Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as we have seen this week in the news, it is not just the Gulf Coast that is at risk for flooding and other natural disasters. Indeed, it is the whole Nation. The Governors of Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have all declared states of emergency due to flooding from torrential rains. Four thousand residents in Merrimack County, Massachusetts are just now starting to return to homes filled not just with water but with sewage. Florida has declared an emergency as well due to wildfires. Residents of Edgewater, Florida were evacuated when a wildfire broke out south of Daytona Beach. Eight thousand acres and several homes were burned. Hurricane season officially starts the first of next month, with researchers at Colorado State predicting as many as five intense hurricanes this year, with the chance of one striking the gulf coast at least 50 percent. When less than half the States require even comprehensive plans to deal with natural disasters, one asks, is it going to take another whole summer of fires, hurricanes, and other such disasters for the Federal Government and States to take simple, commonsense steps to protect communities? We can start today in our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will be offering an amendment, cosponsored by Congressman Jeff Flake, to the Agriculture Appropriations bill. The amendment will prevent any funds in the appropriations bill to go towards salaries or expenses of personnel who make loans in excess of 17 cents per pound for raw sugar cane or 21.6 per pound for refined beet sugar. This is, in effect, a 6 percent cut to the Sugar Loan Program.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, to the extent any time is available, I appreciate the chairman's words and for emphasizing that we want to be able to take advantage of the resources where they are. Whether they are the folks we have right now in the armed services or the private sector, the goal is to do the best job possible with the resources. We appreciate your cooperation and your words of support.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague permitting me to speak on this. As she indicated, this is a bipartisan amendment sponsored by the entire Oregon House delegation. Our interest is making sure that the men and women in our armed services have access to the best possible equipment. Currently, the efforts that have been under way overseas and at home have put a great deal of stress and strain. We have had people in the Northwest explain to us opportunities that they think are available to both save money and to improve opportunities to make sure that the equipment is recycled, brought up to par as quickly and as efficiently as possible. I think having a report from the Secretary of the Army in this fashion will help spotlight this opportunity. We are confident that we will see real opportunities to save money while we improve the equipment that our men and women are dealing with. I appreciate the cooperation both from the Oregon delegation and from the staff on the minority and the majority in helping move forward so we have got some good information. I express my appreciation to the Chair and to the ranking member.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for the real progress that this legislation represents for our men and women in uniform. I think this is truly landmark legislation in this regard. I also deeply appreciate the work of the committee leadership in working with me to include section 311 to improve the management of our unexploded ordnance and munition response programs. This is going to pay dividends for our troops here at home. In the long run it is going to save money for the taxpayers, and the more progress we make here we are going to develop technology and techniques that are going to make people safer around the world. I do want to share a troubling story that came forth in my community this weekend of military recruitment abuse, a problem that frankly I thought was behind us. An 18-year-old autistic high school student who, despite a clear disability, was recruited into the Army, in the calvary as a scout, despite the strong objection of his parents and in apparent violation of military rules. After news media attention and our office intervened, the Army has recently back-pedaled. But this is an outrageous situation. I have heard from numerous sources that this young man was not even aware that we were fighting in Iraq when he was being recruited in and signed a contract to serve in the Army. The evidence strongly suggests that the recruiters purposefully withheld information about his disability in order to circumvent the rules. This does not appear to be an isolated incident. Pentagon statistics show accusations of recruitment abuses are at record levels. I have called upon the Secretary of Defense for an investigation at least in this situation, because we need to get to the bottom of it, and it is likely not just one isolated case around the country. To be the finest fighting force in the world, we must continue to demand the most rigorous standards of conduct at all ranks of the military, including recruiting. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Armed Services Committee will work with me as this bill moves forward to make sure that safeguards are in place to make sure what happened to this young student never happens again and, most important, to make sure the integrity of the people he would serve with are protected as well. Thank you for your courtesy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, nothing spells out the political cynicism and misplaced Republican priorities better than the tax bill we are about to vote upon. More assistance to the people in the top one-tenth of a percent whose burden has actually fallen 25 percent since Bush took office, the over-million-dollar crowd will get an additional $40,000 a year for the next 10 years. But the Republican leadership and the Bush administration is playing Russian roulette with the alternative minimum tax and the 15.3 million families whose only sin is to pay taxes, pay their mortgage and raise their families. Every year more of them fall into a trap, and each year the Republican leadership fails to make a long-term fix a priority. They would rather play politics with the favored few. This misguided priority is shameful, as Medicare and Medicaid deficits widen and the national debt increases. The alternative minimum tax, the AMT, has become an ATM to finance more tax cuts for people who need it least and put at risk 33 million American families who will fall into the AMT tax trap by 2010 when the house of cards comes crashing down.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the future of this country is rooted in not just respect for, but understanding the U.S. Constitution. This past weekend more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, DC to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' competition. This outstanding program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am proud to announce that 36 students from Grant High School in my congressional district represented the State of Oregon in this national event. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals and, through their experience, have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. My neighborhood school has won the State Championship four times in the last six years. Last year they placed second in the nation. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students' testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe the depth of their understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Congratulations to Luis Alvarez, Austin Arias, Amelia Bell, Sukey Bernard, Thomas Brant, Becca Carlson, Max Chester, David Cooper, Hopi Costello, Hallie Craddock, Emma Dobbins, Yata Doe, Thomas Dudrey, Theo Erde-Wollheim, Arjav Ezekiel, Elena Fairley, Lauren Faulkner, Hannah Fisher, Laule'a Gorden-Kuehn, Ethan Gross, Phylicia Haggerty, Jennifer Hatton, Thomas Johnson, Austin Knutson, Joe Piucci, Jesse Poquette, Evan Pulvers, Max Schober, Lydia Sheehey, Emily Short, Kyle Sias, Katie Singleton, Natalie Stoll, David Streckert, Laura Yount, Ben Zarov and teacher Matt Campeau on placing number four in the country. They represent the future leaders of our nation and Oregon is proud of them.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, beyond the day's headlines of crimes, scandal and foreign affairs, there are still stories of flooding, fire, hurricanes, tornadoes and mudslides still in the news. They are much on the minds of the American public. After years in local government and in Congress, I share their concerns about these threats that we face from natural disasters, how we make these threats worse by what we do, and how we learn little from our experience. Mostly I wonder what it will take to provoke a coordinated, thoughtful response from the Federal Government to the challenges posed by natural disasters. For years before Katrina, I had been discussing on this floor what was likely to happen in New Orleans when the ``big one'' hit. My concerns became more urgent as I witnessed firsthand the devastation in Asia from the tsunami. It is not like we don't know what to do to protect our constituents. After the floods in the upper Mississippi River, FEMA in the Clinton Adminisration, under the leadership of James Lee Witt, took a coordinated approach with the natural environment, forming partnerships with private companies, landowners and local governments to dramatically reduce the damage in subsequent floods. We took similar actions in Portland, Oregon. We know what works. After years of struggle, Congress is finally reforming the flood insurance program to stop encouraging people to live in harm's way, to reduce the damage by building smarter, or moving families to safer, higher ground. For years we have been sponsoring round table discussions with experts on coordinated policy response in all of these elements, from fire and earthquake to flooding. People are ready to support legislation introduced before Katrina, to provide resources for communities to plan to avoid disaster. There are national and local visionaries ready to develop a comprehensive response to Katrina throughout the gulf region so that we are ready for the next inevitable round of hurricanes. But what will it take for people to act on the discussion, the plans, the legislation, to get real action? What about the Federal Government? Will it take the next disaster season to force Congress and the administration to respond thoughtfully with simple changes? After 25 years, will we update the hopelessly outdated operating principles and guidelines of the Corps of Engineers? Can we eliminate the perverse budget rules that make it actually cheaper for Congress to spend billions of dollars on emergency flood relief than a few million on prevention? Can we see past the next sensational headlines so that the Federal Government can exercise its responsibility on its own land in order to prevent development from sprawling into forested areas near cities, putting more people at risk and sending the costs of firefighting spiraling upward exponentially? Can we avoid another example like Los Alamos, where the Federal Government incredibly put sensitive, dangerous and expensive nuclear facilities in the middle of an area that has burned repeatedly from wildfires every few years for centuries? Will the next round of disasters prompt the Federal Government to finally show leadership on global warming, which will make all of these problems more intense? With global warming, it is not just the damage to New Orleans from hurricanes but risks to coastal communities from New York's Long Island to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Rising temperatures have already defrosted and eroded ever larger portions of Alaska. Will scientists at NASA and NOAA at last be able to speak freely about global warming? These questions are not beyond our capacity. Simple, cost-effective solutions are at hand that can be understood by the public who will end up paying the bill. I think progress is possible because this is not a Red State or a Blue State issue, not liberal or conservative, not big government versus small government. Exercising common sense, bipartisan cooperation and a tiny bit of leadership will save lives and money. I had hoped that the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina would have already spurred us toward some meaningful, comprehensive action. Instead, our response to Katrina has stalled and people are trickling back into harm's way without a real plan or a vision, and the protections against the next hurricane are not in place. I do think there is hope. With the evidence so clear and the Katrina memories so vivid, we begin another predicted serious hurricane season. Maybe this will be the time that we learn from what has happened and finally act to make our communities safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this weekend the Portland Oregonian reported a troubling story of an 18-year-old high school student with autism in my district who, despite his disability, was recruited into the Army as a cavalry scout, over the strong objection of his parents, and in violation of military rules. To place somebody with his disability in a combat role would create an entirely unnecessary risk of harm, not just to him, but other members of his unit who would have to rely on him. I have written to the Secretary of Defense calling for an investigation in this case, which does not appear to be an isolated incident. Accusations of recruitment abuse are at record levels as recruiters face extreme pressure to meet enlistment targets and quotas. I am concerned that the military has created a situation where recruiters are pressured to act in unethical and possible illegal ways in order to successfully fulfill their orders. I believe we need a real investigation into the breadth of such requirement practices, and that new safeguards must be put in place to ensure that what happened to my young constituent doesn't happen to any other young man or woman. Our Nation cannot produce the finest fighting force in the world without also demanding the most rigorous standards of conduct in all ranks of the military.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today is a missed opportunity to fix an area in great need of reform. The bill does little to reign in the activities of lobbyists and members and the restrictive rule prevented many viable alternatives from being considered. There are a lot of things we can do through the Ethics Committee and the Rules Committee to improve our broken ethics system. But what we should and must do is have an independent process. My colleague from Oregon, Greg Walden, and I crafted an amendment that would deal comprehensively with accountability and oversight of Congress in a way that we cannot accomplish under the current system. Our amendment would have established an independent commission, composed of former Members of Congress, who would be able to govern Congress in a fair and transparent manner. The amendment also provided meaningful reporting and review requirements for both Members and lobbyists. Our constituents will no longer stand for secretive legislative activity where the sponsor is not identified and the fingerprints are missing. Time must be allotted to digest proposals. There's no reason why there should not be a minimum of 3 days to examine something before it is voted on, unless there is a real emergency determined by a vote of the House. I think we can, and must, do more if we are to restore voters' faith in both their representatives and the system in general. While it is true that some who broke the law were caught and are now being punished, it is clear that we must do better if we are to rekindle the trust of the American people in our work and our integrity.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. We have just heard an example of the Republican line of why there is an energy problem: We haven't built new refineries because of burdensome environmental regulations. Hogwash. We have had the industry actually close refinery capacity. There is no evidence that there is an inability to build refineries. Sadly, we are continuing the spectacle of the Republican control in Congress to waste opportunities and try to change the subject, whether it is wasting subsidies on oil companies that don't need them or starving renewables and conservation. The latest debacle is scheduled here on the floor in a few hours, where they will force communities to accept refineries on closed military bases, with no committee markups, no hearings and no meaningful records. There will come a time when Congress will act like a Congress, will legislate on energy, on conservation, on innovation and prepare for the future, but, sadly, not with this Republican leadership.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 658, supporting the goals and ideals of World Water Day, which I introduced with Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, the Ranking Member on our Water Resources and the Environment Subcommittee. Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is critical to promoting good health, fighting poverty, protecting the environment, empowering women and promoting economic growth around the world. These were the goals of the ``Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act,'' which I introduced last year. This legislation, which was signed into law on December 1st, establishes water and sanitation as a cornerstone of United States foreign assistance efforts. I look forward to working with my colleagues, concerned organizations, and the administration to help ensure that the United States is a leader on global water issues and works hard to make the goals and ideals of World Water Day a reality for over a billion people around the world in need.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is no small amount of irony that Republicans are now rushing to investigate high gas prices and professing themselves to be on the side of the consumer. What is important is not what they have said in the last couple of days, but what they have done for the entire time they have been in power here in Washington, D.C. It is outrageous that the same people who are now decrying high gas prices were lavishing billions of dollars in subsidies on the same oil industry a few months ago, despite already bloated profits. In the 1990s the Republicans even passed legislation that forbade the Department of Transportation to even study higher fuel efficiency, something that would significantly reduce demand today. And they have expressed no outrage that the American taxpayer is being cheated out of fair payment for the oil and gas that is being taken from public lands by these same large companies. There are real solutions. Invest in conservation, the only way to reduce immediate dependence on expensive foreign oil now. Shift the billions of dollars in oil and gas companies to renewable and alternative energy sources, and insist that the American taxpayer be given full value for the billions of dollars of oil and gas taken from public lands.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I opposed the Renzi amendment because, while we all oppose leaks in our intelligence community, we have learned more about the illegal wiretapping program, the use of torture and extraordinary rendition, and the situation in Iraq from leaks to media outlets than we have from the administration. While we should do our best to prevent intelligence leaks, we must also ensure that we aren't being complicit in the cover-up of illegal activities or the manipulation of intelligence. I also voted against final passage of the Intelligence Authorization bill because, while it is a fine bill, it represents a missed opportunity. Democrats have tried to address the series of intelligence scandals, yet were prevented from doing so by continued abuses of the legislative process by the Republican majority.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this resolution. One of the reasons, Madam Speaker, that I argued against our invasion of Iraq long before the war began was because I felt we needed to face far more serious threats like the danger posed by Iran. In the 3 years since that attack, the threat from Iran has grown, and our capacity to meet that threat has diminished. Now Iran has a President who exploits Iranian national grievances to consolidate power and has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Our troops are bogged down in Iraq, placing them at risk should Iran launch a new wave of terrorism. We have done nothing to break our dependency on oil, the control of which gives Iran its greatest ability now to blackmail us and other countries. I appreciate the leadership of my good friend Mr. Lantos and others bringing the resolution forward to spotlight the problems with Iran. I appreciate their working with us to improve the bill. For instance, now the bill will not allow us to deal with terrorist groups on our own watch list. I think that is very, very important. Unfortunately, this legislation does not provide solutions. Instead it limits the administration's flexibility to pursue diplomacy without providing any new tools not already at their disposal. We need allies and partners to address the Iranian threat. We need the cooperation of the European Union, of China and, yes, Russia, since we have no more unilateral sanctions to place on Iran. Our global standing is at a low point. Yet this bill sanctions not Iran, but the very countries we need for a strong diplomatic effort. This bill tragically gives equal weight to overthrowing the Iranian Government as it does to the immediate threat of nuclear proliferation. Now, I am strongly opposed to this regime, but preventing them from developing nuclear weapons capacity must be our first priority, not prioritizing behavior change over regime change. We pull the rug out from underneath anybody in the current Iranian leadership who values survival over the nuclear program, and it clearly works to eliminate incentives for diplomatic solutions. I have a sense of deja vu when I think back to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which did not explicitly authorize the use of force, but certainly got the ball rolling that led to the tragedy of this Iraq war. Knowing what they know today, how many Members of this House would have voted differently 8 years ago? I am very worried about where all this ends. We have heard reports from the Pentagon of plans to attack Iran, indeed plans for a nuclear strike on Iran, the repercussions of which should make us all recoil with horror. Now, the administration dismisses these news reports, but the American people and this Congress got better information about what happened in Iraq from reporters like Seymour Hirsch than it got from, sadly, the President, Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Rice. I do not pretend to imagine the horrific things that Iran would do with nuclear weapons. We are all opposed to that. That is why we need a strong, smart, constructive diplomatic strategy. This bill does not provide it. For over half a century, Madam Speaker, we have made a series of mistakes regarding Iran, starting in 1953 when the United States led the charge to overthrow the democratically elected Government of Iran and replace them with a dictatorship in the person of the Shah. Our support for that dictatorship and its repressive policies fueled the reaction that led to the Iranian revolution. It was part of what happened with the hostage crisis in Iran. More recently there are very credible reports that diplomatic feelers extended by the Iranian Government were dismissed by this administration 2 and 3 years ago. I sincerely hope that we do not overwhelmingly and unthinkingly pass a resolution today that makes us feel good because we all hate this regime, but instead sets in motion a process that actually is destabilizing and makes the peaceful future that we all seek harder.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I would like to include the following article, which I referenced on the floor, in the Record of the debate on H.R. 282, the ``Iran Freedom Support Act.'' [From the Asia Times, March 30, 2006] Neo-Con Cabal Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks (By Gareth Porter) Washington.--The George W. Bush administration failed to enter into negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program in May 2003 because neo-conservatives who advocated destabilization and regime change were able to block any serious diplomatic engagement with Tehran, according to former administration officials. The same neo-conservative veto power also prevented the administration from adopting any official policy statement on Iran, those same officials said. Lawrence Wilkerson, then chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell, said the failure to adopt a formal Iran policy in 2002-03 was the result of obstruction by a ``secret cabal'' of neo-conservatives in the administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney. ``The secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations with Tehran,'' Wilkerson wrote in an e-mail to Inter Press Service (IPS). The Iranian negotiating offer, transmitted to the State Department in early May 2003 by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, acknowledged that Iran would have to address U.S. concerns about its nuclear program, although it made no specific concession in advance of the talks, according to Flynt Leverett, then the National Security Council's senior director for Middle East Affairs. Iran's offer also raised the possibility of cutting off Iran's support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad and converting Hezbollah into a purely socio-political organization, according to Leverett. That was an explicit response to Powell's demand in late March that Iran ``end its support for terrorism''. In return, Leverett recalls, the Iranians wanted the U.S. to address security questions, the lifting of economic sanctions and normalization of relations, including support for Iran's integration into the global economic order. Leverett also recalls that the Iranian offer was drafted with the blessing of all the major political players in the Iranian regime, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini. Realists, led by Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, were inclined to respond positively to the Iranian offer. Nevertheless, within a few days of its receipt, the State Department had rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer. Exactly how the decision was made is not known. ``As with many of these issues of national security decision-making, there are no fingerprints,'' Wilkerson told IPS. ``But I would guess Dick Cheney with the blessing of George W. Bush.'' As Wilkerson observes, however, the mysterious death of what became known among Iran specialists as Iran's ``grand bargain'' initiative was a result of the administration's inability to agree on a policy toward Tehran. A draft National Security Policy Directive (NSPD) on Iran calling for diplomatic engagement had been in the process of interagency coordination for more than a year, according to a source who asked to remain unidentified. But it was impossible to get formal agreement on the NSPD, the source recalled, because officials in Cheney's office and in under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans wanted a policy of regime change and kept trying to amend it. Opponents of the neo-conservative policy line blame Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, for the failure of the administration to override the extremists in the administration. The statutory policymaker process on Iran, Wilkerson told IPS in an e-mail, was ``managed by a national security adviser incapable of standing up to the cabal . . .'' In the absence of an Iran policy, the two contending camps struggled in 2003 over a proposal by realists in the administration to reopen the Geneva channel with Iran that had been used successfully on Afghanistan in 2001-02. They believed Iran could be helpful in stabilizing postconflict Iraq, because the Iraqi Shi'ite militants whom they expected to return from Iran after Saddam Hussein's overthrow owed some degree of allegiance to Iran. The neo-conservatives tried to block those meetings on tactical policy grounds, according to Leverett. ``They were saying we didn't want to engage with Iran because we didn't want to owe them,'' he recalled. Nevertheless, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad (now envoy in Iraq) was authorized to begin meeting secretly in Geneva with Iranian officials to discuss Iraq. The neo-conservatives then tried to sandbag the talks by introducing a demand for full information on any high-ranking al-Oaeda cadres who might be detained by the Iranians. Iran regarded that information as a bargaining chip to be given up only for a quid pro quo from Washington. The Bush administration, however, had adopted a policy in early 2002 of refusing to share any information with Iran on al-Oaeda or other terrorist organizations. On May 3,2003, as the Iranian ``grand bargain'' proposal was on its way to Washington, Tehran's representative in Geneva, Javad Zarif, offered a compromise on the issue, according to Leverett: if the U.S. gave Iran the names of the cadres of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) who were being held by U.S. forces in Iraq, Iran would give the U.S. the names of the al-Oaeda operatives they had detained. The MEK had carried out armed attacks against Iran from Iraqi territory during the Hussein regime and had been named a terrorist organization by the U.S. But it had capitulated to U.S. forces after the invasion, and the neo-conservatives now saw the MEK as a potential asset in an effort to destabilize the Iranian regime. The MEK had already become a key element in the alternative draft NSPD drawn up by neo-conservatives in the administration. The indictment of Iran analyst Larry Franklin on Feith's staff last year revealed that, by February 2003, Franklin had begun sharing a draft NSPD that he knew would be to the liking of the Israeli Embassy. (Franklin eventually pleaded guilty to passing classified information to two employees of an influential pro-Israel lobbying group and was sentenced to 12 and a half years in prison.) Reflecting the substance of that draft policy, ABC News reported on May 30, 2003, that the Pentagon was calling for the destabilization of the Iranian government by ``using all available points of pressure on the Iranian regime, including backing armed Iranian dissidents and employing the services of the Mujahideen-e Khalq . . .'' Nevertheless, Bush apparently initially saw nothing wrong with trading information on MEK, despite arguments that MEK should not be repatriated to Iran. ``I have it on good authority,'' Leverett told IPS, ``that Bush's initial reaction was, `But we say there is no such thing as a good terrorist.' '' Nevertheless, Bush finally rejected the Iranian proposal. By the end of May, the neo-conservatives had succeeded in closing down the Geneva channel for good. They had hoped to push through their own NSPD on Iran, but according to the Franklin indictment, Franklin told an Israeli Embassy officer in October that work on the NSPD had been stopped. But the damage had been done. With no direct diplomatic contact between Iran and the U.S., the neo-conservatives had a clear path to raising tensions and building political support for regarding Iran as the primary enemy of the United States.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I do think this is an important conversation for us to have on this floor. I am pleased that the debate time was extended, and I hope our colleagues will take the time to scroll through the information that is available and think of the consequences. For instance, I would enter into the record, a letter from Under Secretary of State Nick Burns to Chairman Hyde. I will just quote a little and then insert the rest in the Record. We have enormous concerns about this proposed legislation, particularly title II. These provisions would impair our ability to continue working closely and successfully with our allies to deal with the threat that Iran poses. Nobody here, nobody here, apologizes for this regime. And my good friend from Indiana is correct, there is a lot of shared interest and deep concern. The notion that this despotic regime would have control of nuclear weapons is terrifying, absolutely terrifying. We long for the day that the Iranian people are free, in no small measure because the United States' history with the Iranian people over more than half a century is one where we have not always been on the side of democracy for the Iranian people, overthrowing their democratically elected regime in 1953. That was not a proud moment in our history when we helped install a dictator, but we called him the Shah. We are united in our commitment to deal meaningfully with this problem. This legislation, as the administration has made clear, falls short of the mark. It is not tightening our sanctions against Iran. We have done that. There have been administrations, both Republican and Democrat, who have maybe not been as zealous in implementing those sanctions; but that is on the books. We have done it. What this talks about doing is extending sanctions against the very people whose cooperation we need to solve this problem. We are confusing our goals. Is it more important to threaten a regime change and thereby consolidate it? This Government of Iran by all indications is not monolithic. There are people who disagree with the sad and repulsive face of the current leader. There are a vast number of young people in Iran who are not at this point violently anti-American. They are pro-Western. There is interest in the United States. If we misplay this, we can end up turning another generation against us in Iran. We have had empty threats against North Korea that did not stop them from going full speed ahead developing nuclear weapons, in fact, we are probably less safe today because we have not been focused and effective. I do strongly identify with the words of my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). I have been one who has been somewhat critical of this administration in its actions in the past. I would find it absolutely inappropriate to not reinforce when I think they are trying to reposition themselves vis-a-vis Iran. There are many people on our side of the aisle who were against the rush to war in Iraq and many more who have found that it was a mistake to do so. We have supported more diplomatic initiatives, and this is the opportunity we have now. This legislation is not each-handed. It is not focused. The administration does not want it. It sanctions our allies. I strongly urge that we do things that are coming down the pike now that we in Congress can do that will make a difference in Iran. Think about how we deal with India and nuclear weapons. This is a decision that is looming ahead of us that will make a difference for China and other countries that have nuclear technology about how we treat them in that situation. And for heaven's sake, when people have suddenly discovered $3-a- gallon gasoline and that we are addicted to foreign oil, which is part of Iran's strength right now, maybe we in Congress can forget the goofy energy bill we passed and get serious about conservation, alternative energy, increasing fuel standards and giving full value to the American public for our oil and gas resources. These are things that we can do now that will make a difference. Let the administration do its job diplomatically; provide oversight, but do not go over the edge with this legislation. Department of State, Washington, DC. Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to comment on HR 282, the ``Iran Freedom Support Act of 2005,'' that currently is pending before your Committee. We have serious concerns about this proposed legislation, particularly Title II, which would amend the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). These provisions would impair our ability to continue working closely and successfully with our allies to deal with the threat that Iran poses. The Iran issue is sensitive and critically important. The September 24 IAEA resolution, tabled by the EU-3 (Germany, the UK, and France), was an important step forward. We are going to have to continue working with our international partners to isolate Iran and to build and maintain an international coalition to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapons capability. In doing so, the President needs the flexibility that HR 282 would impede. I note that one portion of the bill, Title IV, regarding support for democracy in Iran, could, with relatively minor modifications, make a positive contribution to our Iran objectives, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with Congress in developing this approach. Sincerely, R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, last week Oregonians were saddened by the sudden death of Richard ``Dick'' Kohnstamm. He was a visionary leader who conceived and then for half a century led the Kohnstamm family crusade to restore the jewel that is Timberline Lodge. This historic structure, a Depression-era public works project on Oregon's majestic Mt. Hood, is today an artistic and historic treasure. Dick was not just a leader in alpine sports, an innovator in year- round skiing, but also a force in recreation and tourism at the national level as well. His passions ranged from historic preservation to, notably, public broadcasting leadership. He was a pioneer in creative ways to fashion public and private partnerships before the buzz word became popular. He will be sorely missed but leaves a vision, a committed family, and a State that is grateful for over half a century of leadership.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Military Range Legacy Act of 2006.'' This bill strengthens military base clean- up programs through the use and development of new technologies, better programmatic organization, and a greater attention to the needs of the communities impacted by base closures. I am proud that the United States has the best trained military in the world. Yet, as a result of this training, over 3,000 sites on former military ranges are contaminated with unexploded ordnance, UXO discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents. These sites, littered with still-dangerous explosives and harmful contaminants, pose health and safety risks to our communities while preventing the redevelopment of closed bases and limiting opportunities for job creation and economic growth. By passing the Military Range Legacy Act or including provisions of it in the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act and providing the necessary funding, we can achieve real progress towards making our former defense communities safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome this morning the University of Portland Women's Soccer Team to our Capitol and congratulate them for their undefeated season, winning the 2005 NCAA Champion Division I Title, their second championship in 4 years. Even the team's dedicated fans have set a new NCAA attendance record for any soccer season, men or women. I want to congratulate University President, Father Bill Beauchamp, Head Coach Garrett Smith, and the entire university community as the Pilots carried on the legacy of the late legendary coach Clive Charles. Most of all, I congratulate these women whose combination of athletic and academic excellence is an inspiration for young people everywhere, especially today's young women. There is much to celebrate ``Up on the Bluff.'' The women's soccer team is a great example of excellence at the University of Portland. I welcome them to the Capitol and their White House ceremony later today.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, throughout my career, I have consistently and strongly supported sensible campaign finance reform. As introduced, H.R. 513, the 527 Reform Act, was a measure I could have supported. In the long run, it would have been politically neutral; not giving an advantage to either Republicans or Democrats. However, with the changes that have been made to the bill by the Republican leadership, this bill would needlessly allow unlimited contributions from party committees to coordinate with campaigns and thereby dramatically raising the amount of money spent on elections, not reduce it. This provision alone would dramatically undermine the campaign finance reforms we worked so hard to put in place in 2002. The bill is neither necessary nor fair and would increase the role of money in campaigns and elections.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, more than 87 million Americans tune into public television each week and 30 million listen to public radio. And they depend on this Congress to provide some of the economic resources so that in every community across the country people can listen to those thousand public radio and television stations for programs that inform and inspire. For help with reading, job training, for the latest digital services, for local news and information, for dozens of other reasons. These stations around the country determine their own program schedules. They often produce their own programming. We, in Oregon, are immensely proud of Oregon Public Broadcasting for its award winning programming. They respond to community needs and leverage local support that is so important. While the Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes its annual appropriations from Congress in accordance to a statutory formula for which almost 72 percent of the funds go directly to local public radio and television stations, the Federal appropriations while it only accounts for 15 percent of the entire costs, it leverages critical investments from State and local governments, from universities, businesses and foundations, and most important, from millions of viewers and listeners of public television and radio. They add their dollars to this core vital Federal support, writing checks to allow the public broadcasting to continue. However, we have faced issues of major reduction in this funding which would have immediate and severe impacts on our community and constituents. Last month, 126 bipartisan Members signed a letter in support for $430 million in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This is a modest amount by reckoning of the vast sums that are thrown around here in Washington, DC, but it has a critical impact. It is going to be essential that we provide the core funding for the Corporation For Public Broadcasting and hopefully retain the practice of advanced funding which costs the Treasury nothing but gives public broadcasting certainty over time so that they can plan on allowing for the changes and development that they need. There has been a modest request that has been suggested, $30 million above the fiscal 2006 funding. This is going to not even cover the additional electricity costs that public television must bear to operate both a digital and analogue transmitter. That transition to digital technology is also important for Congress to focus on. It is not cheap. Public broadcasting has led the way. They have raised more than $1.1 billion from all sources for this purpose. We are asking for a little additional money, an increase of $10 million this year. This can have a critical impact, not just on the clarity of the broadcast that is received by people in their homes, but there is also an opportunity to replace and update the television interconnection system, known as the Next Generation Interconnection System, that the Department of Homeland Security has been testing as a foundation for a new digital emergency alert system. Not just better service for people at home, but an important potential addition to our homeland security. Last but by no means least deals with educational technology. In the No Child Left Behind legislation passed in 2001, Congress authorized two programs, Ready to Learn and Ready to Teach. Ready to Learn harnesses television's universal reach to improve early childhood learning, while Ready to Teach uses technology to develop more highly- qualified teachers to measurably increase student standards. It is important to make sure that we support Ready to Learn, which received a small increase last year, focused on literacy and teacher professional development. Ready to Teach last year actually sustained a cut. It is requested that funding for both programs be increased in fiscal 2007 to $32 million for Ready to Learn and $15 million for Ready to Teach. Last year we had to come to the floor with a strong bipartisan vote where 87 Republicans joined with every single Democrat to restore Draconian cuts to public broadcasting. This year it is more important than ever for education, for the Public Broadcasting Service, and for national security that we not have to go through that effort. I urge my colleagues to look carefully at the requests that have been made for public broadcasting and join with us this year in assuring a strong funding base that will leverage hundreds of millions of dollars across America and provide the services Americans deserve.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, at a time when the global economy demands a highly trained, educated workforce, Congress is making it more difficult for our students to succeed. The Higher Education Reauthorization Act represents a missed opportunity at a critical time for improving education. All across America, communities are struggling to deal with education funding for preschools through high schools. Many of these communities are recovering from difficult economic times and have financially stressed the local education systems. Many states have responded to budget crunches by reducing their support for postsecondary education at a time when we need to be desperately training students for their own as well as the country's future. It is expected by 2020, the U.S. will experience a shortage of up to 12 million college-educated workers. We are providing less support as a percentage of overall educational costs than ever before. In part, it is because of a tragic decision of the Republican majority to sacrifice education for $70 billion in tax benefits for America's wealthiest individuals. This has made the funding problem even worse than it needs to be. There are opportunities to simplify financial aide forms, to increase access to higher education and to improve higher education, but instead that focus is lost. Had a truly bipartisan approach been taken by Congress a much better bill would have been possible. Tuition and fees have already climbed by 46 percent at four-year public colleges since 2001, nearly six times faster than Pell Grant Scholarships. Students are taking on record high loan debt and working longer hours in order to attend college. There are over 90,000 Oregonians borrowing money to attend college. While costs are going up and burdens on families are greater, there is less federal support. Many of the higher education professionals that I have worked with suggests they would rather have another extension of the current law than this reauthorization, quite an indictment and a signal of what we should be doing. I am hopeful that as this bill works its way through the legislative process that logic and the needs of students, families and our society for a well educated citizenry will prevail. Although, I am pleased the bill includes the bipartisan Blumenauer-Ehlers-Wu amendment to convene a summit of higher education experts working in the area of sustainable operations and programs, we can make this bill better and until that happens I cannot support it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's comments and his spotlighting Portland State University. Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is adopted, no later than May of next year, the Secretary of Education is to convene a summit of higher education experts working in these areas. We have a vast array of people available around the country. As my colleague pointed out, this is cost effective. This is what America needs to do to face its energy challenges, clean air, clean water. And what better way than to have higher education lead and being able to model and employ some of the best practices that we see in local communities, in the business community, and in the pioneering leadership on behalf of students themselves? Mr. Chairman, we respectfully hope that the House will not only adopt this amendment, but that we will find ways in other legislative vehicles to advance the principles that are involved here, not just for higher education. One longs for the day when the Federal Government itself models those important principles.