Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution honoring and congratulating Lance Armstrong upon hls retirement from professional cycling following his 7th successive victory of the Tour de France. One of the world's most grueling athletic events, this year's Tour de France bicycling race covered 2,254 miles in 21 days. Aside from his many victories as a racer, Lance Armstrong has become a household name, vital to the promotion of cycling as a sport, a healthy fitness activity, and a pollution-free transportation alternative. These athletic accomplishments are even more dramatic considering his successful battle against widespread cancer. Lance has become a role model to cancer patients and his efforts through the Lance Armstrong Foundation have helped to advance cancer research, diagnosis, treatment, and after-treatment services. The resolution being introduced today is a deserving tribute to Lance Armstrong and his Tour de France victory, commitment to cancer awareness and survivorship, and promotion of bicycling.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this amendment. I am pleased with the efforts that are under way here on the floor to help try to deal with the shape of the PATRIOT Act. This is a critical discussion. We have been fighting the war on terror longer than we fought World War II, and it appears to be that this is going to be in the American landscape for as far into the future as we can see. This amendment helps get a handle on the sneak-and-peak provisions. Section 213, which authorizes the sneak- and-peak investigation, is not restricted to terrorists or terrorism offenses. It may be used in connection with any Federal crime, including misdemeanors. The PATRIOT Act did not establish oversight standards for these investigations. The public has a right to know how these activities are being undertaken. We saw one of these searches in Oregon go sideways and devastate the life of a local attorney. Brandon Mayfield was jailed for 2 weeks as his name was leaked to the media, falsely linking him to the Madrid bombing. Now this man is suing the FBI; but he will never, never be able to clear his name. I appreciate what my friends, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), have attempted to do here, narrowing the application and providing more information to Congress. This is critical. I would hope we would be able to push the limits a little further. I am very apprehensive about this, but we are involved with a process that is very important for Congress. As I mentioned, this is what we see for as long as the eye can view. In 2001, just days after 9/11, we rushed through a bill that simply cast aside the important by-products that were developed by the Committee on the Judiciary on a bipartisan basis. I am hopeful that this is going to give us a chance to work together to deal with the important security provisions. Nobody wants America at risk; but it is important that we narrow provisions, wherever possible, that we have appropriate sunset provisions and that we are monitoring carefully. It is critical both for the civil liberties of Americans and for developing the right tools to fight terrorism.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the PATRIOT Act was enacted in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, rushed through the House as a suspension bill the day after it was introduced. This process didn't permit the public, let alone Congress, to fully understand it. The original bill was rewritten in the Rules Committee instead of the bipartisan bill that was unanimously passed out of the Judiciary Committee. Luckily, there were a few sunset provisions that were intended to help keep people honest and evaluate the impacts on the public. We have now been fighting the war on terror longer than World War II with no end in sight. The policy decisions we make affect the lives of everyday Americans. It is important to keep these policies narrowly focused on items that are necessary for dealing with terrorism and today's modern communication developments while not encroaching on American's fundamental rights. This version is a missed opportunity to narrow the provisions and time limit their applications. The good news is the public is becoming more aware and involved. Thirteen municipalities in Oregon, including Portland, have already passed resolutions expressing their opposition to the PATRIOT Act. It seems that the majority of Congress has at least some reservations about this bill. There were more ``no'' votes than four years ago and a bipartisan effort to provide more checks and balances is growing. The Senate version will be better, making it likely that the fiscal legislation will be an improvement over the existing law. I will continue working to give voice to the concerns and the experiences of Oregonians, as together we fight against terrorism and protect the rights of each American.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the operative elements here before us in the resolution are twofold: one, on the second page of this amendment, there is paragraph 8 that says that we have improved the security of the United States and that what is going on at Guantanamo is essential to fighting the global war on terrorism. The second operative phrase is on the very last paragraph, it is essential to the security of the United States that we continue operating this facility until we are through waging the war on terrorism, which I have already pointed out we have been fighting now longer than World War II. It is not at all clear that the symbol that Guantanamo has become has actually made us more secure. We have people like Republican Senator Mel Martinez and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel who recognize both in terms of the symbol of Guantanamo that has inflamed people around the world, and that we have a situation now where people are dealt with in an indefinite situation, rather than moving forward, prosecuting people under a courts-martial, if they in fact need to be prosecuted. We are not opposed to that. There are opportunities for providing a framework, which my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), outlined in terms of legislation that he has developed that we could use to move forward, deal with what needs to be dealt with, but do it in a way that is consistent with American values and American principles. And, in fact, if people detained thought that there was some end in sight rather than indefinite detainment, some experts argue we may actually get more cooperation. There are alternatives. We can put people, for example, in Leavenworth. We ought to make clear that we are playing by our standards, that we are going to play fair, and we are going to move forward. I think it would be a very appropriate use of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, which the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) chairs, to try to find out what the facts of the situation are; whether we are more or less at risk, and what lessons we learn from this sorry chapter in the past. Our Republican friends have devoted 140 hours to investigating whether or not the Clintons misused their Christmas card list, and there were inquiries from committees trying to find out how they are dealing with letters that were sent to the Clintons' cat Socks. I would suggest that we ought to be able to find the time and the energy to be able to give the appropriate attention to these issues that Guantanamo represents, but I think the resolution in question is not warranted. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I voted against the Berkley/Crowley amendment to cap assistance to the Palestinian Authority. Under the new leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas, progress is being made--slowly-- on the path to democracy and peace. It is ironic that these additional restrictions are proposed on Abbas, yet were never applied to Yasser Arafat. In light of Israel's impending withdrawal from Gaza, I believe that we need to maintain President Bush's flexibility to use United States assistance to promote American interests in the region. Already, aid to the Palestinian Authority is the most heavily restricted, audited, and projectized assistance in the world with aid going directly to the Palestinian Authority only when the President signs a specific waiver. This amendment is one more unnecessary restriction that ties the President's hands to support any movement towards peace and security.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. I appreciate what was just presented by my colleague from California (Mr. Schiff), who has offered up a legislative approach to deal with the framework for Guantanamo, providing protections and procedures and moving forward with dealing with the problems of enemy combatants. I find somewhat ironic the continued portrayal on the part of some that what we have in Guantanamo now is sort of a Motel 6 with enhanced security and better food than our kids get when they go off to school. I wish that the resolution that was before us today were based on some aggressive work on our oversight committee in the Committee on International Affairs, which my colleague, the gentleman from California, chairs, because I think it is appropriate for us to understand not just the treatment at Guantanamo, but what impact that has had around the world in terms of perceptions of United States behavior towards enemy combatants. I mentioned that I am deeply, deeply concerned about the language that is here that asserts that somehow we are better off and more secure as a result of Guantanamo. There is nothing, nothing that is unique to that location and the lawful exercise of interrogation techniques that is unique to Guantanamo. Where do we put them? We can put them in Leavenworth. We have lots of facilities that could be used to secure the enemy and protect the public. But I am deeply, deeply concerned that there is lots of evidence that we have fallen short of the mark, and it is not just that when you torture and abuse people you get information that is suspect. The reason we reject that behavior as a country is twofold: besides being morally wrong, it puts Americans at risk. If we are going to abuse people, and recall that famous hearing in the other body when questions were put to uniform command, ``would you like American soldiers subjected to these techniques?'' Well, of course he would not. That is why we set standards to protect American soldiers and Americans overseas. Second, when there are activities where we fail to meet our high standards, whether at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, they have an incendiary effect. Remember, it was not just a Newsweek story that sparked the riots in Pakistan. We were told, in fact, by people there that the story about the Koran being flushed down the toilet was not why the riots occurred. But the point is that there was a perception of American behavior that made people susceptible to thinking the worst. That is why there are a wide number of Republicans, including Senator Martinez, Senator Graham, Senator Hagel, that have raised questions about whether or not Guantanamo has outlived its usefulness for us. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when the history of this period of time is written, we are going to find out in the last 4 years that the information that came from the press, whether it is about prison abuses, about the basis for rushing to war in Iraq, or the consequences of that act, that the press accounts were more accurate than what we were given from the administration as information and justification. And, frankly, Congress has been, in the main, missing in action when it comes to getting on top of those stories, rooting out the truth, holding people accountable, not low-level guards ill trained and ill suited, and looking at patterns of abuse that started in Guantanamo, ended up in Iraq. These are items that lend itself to the legislative process. With all due respect to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), it is not at all clear that what happened in Guantanamo makes us safer given the fact that we have seen an explosion, that was a poor choice of words, of terrorist acts around the world, including our closest ally, Great Britain, just this last week. This is precisely what we should be doing as a Congress rather than rushing to approve a feel-good amendment that has not been carefully examined by our oversight committee where there is evidence to the contrary that we may not be safer rather than doing something that would look to all the world as sort of a whitewash of what has happened in Guantanamo. And, most important, where we are going from here? I would strongly urge the rejection of the amendment by my colleague.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is an interesting proposition that we have before us today. Unfortunately, what is framed in the context of this amendment is more a conclusion rather than something that is dealt with in terms of well- reasoned fact. Nobody disputes the fact that we need intelligence. Nobody disputes the fact that we are struggling in a global war against terror. The question is the way in which the facility at Guantanamo has been managed, what it represents now, and what it represents in the future. We have been engaged in this struggle against terrorism longer than the United States fought World War II. And there is no end in sight. In 2003 we had 205 acts of terror, an all-time record. In 2004 the number more than tripled to 651. I think there is a real question whether the assumption that the facility at Guantanamo has actually enhanced American security more than it has harmed it needs to be examined. I intend to offer a little more discussion. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I just say it is a false choice to suggest that the only alternative is to keep Guantanamo open and operating as it is now. We could easily prosecute detainees who are at risk or a threat or a problem under courts martial. We could close the prison at Guantanamo and shift AT operations someplace else like Leavenworth. We could abandon the failed interrogation policies and conduct them according to the Army Field Manual and get rid of the people who are not at risk. There are other alternatives. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time, his leadership and his partnership with our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). There is no more important forum for Members of this Chamber to be focusing on than what is happening in the international arena. I am pleased in these troubled times that our chairman and ranking member have provided a framework for us to deal with things that matter, from human rights to the environment. I join in expressing my appreciation for what you gentlemen have permitted us to move forward. I like so much of what is in this bill. I like the notion that we are dealing with the welfare of the men and women who serve us in the State Department and the related agencies. Too little attention is given to their welfare, the fact that they are in the line of fire and they are producing activities that are every bit as important as what is happening with the armed services. The money that is put in here and the attention that is given to their welfare and for a platform for them to operate is vitally important. I appreciate the ranking member mentioning the consulate in Istanbul, which happened to be designed by people back home in Portland, who have demonstrated that we can deal with the welfare of our employees, their security, give them a good working environment, and actually save money. It is a little detail, but it is, oh, so important. At a time when we have seen international acts of terrorism triple from 2003 to 2004, we know that this is important. I also appreciate what is in this bill to try and move the great battleship that deals with our relationship with Egypt. For years we have spent billions of dollars for work in the Middle East to try to promote a partnership with Egypt. This bill starts to move us away from the preponderance of military aid and move that same dollar amount, but to humanitarian aid. There is an effort that is going to come forward to try to eliminate that. I strongly urge it be defeated. I think that is an important message that is a part of this bill. I appreciate things that can be found in the language of the bill that deal with disaster preparedness. Many of us from the committee were in the tsunami area and saw the devastation. If we are able to reposition the billions of dollars of assistance to help move these people out of harm's way, to help them not degrade their environment that actually makes them more vulnerable to more loss, I think this is an important step forward. I appreciate the linkage there. In fact, we are told if we had spent $40 billion in mitigation, we could have prevented $280 billion of disaster relief in the last decade, and countless lives that would have been saved. I appreciate the notion of what this bill does in the language that talks about dealing with planning our troubled urban areas, and that helps these areas where there is an explosion of population and caldrons of unrest that the United States may be able to do a better job of helping these people as well. In sum, I think we will have a lively and spirited debate over the course of the next day and a half. I appreciate our committee leadership in bringing us to this point. I hope we on the floor will do our job on all of these issues to make it an even better bill before we are done.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and the work going on here. Mr. Chairman, earlier we had a flurry of activity, because this is a complex and controversial area. I appreciate my other friend from Illinois helping spotlight some of the potential problems that we have potentially of overreaching in terms of what we want to do dealing with export controls and dual-use technology. This is an area that if we are not careful, if it is not carefully crafted, could potentially boomerang against American interests. It could actually undermine what we want and in fact encourage the flow of business away from the United States and actually encourage other countries to step in and accelerate their development. I think there has been a lot of hard work done to sort of try and hit the sweet spot here, to try and deal with some very real concerns about proliferation of sensitive technology, but to also be sensitive to the needs of American technology-based industries. We have had conversations in our committee in the past. Some of what we have done I think needs to catch up with where technology has gone. There is probably more technology at home in the bedroom of Emily Ann in my house than the United States had when it developed the atomic bomb in terms of computer technology. We need to be I think sensitive to making sure that we do not put a stranglehold on American interests and that we are able to move forward to deal with our legitimate interests. I hope that as we move forward with this, that there is an opportunity for us to have a broader conversation about dual-use applications, about export controls, and be able to move forward in the future with the sophistication that it deserves.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Higher Education Sustainability Act of 2005,'' which would authorize $50 million for 25 Sustainability Education Programs across the country to develop and implement integrated environmental, economic, and social sustainability programs. Each Sustainability Program will focus on multidisciplinary research, education, and outreach at institutions of higher education. Sustainable development practices are being advanced by hundreds of U.S. cities and companies and through a variety of international agencies including the United Nations and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. As population growth, urban development and extreme weather incidents place great stress on ecosystems around the globe, the need for developing innovative and successful sustainable development practices becomes critical to sustaining our economic competitiveness, improving our environmental health and creating more livable communities. In my home State of Oregon, we have many great examples of sustainable development and livable communities. Portland State University, located in my hometown, provides an excellent example of how to incorporate sustainability throughout the curriculum. Faculty from the departments of social sciences, life sciences, physical sciences, humanities, as well as the professional schools have been working to incorporate sustainability principles in their coursework and research. Portland State University's Sustainability Initiative has placed a high priority on Green Buildings on campus that use smart technology to improve operational performance and produce significant savings. The City of Portland awarded PSU's, Stephen Epler Residence Hall and Broadway Housing with the Businesses for an Environmentally Sustainable Tomorrow award for sustainable stormwater management. The Epler buildings harvests rainwater from the roof for use in restrooms and features low-flow water fixtures for showers and toilets resulting in cost savings of $5,000 each year. The Broadway Housing features 20,000 square feet of an ``ecoroof,'' one of the largest in a dense urban environment. Faculty and students designed a monitoring program to measure impacts of the ecoroof and preliminary studies show a 21 percent reduction in runoff. This is an exemplary example of how faculty uses the buildings as real laboratories. These innovations are just a few among many that are already underway in colleges and universities across the nation. This legislation will ensure that we can extend these innovations to institutions of higher learning across the country. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and make a commitment to making our educational communities more sustainable and livable.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the previous colleague who was concerned about this said it was time to rebuild the locks. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the project is. The project is not about rebuilding the locks. We have been doing that over the last 25 years. In fact, there is an $88 million project going right now for Lock 24. This is a $1.8 billion addition, building new locks in addition to what we already have there. In that regard, the proposal that the gentleman from Arizona and I have offered up, saying we do not do a new one unless it is justified, seems reasonable, modest and important.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the manager's amendment, which I think demonstrates the work that has been done by our ranking member and our Chair and the staff to be able to work through some of these complex issues. I especially appreciate the work to incorporate planning language that will give more flexibility to the corps' planning process and starts the conversation about updating the principles and guidelines that are so desperately in need of revision. I would also at this time, in addition to thanking our Chair and ranking member, acknowledge the hard work of our staff, Susan Bodine and Ken Kopocis, who have been putting long hours into producing what I think is very important legislation. I appreciate their cooperation and the progress that it represents.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, this Water Resources Development Act is an important start to change the way that we do business. I salute the hard work from our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar); the gentlewoman from Texas (Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson); and a special note of thanks to the vision and hard work of my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), to move forward with ways that we ought to be dealing with water resources. Usually, in the past, Congress has produced just a collection of projects and, too often in the past, things that make the Corps of Engineers' job harder: Too little money to deal with a huge backlog that contains the good, the bad, the ugly, and the obsolete. We make the job of the Corps of Engineers even harder, since they are operating under outdated principles and guidelines that have not been updated since 1983. You would not go to a heart surgeon or a brain surgeon under that circumstance. The Corps of Engineers is facing an almost $60 billion backlog, and only $2 billion a year of construction money for these critical projects, and this makes it intensely political. Well, this brings me to the dinosaur of the navigation projects that is in this bill which has been referenced by my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). The Upper Mississippi Lock Project is going to be the most expensive navigation project in history. Where I must take modest exception to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, we are not walking away. We have not walked away. He would not let us walk away from the problems of Mississippi navigation. In fact, I think we have an $88 million renovation project that is occurring right now immediately adjacent to where there is going to be a massive new lock built. We have invested appropriately almost $1 billion, almost $1 billion in the last 25 years. So, any hint that we have walked away or that we do not care about the Mississippi sysem is wrong. Congress has proven that it does care, and it has invested. Have we invested everything that one would want in all of these locks? Look at your district and see if Congress has ever invested everything that you want and need. But given a $60 billion backlog, we have done a pretty good job dealing with this channel. Now, I deeply, deeply respect the work the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) has done in the past. I do not know who is opposing this project on environmental grounds. Those words have not come from my mouth. I appreciate the hard work that the gentleman did earlier, I think that this is very important environmental restoration work, and it is work that is long overdue. We have treated the Mississippi River as a machine for well over a century; and the wildlife, the people who depend on it for recreation, for the environmental health, they need these environmental investments, they deserve it, and I hope it happens. But I think what we need to be focusing on is how we are going to deal with this massive project. Now, I am not here today to say that it should be eliminated. I again take modest exception to the notion that you must pick studies, dueling studies. The independent studies from the National Academy of Science time and time and time again have documented that the economic justification is not there. In fact, we had the Inspector General find that the corps, under intense political pressure, cooked the books, two generals and a colonel lost their job. It was a scandal, and a whistleblower had to get protection because he was going to be fired for just telling the truth. Well, what we have offered as an amendment is a safety valve that if the experts, the independent experts are wrong and barge traffic is going to go up, not decline, then the project goes ahead, because the corps cannot build this project for another 4 or 5 years anyway. It goes ahead, and we continue spending lots of money renovating the existing locks. But our amendment is a safety valve and a reality check. Now, I think this bill is a good start. I hope our amendment is approved, because there is an effort here to accelerate the good work that the committee, past and present, has done. We are going to strongly urge that we make the transition to make sure that given the troubled history of this project, given the fact that it will impact every district across the country competing for scarce resources, we ought to have this safety valve and reality check. I strongly urge approval of the bill and approval of the Flake- Blumenauer amendment at the appropriate time. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share my admiration for the good work of the subcommittee. I have enjoyed my service, and I look forward to working as it moves forward through the legislative process.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak. I wanted to just clarify something. I really appreciate the interaction that we are having here, but there is an element of confusion. Some of the talking points that the opposition to our amendment in the upper Mississippi have been distributing contain the notion that we have ignored the upper Mississippi River, that the locks are ignored. They are antiquated. They are crumbling. We have not done anything. One of my colleagues from Illinois said that we had not touched them for 50 years. Now, it may be in the talking points, but it is not true. Right now there is $88 million that is being spent on Lock 24 for important reconstruction. And I appreciated the anecdote that my friend from Missouri pointed out in terms of a problem that occurred when there was a visitation recently to the big 1,200-foot lock where there were seven bolts that were sheared off. That story he shared with me is exactly the point. We need to spend money to maintain what we have in place right now. We have spent almost $1 billion. We are not adequately maintaining the current locks. My friends are confusing building elaborate expensive new construction, which may or may not happen in its entirety, with adequate maintenance for what is there now. This is missing the point. I respectfully suggest that we not in the course of this debate confuse these points. I take modest exception to the notion that just because we are moving forward with efforts to invest in America's infrastructure and trying to protect what we have, that we are somehow alleging that we have this vast river system that we are ignoring. We have not, we are not, and we will not ignore the river's needs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would make two brief points. First, what is not being focused on is where the traffic is going in this corridor. Some products that previously had gone out the mouth of the Mississippi River are now going north to Canada by rail, south to Mexico by rail, they are going west for export, or they are being consumed domestically. That is why, and it comes to the second point: traffic on the river is not going up as these studies have shown. It has been flat for the last 20 years. It has been going down for the last 3 years. What the gentleman from Arizona and I have offered is a modest compromise. If 3 years is not enough, take 4 years. But look at where the trend line is going and justify a project before you start new construction, $1.8 billion, for something that frankly does not appear to be warranted according to the independent estimates, CRS, three studies from the National Academy of Science, and we have already seen that the corps' process has been severely discredited according to an investigation by the Inspector General.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is saying. I think it is important to have this safety valve. Nobody is suggesting that we close the locks, stop the rehabilitation, and shove all this stuff on trucks. That is not what we are talking about. There is plenty of time, plenty of money that can be spent boosting the local economy by doing this right. But concentrate on the priorities. Make sure what we have got works, scale it to traffic, give it a fair test, see if the experts are right. If the experts are all wrong, then the project will go forward. If the experts are right, we will have saved $1.8 billion.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, we begin debate on the Water Resources Development Act, a serious effort by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to start fixing a seriously broken system with almost $60 billion in construction backlog which includes projects which range from the good to the bad to the ugly and the obsolete. Since the corps is overwhelmed with projects and labors under outmoded principles and guidelines which Congress and the corps have not updated in over 20 years, the process is inherently, intensely political. The poster child for that is the upper Mississippi lock project, the most expensive navigation project in history, the dinosaur of these projects. An inspector general found that the Corps cooked the books and fired somebody trying to do his job telling the truth. The Blumenauer-Flake amendment will provide a safety valve to ensure that the project will not go forward unless it is economically justified, and will speed the long overdue process of reforming the operation of the Army Corps of Engineers so it can be about the important water resources projects our country needs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we heard earlier today that there is a need to have a massive investment in the lock system in the Mississippi River to avoid having product move up and down in trucks. That is not the issue. The problem that we are facing now is that more and more of the grain and other agricultural product are being shipped by truck and rail because it needs to get to locations not served by the Mississippi River system. This has been shown by the Congressional Research Service and the National Academy of Science. The bill that is coming before us for a vote next week would be the Nation's most expensive waterway project and would siphon off 10 to 15 percent of all core construction funding for years, perhaps decades, to come, for an area where the barge traffic is actually going down. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I are offering that would allow the project to go forward only if the minimum standards that make it economically viable are, in fact, met over the next 3 years.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy for yielding me this time, and I noticed with pride her reference to the Sacramento situation. We worked with Bob Matsui on that for years, and he provided great leadership. I appreciate the gentlewoman's continued efforts, and I am pleased this bill looks like it may help move that project forward. It is a priority for not only California, but also the Nation. I am also pleased to serve under the leadership of the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan). I truly believe that the work of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is developing a path for a new direction for the Corps of Engineers and water resources. This has been an arduous, difficult task in our Chamber and the other Body, dealing with a wide variety of issues and I salute him, our ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and her predecessor, Mr. Costello, because I know they have spent long, hard hours bringing forth a product that will do much good for America. I come today in support, however, of one amendment which I appreciate being made in order in this rule which will enable the Chamber to take a step back and look at the largest, most expensive navigation project in America's history. I think it is important that we take that careful look, because frankly, there are grave questions about this project. Today, for instance, I note yet another in a flood, if I may use the term, of editorials from around the country. This from the Chicago Tribune entitled ``Reality on the River'' that calls into question the wisdom of this massive investment. WRDA would authorize $1.8 billion to expand seven locks on the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. This would be the most expensive project for navigation in our Nation's history. It will take 10 to 15 percent of the Corps construction funding for years, indeed decades. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) needs to be concerned about this if we are going to fund what she wants. The gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) has water resource needs that are of significance to her constituents, which are at risk if we are going to make this massive investment. For order of magnitude, Members are familiar with the ``Big Dig'' highway project in Massachusetts. This is an order of magnitude five times larger than the Big Dig when applied to water. When the Corps is facing a $58 billion backlog of projects right now and a construction budget of less than $2 billion per year, we need to look at this very, very carefully; especially since the economic justification of this project is not just shaky, but frankly, it looks to be flawed. Studies by the National Academy of Science and the Congressional Research Service, as well as the recent history of traffic on the Mississippi, shows that there is not an increase in barge traffic that would justify it. In fact, for the last 20 years, barge traffic has been flat, and for the last 13 years it has declined. It has declined more than a third from 1992. As barge traffic has declined, we have nonetheless spent almost a billion dollars rehabilitating the locks on the river. This has been controversial from the start. This project helped launch our Corps reform efforts. Members of this Chamber may remember in the year 2000, the Corps of Engineers fired the lead economist, Donald Sweeney, because he claimed Corps officials had ordered him to ``cook the books,'' to underestimate how much was going to be shipped. Well, he applied for whistleblower protection. In fact, the Army's inspector general confirmed that the Corps had manipulated the documents. Unfortunately, the Corps has not adequately fixed the process. Several studies from the National Academy of Science and the Congressional Research Service show that the model is still flawed. In fact, the most recent study from the National Academy of Science in 2004 points out that despite their efforts, ``The study contains flaws serious enough to limit its credibility and value within the policy- making process.'' Now, I want to make clear I am not here today to kill this project. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I are offering an amendment that simply says if this project is justified, then it goes forward. Our amendment just says that the minimum justification, 35 million tons of barge traffic, is the lowest justification that would make this economically viable. They have 3 more years to hit the target. Maybe there has been an aberration in the last 20 years, so they have 3 more years. If in the course of the next 3 years there still is no increase, then certainly we should not be spending almost $2 billion. This amendment does not delay the project. Testimony before our committee indicated it will take 4 to 5 years even with optimal funding for planning for this to move forward. Not only would the amendment not delay the project at all, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I recommend that there be immediate activities in the basin to be able to move barges more efficiently. Under our amendment, people who ship will get help immediately. It will make it easier for barge traffic to go up and down. It will make it easier to hit their projections. It would seem we are doing them a favor. Bear in mind that this is a time of great change in the upper Midwest. Their products are going north to Canada on rail, south to Mexico on rail under NAFTA. They are actually exporting less because they are using product for the domestic market for things like ethanol and for food for animals. It is not likely that there is going to be a need for increased river capacity in the future. And it is not about shifting to trucks. This product is already moving on rail, going north and south, going west; and we are not taking away the barges in the Mississippi River. They will still be there. I strongly urge my friends to look at this, the largest project for navigation in our history, to do things now under our amendment that will help the barge traffic, that are cheaper and more cost effective. Every Member has a stake in this, and I urge your consideration. [From the Chicago Tribune, July 13, 2005] Reality on the River Congress is poised to approve the most expensive water navigation and restoration project in U.S. history, despite glaring evidence that the project is a multibillion-dollar boondoggle. The proposed $1.8 billion project would enlarge and modernize the 80-year-old system of locks along the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers so barges carrying corn, soybeans and other goods to Gulf of Mexico ports can travel more quickly. Advocates say the project is needed for Midwestern agribusiness to stay ahead of rising competitors such as Brazil. The mighty Mississippi remains a cheap shipping route, but congestion and other delays sometime hold up barges for hours. The 10-year-old project, though, has faced constant questions about wasteful spending and inflated expectations. The Army Corps of Engineers has predicted river traffic could increase as much as 30 percent over the next 20 years. But a Congressional Research Service report and studies by the National Academy of Sciences have found little to back up that rosy projection and have questioned whether the real economic benefits will be worth the cost. Congress has one chance to protect taxpayers on this. The House is scheduled to vote as early as Wednesday on a measure that would cut off the project's funds before construction begins if river traffic fails to grow as much as the Army Corps projects it will over the next five years. That measure deserves strong support. There's good reason to question the projections. Mississippi River traffic is close to where it was back in 1980 and has declined sharply through the five major locks since 1990, partly because Midwestern growers have been shipping more goods by rail and selling more corn to nearby ethanol plants. The locks improvement project ground to a halt in early 2000 after a whistle-blower accused the Army Corps of inflating the project's economic benefits. An investigation by the Army's inspector general later cited a built-in bias at the Corps in favor of costly construction projects. Yet a coalition of barge operators, agricultural producers and Midwestern lawmakers is pushing the House to approve the project before the August recess. It may be too late to head off that approval. But an amendment sponsored by Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat, would make the first phase of construction money dependent upon river traffic increasing enough to justify it. If traffic fails to reach the 16 percent growth that the Army Corps projects by 2010, funds to the expansion project would be denied. Taxpayers would have paid only $13.7 million, which was approved last year for research and design. The Army Corps of Engineers has an unfortunate reputation for underestimating costs and exaggerating benefits of some of its projects. Tying its construction budget to its own predictions would create a powerful incentive for the Corps and other government agencies to ground their grand plans in realistic expectations.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week, Members of the House of Representatives will have a chance to keep faith with the American taxpayers and the interests of our each and every district. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I will offer an amendment to assure that the most expensive project in the history of the Corps of Engineers, the Upper Mississippi River Navigation expansion, is in fact justified. This $1.8 billion project will take up 10 to 15 percent of the entire Corps construction budget for years, perhaps decades to come, impacting projects in every congressional district. That is because the Corps' current backlog of construction is about $58 billion and the construction budget is less than $2 billion a year. We need to make sure that we are using our limited funding for worthwhile projects. Now, while I have deep reservations about this project, I respect the hard work of our chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), of the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), and particularly of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), who, for years has worked hard in the committee and behind the scenes to make this a better project. Out of respect for their hard work, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I have come up with a compromise, not to eliminate the project, but simply to make sure that we are preserving the integrity of the Corps' project and the fiscal responsibility of Congress. The amendment we will offer will authorize the project to proceed if the minimum economic justification that has been offered for the project is met. The planning is such that this project is going to be in a planning stage for the next 5 years. So our amendment will not in any way interfere with the planning process itself. It will simply require that over the course of the next 3 years that the projections for barge traffic at the minimum level are met. Now, this is the key justification because barge traffic is cited in scenarios put forward by the Corps to show the need for this massive project because they claim that barge traffic on the Mississippi River system is going up. But according to the Corps' own data, barge traffic has declined 23 percent from 1992 to 2003. Last year it dropped by 19 percent. While it seems the Corps' traffic scenarios are wildly overoptimistic, and that barge traffic is likely to continue its decline, our amendment will allow the Corps to go forward with its planning project if, over the next 3 years, they meet the lowest scenario that makes this project economically justified. Why is this special attention so important? Well, I have already pointed out it is the largest project in the history of the Corps and is going to impact projects all across the country that are worthy and much more important. But we ought to consider the troubled history of this project, for this project is, for many people, the project that launched the Corps Reform movement. In 2000, the Corps economist, Donald Sweeney, claimed that the Corps officials ordered him to cook the books in order to economically justify this project. After a whistle blower investigation, the Army Inspector General agreed, and two generals and a colonel lost their jobs. This project epitomizes the need for reform and modernization of the Corps of Engineers. It is an example of how the Corps' planning system has a bias towards large structural projects. The National Association of Science has concluded that the Corps has ignored nonstructural alternatives such as congestion fees, scheduling and switch boats, that will enable the system to work better. And we do not yet have a good system of independent review, which, if it had been required of this project, we would not be arguing about it today. Several National Academy of Science reports have examined the project. In 2001, the panel concluded the Corps had relied on over optimistic projections. In December of 2003 a second panel renewed their objections, concluding it was not possible to evaluate the benefits of lock expansion until an efficient system for managing the waterway was implemented. Last year an additional report concluded that despite the Corps' efforts, ``the study contains flaws serious enough to limit its credibility and value in the policymaking program.'' While I believe we have gone a long way in modernizing many of the Corps activities, I salute my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the committee for the work that WRDA has done. It is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to look at this amendment, and I urge its approval.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this and the leadership of our friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who, as was mentioned along with our colleague, the former Member, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), will ironically will be in Washington D.C. this week. I cannot think of a better gift for Mr. Bereuter, a recognition for his long service to this House and to the people of Nebraska and the country, to do this important clarification. I could not agree more with my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) how important it is to clarify the intent of this legislation. The whole thrust of it was to, in some cases, eliminate potential abuse of the program. But more than an isolated case of abuse here and there, there were a number of people who were trapped in a pattern of flood and having to repair and did not know how to get out of it. And the bill was designed, as my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), pointed out, in cooperation with environmental groups, with taxpayer groups, with industry, the insurance industry, home building industry, financial institutions, to try and make sure that we did the right job for both the taxpayer and people who are in flood-prone areas. The National Flood Insurance Program is critical to the lives of over 4 million policyholders. And many of the people eligible for flood- mitigation assistance under the flood insurance program were caught in this cycle of flooding and rebuilding and flooding again that could be ended with mitigation assistance. Now, I support strongly this legislation to remove a disincentive for people living in flood-prone areas to accept the mitigation grant that will help prepare them for floods before they happen, reduce damage for future floods, and save lives for future disasters. Everybody wins if this program works right. The policyholders win because, as we pointed out, as the legislation was moving forward, when we have the legislation, only 1 percent of the property owners were responsible for 25 percent of the flood-loss dollars. By reducing the magnitude of this repetitive flood loss program, we were able to make a huge difference to a wide range of people. The Association of State Flood Plain Managers estimates that avoiding just one 10 percent increase will save the 4.4 million policyholders about $175 million each year. Taxpayers will win if the mitigation program works right, because the flood insurance payments are the tip of the iceberg. Because there are many, many people in harm's way, who get part of their relief from flood insurance, but we have disaster plains on the Federal Government that far exceed them. By making this program work right, we will save taxpayers money time and time again. I appreciate the hard work the Financial Services Committee has done in trying to fine-tune the flood insurance program, continuing hearings to make sure that it works right, and here, clearing up any ambiguity to make sure that we take any disincentive for using the mitigation grants and solve that problem to make sure that people take advantage of moving out of harm's way, saving money, enhancing the environment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the single most important vote of the week and one of the most important of the year is buried in the massive Water Resources Development Act coming before Congress this week: the Upper Mississippi Lock project. This is the ``Big Dig'' of water projects. Actually, it is like five or six big digs, since 10 percent of all water resources for years to come will be spent on this single project. I urge my colleagues to look closely at the amendment that I will be offering with my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), which will require that before this project moves from planning to construction in 5 years, that the minimum justification for the demand for barge traffic, the rationale for the project, is justified. Taxpayers deserve no less for the largest water resources project in America's history.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I was heartened by the way Members from both sides of the aisle worked together to produce an appropriations bill that truly reflects the will of Congress. While initially deeply flawed, the House was able to work together and pass amendments that restore funding to essential transportation and housing programs. I was particularly pleased by the passage of an amendment offered by Representatives LaTourette and Oberstar that restored Amtrak funding to approximately $1.2 billion. Public support of transportation modes is both necessary and desirable. Our past investments have made our country stronger and more secure. I was also happy to see the passage of amendments that restored funding to important housing programs that aid in community and economic development and provide housing opportunities for the least well off in our society. I was particularly pleased to see the restoration of HOPE VI funding. A 2001 HOPE VI revitalization grant is enabling the Housing Authority of Portland to revitalize Columbia Villa, a dilapidated World War II era housing cluster, into a vibrant, mixed use, mixed income neighborhood, improving the livability of the surrounding region. I am hopeful that the improvements that were adopted by the House during floor consideration of the bill will be preserved throughout the appropriations process and will not be swept under the rug during conference committee.