to conclude my presentation and yield back my time this evening, I truly have enjoyed the give and take that we have had this evening under the leadership of our subcommittee chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, the work that has been done by staff members on both sides of the aisle, the passion, the emotion, the concern, and the professionalism that we have witnessed. I personally have appreciated it. I think it is a healthy give-and- take that we have had. I think it is an important debate. It is not the last word that we are going to enjoy. I would simply make a couple of points in closing. I continue to be concerned that we not talk past one another. There is going to be, under existing United States law, no aid for Hamas. It is illegal to give assistance to a terrorist organization. Hamas certainly is. And they are not going to be entitled to aid regardless of what happens with this bill. I continue to be concerned that the language of the bill is not, as some of my friends who have spoken on the other side of the aisle refer to, talking about how humanitarian aid can go through. That is not what the bill says. It is health that is the automatic pass-through. Education, as has been referenced, is not a part of the automatic exemption. This lack of flexibility is one of the reasons why this bill is opposed by Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek, Shalom, Churches for Middle East Peace, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The bill sets permanent and inflexible limits on the United States's ability to be involved with Israel and Palestine, whether or not Hamas is in power. And that is a mistake. It goes far beyond dealing with the ramifications of January's elections, and Hamas's rise to power, essentially Palestinian moderates and institutions that have nothing to do with Hamas. Most independent observers feel that that is counterproductive and it may well end up backfiring and actually providing further strength to the extremists. I listened to the delightful exchange between Mr. Lantos and Mr. Frank on the floor earlier. I always marvel watching two parliamentary masters go back and forth. I listened to Mr. Frank's argument tying it back to earmarking. And it was a thoughtful and amazing argument. But one of the concerns I have, given the nature of Hamas, and listening very carefully to Mr. Frank's words, is they are going to claim credit any way they can for anything that happens, much as we see political processes generally do that. It is important that in our desire to stop Hamas from either assistance or a foothold for claiming credit, that we are very surgical about what we do for the Palestinian people, and the ability to move forward with peace. Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to review the administration's concerns. They have stated that they feel it is unnecessary, as the executive branch already has ample authority to impose all its restrictions. It does constrain the executive's ability in the flexibility to use sanctions as appropriate to address rapidly changing circumstances, which we all sincerely hope happen for the positive in this troubled area of the world. Their concerns about the mandatory nature of the bill's sanctions, the relative absence that relates to activities absent an unachievable certification, a lack of a general waiver authority on its key ban on assistance, and that these limitations should be time limited. The administration has also raised the concern that the exemption for ``basic human health needs'' is too narrow and should be broadened to ``basic human needs''. Indeed both sides on the floor this evening often used those two terms interchangeably, but they are very different under the bill. But I do think we have reached the point where both my leg and my store of information here has been exhausted. I wanted to make one last point, because there has been reference this evening to the joy of serving with Mr. Lantos. I never cease to marvel, when we are in the midst of this, that he adds a dimension to the debate that I think is very important. I never cease to learn something in the course of what happens in the committee or here on the floor. Reference has been made to him as the only Holocaust survivor who has walked these halls. And it adds a dimension, not just to this debate, but one that carries through in activities in Asia, in Africa, in the bigger picture across the world. But there is one other accolade because Mr. Lantos is a professor, and I appreciate the scholarly approach he brings that tempers his experience and his emotion that makes this a learning experience. And I truly believe that as a result of his input this evening that this has been a valuable learning experience for me, and I think it has enriched the record. Whatever happens with this legislation as it goes through the course of the legislature, as I do not doubt that it will pass tomorrow, that we will all be a little more knowledgeable as a result of this, and I think, in the long run, we will be able to do our jobs better, and for that, I thank him. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, as I yield the gentleman from New York 4 minutes, I would give myself 30 seconds to make two observations. One, there will be no aid to Hamas, whether this bill passes or not. It is against United States law to give assistance to a terrorist organization. Second, I would reference the exact language of the word where the exemption is assistance to meet basic human health needs, not broad humanitarian. The language of the bill is actually quite clear. Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, Mr. Hinchey, for 4 minutes.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, to respond to my distinguished colleague, nowhere here have I said I want the administration to have unrestrained flexibility. Not once. And I am not expressing delight that we are on the same side. What I said was when I find I am in agreement, I look forward to ways to work with them. When I see them move in directions I wish they had done with Afghanistan and Iraq, for heaven's sake, I am going to move in this direction with the stakes so high. With all due respect, it is not a question of giving unlimited flexibility to the administration. I have never said that, am not interested in it. There is a framework here in terms of the sanctions that we are talking about, things like extending beyond the narrow definition of health to deal with humanitarian assistance and environmental cleanup. There are a whole host of things that could have been dealt with here in the ambit of this legislation. I share with my good friend an interest in having this administration be more accountable to Congress and come forward and answer our questions. I would like oversight about what is going on in Iraq and what is going on in Afghanistan. Heaven knows I would. But that does not mean that we ought to have unnecessarily restrictive and burdensome activities that are going to work against what I think are the interests of the Israeli people, the Palestinians and citizens of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, I would yield myself 5 minutes, because I have been sitting here reflecting on my good friend from California's comments about people who suddenly are the best friend of the administration who have been critical of them. Well, I have only been here 10 years, not as long as my distinguished friend, but one of the things I have tried to do with Republican and Democratic administrations alike, when it comes to foreign policy, is to attempt to be supportive when I agree but to be clear that when I disagree, when I think they are wrong, to stand up. I take a back seat to no one in terms of my opposition to this administration's reckless conduct in Iraq. I have been consistent on that from the beginning. One of the concerns I had about this administration was their disdain for nation-building. You will recall the rhetoric of then Governor Bush. But part of our obligation as Members of this chamber is to be supportive when we can. Because in the conduct of foreign policy, it would be nice if it did stop at the water's edge. I appreciate that the administration has changed its position on nation-building and has actually requested more assistance than it looks like this Congress is going to give them for foreign aid. When they were willing to work with us in water and sanitation, I embraced that. I think we should reinforce positive things that we can agree on. That is what the American public wants. I do not think we should be reflexive and negative. The administration has raised a legitimate concern about flexibility, about being able to implement it, and these are consistent with Republican and Democratic administrations in the past in terms of not wanting sanctions to go on forever and wanting to have the flexibility to respond, not after 25 days of consultation according to very, narrow little channels, but to be able to act responsibly to practice diplomacy. The history of this House of Representatives is not very illustrious when it comes to many of these questions. Congress has sort of flitted around and has been subjected to the pressures of the moment and has not always been a constructive ally. As we know, this House passed a draft by only one vote immediately before World War II. Lots of simple, commonsense straight-ahead solutions that we have been involved with have not always been the best and most carefully crafted. I come forward not being a fan of this administration in many areas, in many areas, but in this one, as I listen to them, as I look at the requested flexibility, as I look at independent experts, as I hear from religious leaders back home and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, I see a wide range of people that support the concerns that the administration share with us.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Dean of the House. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds. Mr. Speaker, invoking the Bush doctrine, the previous speaker talks about humanitarian assistance. One of the concerns that the Bush administration has in not supporting this bill is that it is too narrowly drawn, talking about ``health,'' and not broader humanitarian assistance. Mr. Speaker, I will discuss that later in the course of the evening. Due to the mandatory nature of the bill, its lack of a general waiver, the executive branch thinks it is unnecessary. It already has ample authority to impose all its restrictions, and constrains the executive branch's flexibility to use sanctions as appropriate as tools to address rapidly changing circumstances. These are the words of the administration. And I think the Congress would do well to consider them. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Everybody on this floor wants to send the same loud and clear message: that Congress is united in its opposition to terror and we are all deeply concerned about the future and security of our close friend and ally, Israel. This debate is not about our shared revulsion at those who would murder innocent citizens or sow terror for political purposes. It is not about current law, which prohibits any assistance to Hamas or a Hamas-controlled government, which Congress unanimously reaffirmed earlier this year. For many people, we will find tonight that this is a very personal issue. For anyone who has visited Israel, you understand. When I first visited Jerusalem, I couldn't help but be struck by how close the holy sites of the three great religions are, less than the distance of a Tiger Woods 5-iron shot. I will always cherish the opportunity in a more optimistic time, to visit a security checkpoint outside Ramallah, jointly manned by Israelis and Palestinians. The possibility of that moment, its fragility and the ramifications of failure, have been brought home to me repeatedly in recent years. I was and am impressed by the diversity of opinions in Israel, by its vibrant tradition of democracy and heated debate. But I am also struck by how we are seeing elements of that vibrant debate within the American pro-Israeli community over the bill that is before us this evening. As someone committed to Israel's security and to the vision of the two states living side by side in peace, I reluctantly oppose the legislation this evening, despite my deep respect for my colleagues who are bringing it forward on both sides of the aisle. The bill before us is one that the administration does not need nor want. It sets permanent and inflexible limits on the United States, whether or not Hamas is in power. It could potentially limit the United States' ability to help our friend Israel if Israel decides in the future that working with a non- Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority is in their best interests. Remember in 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin asked the United States to support a flawed Palestinian Authority because he felt it was important for Israel's security. Had the stringent conditions in this bill been in place, we would have had to have said no. In 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked the United States to support the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. Had the stringent conditions in this bill been in place, we would have had to say no. Should a future Israeli leader come and ask us to support the Palestinian Authority, after Hamas is forced from power, we shouldn't allow the conditions in this bill to force us to say no. Unfortunately, this bill defines the Palestinian Authority to include the Palestinian legislative counsel, as long as members of Hamas are in the Palestinian Parliament. We would have to say no to Israel's request. As has been pointed out with Libya, the debate over Libya, sometimes we allow diplomatic relations with imperfect regimes because progress can best be made through engagement instead of isolation. This bill goes far beyond the ramifications of January's election and Hamas' rise to power. It would restrict relations with and support for Palestinian groups and institutions that have nothing to do with terror or rejectionism. It places sanctions on the Palestinian leaders and parts of Palestinian civil society who support peace with Israel, oppose terrorism and who, if the two-state vision comes to pass, will form the backbone of a democratic society. There is, in this legislation, no recognition that Palestinian society is deeply divided, and that it makes no sense to put sanctions on President Abbas, reformers, even activists for democracy, peace and coexistence. The bill would prohibit the assistance we give to schools that teach peace, to democratic and peaceful political organizations, to groups promoting cooperation with Israel on shared environmental challenges. It would even punish the democratic opposition by prohibiting visas for moderate Palestinian legislators or government officials who oppose Hamas. It would prevent the PLO, of which Hamas isn't a member, and which was not impacted by the election of Hamas, from having representatives in Washington or at the United Nations. I am afraid that this legislation may well backfire by actually strengthening the hands of extremists. Remember, this past winter, the House, in our wisdom, voted to demand that the Palestinians prevent Hamas from running in the legislative elections, telling the Palestinian people to reject them. I don't think it was any accident that Hamas election banners had: ``Israel and America say `no' to Hamas. What do you say?'' I can't help think that any objective appraisal would suggest that the United States Congress, telling them what they could do, may well have provided that extra boost for Hamas' prospects at the election. This bill provides no diplomatic horizon, no sunset. It is in perpetuity. It does little to prioritize on the basis of our strategic interest and provides no prospect for Palestinian reform coming through the process of negotiations. In so doing, it weakens the hands of those who advocate for peace negotiations and supports those extremists who believe in violence. Democracy is a complex process in the Middle East and all too rare in the Middle East. The election of Hamas shows that for the kinds of democracies we want to see, elections aren't enough. We need to promote the kinds of democratic institutions, free civil society, conducive to sustainable, liberal democracy in Palestinian territories. The President needs to be free to do just that, with congressional oversight, not congressional prohibitions and micromanagement. I understand the sincere concern that many people who support this legislation have, but it is too onerous and burdensome on an administration that needs to practice diplomacy. Democracy is a continuing process that helps transform those who practice it. I agree with the rabbi from my district who wrote that, ``change is everything in politics, no matter how bleak the situation currently is,'' in expressing his opposition to this legislation. We cannot support Hamas or other terrorist groups, but neither should we close the door on change. Most of the Members of this body consider themselves to be strong friends and supporters of Israel. So do I. That is why I will urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition. I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Later this week, there will be consideration of an amendment from Mr. Flake of Arizona and me dealing with the notorious sugar subsidy program, proposing a tiny reduction in it. For anyone who wants a lesson in how your government works, a review of the politics surrounding the sugar quota system is a textbook example of how the political process can distort reality and why. A Dear Colleague letter is circulating touting the benefits of a ``no cost to the taxpayer sugar program.'' This does not pass the straight face test anywhere in America but Washington, DC. The most junior intern working in any congressional office who is doing independent research can quickly verify that this is not a ``no cost program.'' There are huge costs to the taxpayer, the government and the environment. Straight off the top, this ``no cost program'' requires American consumers to pay almost $2 billion a year more for sugar and sugar- related products. Only in Washington, DC would $2 billion be ``no cost.'' Then there is the loss to industries for whom paying two to three times the price of the world price of sugar makes a big difference. There used to be a thriving confectionery industry, manufacturing in Hershey, Pennsylvania; in New England, in Chicago. Many of these jobs have since disappeared, being driven across the border to Canada, Mexico or elsewhere where sugar prices are dramatically lower. Only the powerful sugar lobbyists and the people who listen to them would think that $2 billion a year that will be required to store and purchase surplus sugar over the next 10 years would be no cost. One of the most perverse effects of the sugar program has been to dramatically increase cane sugar production in the State of Florida. Over the last 50 years the amount of acreage surrounding the Everglades has increased 800 percent. All of this sugar production is in the Everglades. This expansion has devastating consequences. Pollution, polluted runoff, and changed water flow attributed to the sugar industry is a significant reason why we are paying seven to $8 billion as a down payment to clean up the Everglades and redo the plumbing. The sugar lobbyists in Washington, DC would lead you to believe that this is no cost. How can this be? How can people pretend to believe this claptrap? Well, an important reason this travesty continues is to be found in campaign contribution reports. This industry is only 1 percent of American agriculture, yet it spends 17 percent of the campaign contributions for agriculture and countless millions more lobbying and producing bogus surveys currently circulating on Capitol Hill. I suggest if Members want to do a favor for the environment, for the taxpayer, allow a junior intern to do your research to determine whether or not this has no cost. This research done by any college economics student, in any college political science class, or by the outstandingly bright young men and women who work for us as volunteers on Capitol Hill right now as interns can demonstrate to any Member's satisfaction that it is not worth the cost. It is time to approve the Blumenauer-Flake amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I want to just make one point, apropos the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee. The $5.3 billion that he is talking about, which will not be spent rapidly, is for all of base realignment and closure activity. That is for reconstruction, that is for building, that is for a whole range of things. It is not just the critical cleanup of the explosives. It is not where there is the critical danger. So there is a whole range of things in there that I think any objective person on this floor would say is much less of a priority to save lives than what the gentlewoman from Florida pointed out. Our amendment focuses on putting the money where it is going to do the most--the clean up that is essential, that has been delayed and delayed and delayed. I understand the Chair's concern that we don't want to delay the 2005 BRAC. Bear in mind, the amendment that we are offering deals with the people long before that, who have been waiting and waiting and waiting. I would suggest there is no fiscal impact that is going to hurt over the long haul. The financial incentives that he references will be available if we have the economy of scale for the ones that are more dangerous and are more delayed.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I had the Clerk go ahead to read the numbers, because I think that we want to get one point clear from the outset. It looks like there is a big cut of $440 million in order to be able to spend $77,500,000. The point is, it is the same number. There is a vast increase in the amount of money that has been set aside, a $3.6 billion increase, for the 2005 base closure account. But we are not going to spend that money. The payout rate is only 5 percent. That is why you have to reduce it, under our arcane budget rules, by over $400 million to get $77 million back. The point is the tax dollars are exactly the same; and, additionally, the point, is where are we going to spend it? I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment with my colleague Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite from Florida because we are trying to focus on the serious problem of the toxic legacy of military operations in this country. I have a map behind me where we have identified 3,398 sites around the country already. There are more that we are discovering. The particular area we want to focus on today is that we are not spending adequate resources to deal with the bases that have already been closed. We have 140,000 acres that cannot be transferred because they haven't been adequately cleaned up from the previous BRAC closings. And this isn't just a case of, well, don't worry about it, put up some barbed wire and it will go away. These are problems that continue over time. Unexploded ordnance has killed dozens of people. I have interesting little materials here. These are promotional materials that the Department of Defense gives to our soldiers to try and recognize it. This is a problem that threatens the health and well-being of our men and women in service right now on our bases. One of my favorites is Larry the Lizard. This is being distributed in Southern California, coloring books, to tell children not to pick these things up. Now, if it is your son, your niece, your granddaughter, your little brother, maybe you feel better that there is a Larry the Lizard coloring book. But wouldn't you feel better if we stepped up and met our obligation and actually picked up those bombs, those unexploded munitions? I think you would. I know I would. I think it is time that Congress no longer be missing in action on the issue of military cleanup. We don't know at this point whether there are 10 million acres or 40 million acres with unexploded ordnance. Now, I appreciate, and I have expressed my admiration for this subcommittee's sinking their teeth into it and trying to do something, like my colleague, Mr. Farr, for his tireless championing of this cause. But this amendment today, this little amendment, shifting the same amount of money that will be spent from the most recent round of base closures with $5.3 billion to increase the small amount of money that has been allocated to deal with prior facilities is a step in the right direction. It would be a tragedy if we are going to continue to stretch this out over time. Our first obligation ought to be to those people who have suffered this experience before. Mather Air Force Base in California isn't slated to be cleaned up until 2072 under the current rate of expenditure. They were closed in the first round. That is unconscionable. At the rate we are going, it is a 200- to 300-year problem, and every delay means that we do not return the land to productive use. It means that people's lives are in jeopardy. We are coming up to fire season, and we are probably going to have to pull firefighters out of some of the forests where there had been training and there is a danger of the bombs exploding. We are spending enough money on national defense that we can prioritize dealing with this toxic legacy that will make families safer at home and people around the world. Because, bear in mind, the sooner we develop this technology and refine the techniques, not only will it help us clean up here at home, that technology will be available to make our soldiers safe overseas as well.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I want to understand this because I think it is very important. My understanding is the reason the offset of $440 million is required is because they are not going to spend more than $77 million this next year; is that correct?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak. I appreciate Mr. Edwards' leadership, that of Chairman Walsh, and my good friend, Sam Farr, for taking the attention to the problem of the toxic and explosive legacy of 225 years of military operations in the United States. We are not talking about problems overseas, we are talking about communities in every single State in the Union. Mr. Farr's experience with Fort Ord over, I don't know, over 15 years now, has demonstrated the scope and scale of the promise, if we do it right, there are tremendous opportunities. Many of these bases are jewels that can be returned to productive use. His experience has also shown how complicated they can be; that if we don't have the right plan, we don't invest the resources, it can drag on and on and on. Sadly, we have over 3,000 sites around the country that still are a part of this toxic legacy. I do appreciate what the subcommittee has done. You have a difficult job. I wouldn't want to have to balance those equities. But I am here today arguing for more attention and more resources to deal with accelerating the problem in the past and the promises of the past. I am going to offer an amendment in a few minutes that would transfer from the 2005 BRAC account money that will be used to deal with the first four rounds and those communities that are waiting. Now, there are going to be some who will say, well, you are offsetting a much bigger number than the mere $77 million. And that is because the 5.3 billion, an increase of $3.6 billion that is technically set aside for 2005 is not going to be spent. The payout rate is something like 5 percent for this next year. You are not going to use it. It is a phony number. You can safely transfer resources to help people who have already suffered closure and who have not been dealt with fairly by this Congress. You can look at Mather Air Force Base in California, closed in the first round, and their cleanup isn't slated to be completed until 2072. That is unconscionable. I would respectfully request that Congress no longer be missing in action when it comes to cleaning up the bombs, the munitions, the fuel depot, the multiple problems that have been left by communities, for communities to deal with, and impede the recycling. On base closures under BRAC, the unexploded bombs and chemical contamination prevents 140,000 acres on closed and realigned bases from being transferred right now to local communities for redevelopment. The last point I would make is that it goes far beyond this subcommittee. Again, I appreciate their attention and the work they have done, but we have to have the appropriations committee and the authorizing committees to get serious about this. We have an up and down cycle where we put some money in and then the money goes away. We transfer it in areas when all of a sudden there is a huge problem that gets the attention, like Spring Valley in Washington, DC. on the campus of the American University. That is where we tested and developed chemical weapons during World War I. We have had three cleanups to try and solve that problem. The more that we focus on this, the more that we invest on an ongoing basis, the more that we develop the techniques, the technology, it is not just going to save people around the country from this problem, but that same technology that will help us figure out whether it is a hub cap or a 105 millimeter shell will be able to be used to protect our soldiers in Iraq. That is how I lost my first constituent, was a land mine. Now, I would suggest that, if we get serious about this, we will not only accelerate the technology and the research that will make our communities safer and healthier here at home, but it will protect lives of our service people overseas and will also deal with the vast amounts of munitions and land mines that are scattered all around the world that kill innocent victims every day.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am sad that we don't have maximum flexibility under the way the rule is structured to speak to the needs of American veterans; and I will vote against it. But I hope that we can spend this time also focusing on some broader issues. Luckily, there is a provision that will permit me to provide an amendment today to help with the cleanup of the vast toxic legacy that America faces in every State of the Union from unexploded munitions and military toxins, from training exercises, from old military depots, from having shells lobbed by generations of cadets at West Point that have been in the Storm King Forest. Every State in the Union, over 3,000 sites, have been identified as areas that need cleanup. I want to say I appreciate what Mr. Walsh, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Farr have done with this important military quality of life committee in starting to focus on this. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the real problem is that Congress has been missing in action when it comes to cleaning up this toxic legacy. I had a Member of this body yesterday tell me, well, we really don't need to put more money in it. He wasn't sure that it was worth it. Let's just have barbed wire around them, keep people out and save the money for things that are more important. This is a Member that I deeply respect but who betrayed a tragic lack of understanding of exactly the scope and magnitude of this problem and what would be the benefit of handling it properly. I could tell this gentleman that there were dozens of cases where innocent civilians, in some cases children, have been killed because bombs have turned up in the back of a subdivision that people have just walked away from. Or the gentleman rototilling his yard in Five Points, Texas, rototilling up a bomb. Or three times since I have been in Congress we have had to pull firefighters out of forest fires because bombs were exploding, generated by the heat. Now these are not things that we can simply walk away from. There are areas where munitions break down over time and the toxic leaks into the groundwater which creates a larger problem. There is also the notion that there are 10 million, 20 million, 30 million acres or more, nobody knows exactly how much, polluted or potentially polluted that is not available for hunting and fishing, that is not available for redevelopment, for housing, for industrial use, to be put back on the tax rolls. Ultimately, this is a responsibility that the Department of Defense and the Federal Government is going to have to assume. Putting up barbed wire and walking away doesn't solve the problem. But one of the things that I would hope would focus attention by Members of this assembly is not just the long-term benefits, not just cleaning it up, not just returning it to productive use but think about who is at risk, because it is our soldiers, their families, the employees of these bases and their neighbors that are most at risk. What is to be solved by kicking the can down the road and ignoring it? Last, but by no means least, if we get the technology right that will enable us to find out whether it is a hubcap or a 105-millimeter shell that is buried under the ground, that just doesn't help us clean up these 3,000 sites in the United States. That same technology would save the lives of our soldiers right now who are at risk every day in Iraq from roadside bombs, from land mines. That is how I lost my first constituent in Iraq, was a young man killed by a land mine. By Congress continuing to be missing in action not taking a significant step to clean up this toxic explosive legacy, we are not just putting at risk the environment, we are not just putting at risk children who are playing in subdivisions or firefighters who will fight in the next forest fire where there are bombs and toxic legacy, they are putting at risk our soldiers, our men and women overseas who won't benefit from the techniques and the technology. I appreciate what the subcommittee has done trying to train the attention. It is time for this body to step up and agitate to make their job a little harder and for our friends on the Appropriations Committee in Defense appropriations to invest in doing this right. I oppose the rule. I look forward to bringing an amendment later in the debate to be able to at least put a little bit of money to deal with the problem in other parts of the United States now.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency launched the P3 Award, a competition that focuses on the three components of sustainability: People, Prosperity and the Planet. Groups of undergraduate and graduate students from all around the country collaboratively design and develop projects that improve the environment, economy, and livability of their communities. These projects range from developing green tea polymers to treat cancer, to using bio-composite materials in load-bearing elements in buildings. All of the projects involved in the 2006 competition were innovative and novel, but only a few won the P3 Award, making them eligible to apply for grants of up to $75,000. Among the winners is a group from Portland State University in Oregon. Michelle Guthrie, Candy Lai Kuen, and Kristen Lans designed an educational and interactive website called WISE--Whole systems, Integrated Site design for Education. The website, hosted by a friendly and informative owl, guides students through a multi-step process to improve the sustainability of their school campus, and ultimately, get them interested in improving the sustainability of their communities at large. Portland State University has a long standing reputation for innovative and progressive thinking, offering programs that foster and promote sustainability, so it is no surprise that this award-winning project came from Portland State minds. The project, as well as the university community itself, serves as a strong example of the educational values we need to promote in this country. I want to congratulate the project adviser, Pramod Parajuli, and the entire university community on this tremendous success. Most of all, I congratulate these women whose combination of talent and commitment lead to the development of this exciting and valuable project. I am honored by their service to our community.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill, which should be one of the highlights of this congressional session, of any congressional session, as it touches on things that are near and dear to the hearts of the people we represent: clean air, vast open space, environmental protection, investment in the arts, and the public lands that are so meaningful to people. Mr. Chairman, there are important provisions in this bill that I do support. I appreciate the subcommittee funding for land acquisition in the Columbia River Gorge which will help us honor Federal commitments to communities in Oregon and Washington along a priceless national treasure. But, sadly, overall what should be a positive expression of our values, our hopes, and opportunities instead is a pattern of broken promises to our communities. It does represent a lost opportunity and is a symbol of the inability of those of us in Congress this year and the administration to match priorities with those of our constituents and, most importantly, for the future. I appreciate the fact that there is dramatic underfunding through the budget allocation in the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, putting them in the hole from the beginning. I appreciate that the funding for land acquisition has been increased over the President's budget. But there is no reason that the billions of dollars set aside in the trust fund for the land and water conservation fund for that express purpose should not be used for those purposes. Without the funding, communities will lose opportunities to purchase ecologically rich lands and waters, preserving and protecting recreation and conservation and historic values. Remember the commitment that was made on this floor in the year 2000. I appreciate the leadership that Mr. Dicks exhibited with the committee working with Mr. Young and Mr. Miller in the CARA legislation, which passed overwhelmingly in the House, but a deal was brokered to establish funding levels. It is a point of great embarrassment that that commitment that was made to realize the overwhelming sense of what needs to happen in this body with CARA is being violated with this legislation today. I hope that we will be able to, before we finish deliberations and move it through this session, go back and revisit it, because that commitment was made in good faith. I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Washington together with Mr. Young and Mr. Miller, Mr. Obey I see here. We should not be violating that commitment. Mr. Speaker, I do hope that we can focus more attention and have a healthy discussion on that in the course of these deliberations.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I will not support a budget plan that makes the overall budget deficit worse while providing further tax cuts for people who need them the least. The Republicans not only borrow the cost of their war, they refuse to honestly account for these costs by handling appropriations through emergency spending bills instead of the regular budget process. Playing politics with the budget short changes our future while creating an unsustainable mountain of debt. Refusing to provide permanent relief to tens of thousands of Oregonians threatened by the Alternative Minimum Tax, only providing a one year ``fix'' to the AMT, gambles with middle-class families' futures. It is time for Congress to face up to the fiscal problems that they have created and deal honestly with American taxpayers about the budgeting sleight of hand and deficits. This budget doesn't begin to do this.