Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy, speaking 44 years ago at the establishment of the Peace Corps, remarked that, ``The initial reactions to the Peace Corps proposal are convincing proof that we have, in this country, an immense reservoir of such men and women-- anxious to sacrifice their energies and time and toil to the cause of world peace and human progress.'' What was true in 1961 is true today; Peace Corps Volunteers are an outstanding group of men and women serving the cause of people everywhere. During this National Peace Corps Week, I want to honor the service and commitment of the Peace Corps Volunteers from Oregon's 3rd Congressional District and express my pride in my fellow Oregonians who have chosen to devote years of their lives in service to others. In particular, I want to recognize those Peace Corps Volunteers currently serving: Adela Ardelean in Romania McKean Banzer-Lausberg in Morocco Melissa Barber in Mali Danae Bayley in Kenya Elizabeth Decker in Azerbaijan Amad Dorotaj in Mexico Jeannine Ferguson in Romania Crista Gardner in Guatemala Kortney Garrison in Suriname Christian Gervasi in Azerbaijan Marisa Heman in Cameroon Shannon Lawler in El Salvador Ken Meisel in Tanzania Brett Meyer in Mali Angela Newman in Kenya Cory Owens in Senegal Joshua Owens in Senegal Elizabeth Peterson in Cameroon Andrew Poundstone in Suriname Kimberly Schneider in Burkina Faso Amber Schulz in Romania Hanna Seyl in Malawi Cory Seig in Namibia Adrianne Stach in Tanzania Rebecca Tweed in Vanuatu Joel Van Allen in East Timor Jennifer Vomaske in Kenya Luke White in Nicaragua Eric Wiley in Bulgaria Lucille Wilkinson in Guatemala Brenda Wolsey in Albania Corinne Wong in Gambia Marta Young in Peru Their work to empower people and communities in developing countries is a crucial contribution to creating a safe and prosperous world, building bridges between America and the world, and establishing a better future for people everywhere.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one reason I came to Congress is to make the Federal government a better partner to communities. One of the simplest ways to achieve that objective does not require new rules or regulations for local or state governments, and it does not require massive outlays of our budget driving us even deeper into deficit. The simplest answer is for the Federal government to follow the same rules that all others must follow. To this end, I am reintroducing the Post Office Community Partnership Act. This bill outlines minimum community contact procedures that the United States Postal Service must pursue for any proposed closing, consolidation, relocation, or construction of a post office. Simply put, the bill requires the Postal Service to comply with local zoning, planning, or other land use laws. This legislation has had the bipartisan support of the majority of the House of Representatives and in past Congresses passed the Senate only to become the victim of the politics of postal reform. In recent sessions there have been efforts at more comprehensive legislation that all include some variation of this bill as an enticement for passage. The pressure from our legislation has in fact encouraged some within the Postal Service to make significant progress. I've met with members of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commissioners, and the National League of Postmasters, and they have made progress. There are outstanding examples of where they have worked with the local community to make the post office an integral part of a downtown or main street. It is time, however, to make this relationship something that every community can count on. It is time to make this relationship part of the Postal Service's regular activities. It should not be an exception, it should not require luck or extraordinary political action, and there should be no variation in the commitment to providing the finest examples of being a part of each and every community. Last year, Congress failed on acting expediently to pass comprehensive postal legislation that included provisions from the Post Office Community Partnership Act. I am hopeful that this hesitation will not be repeated in the 109th Congress. Congress has the opportunity to set the tone for the Postal Service and federal government to become a full partner in the livability of our communities, leading by example so our families are safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution commending the outstanding efforts by members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development in response to the earthquake and tsunami of December 26, 2004. When I toured the tsunami-affected countries in early January, I was struck by how impressive the relief effort by American military and civilian personnel was. Their actions went above and beyond the call of duty and they deserve our deepest gratitude.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I agree with this bill's intent to prevent the legal system from being ``gamed'' by attorneys who lump thousands of speculative claims into a single class action lawsuit and then seek out a sympathetic State court. Any abusive or frivolous class action is a drain on the system and forces innocent defendants to settle cases rather than play judicial roulette with the risk of a huge unjustified settlement. Unfortunately, instead of narrowly focusing on such abuses, Senate bill 5 completely reconfigures the judicial system, resulting in diminished corporate accountability and fundamental legal rights of individuals. While this bill makes some improvements to limit frivolous lawsuits, it does so at a price that will make it harder for average Americans to successfully pursue real claims against interests that violate their States' consumer health, civil rights, and environmental protection laws. This is an unnecessary tradeoff. I voted for a Democratic substitute motion which would have minimized some of these abuses. Sadly, it was defeated and, as a result, I voted against final passage. I will continue to be open to changes that make our judicial system work better, but not at the expense of the people I represent. It is essential that we hold accountable the forces that have so much impact on the lives of every American.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I, like most of my colleagues on the floor, was horrified that our soldiers in Iraq had to scavenge junk yards of former Iraqi military equipment for metal and sheet armor to improve their own vehicles. My constituents in the Oregon National Guard were doing this and supplementing it with plywood and sandbags. We were promised ``up-armoring'' by the administration, but this is still woefully inadequate. The additional weight puts increased stress on the suspension and drive-train of the vehicles, hampering their operational efficiency and making them slower. But, even worse, the fact that the floor is not protected means that the insurgents are now targeting these up-armored vehicles. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had one of my constituents lose a foot because of such an attack. Two years later, and after over $200 billion that Congress has given the administration for the war in Iraq, we should not approve another supplemental budget request without adequate guarantees that, finally, the needs of our soldiers will be met.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, Congressman Mark Foley and I are introducing legislation to extend commuter benefits to bicyclists. This important legislation includes bicycles in the definition of transportation covered by the qualified transportation fringe benefit. Currently, employers may offer a Transportation Fringe Benefit to their employees for commuting to work. Employees who take advantage of this program may receive a tax exemption benefit totaling $200 for participating in qualified parking plans or $105 for transit or van- pool expenses. Employees may also opt to take cash compensation instead, which is subject to employment taxes. The Bike Commuter Act would extend these same Transportation Fringe Benefits to employees who choose to commute by bicycle, eliminating the disincentive for this alternative mode of transportation. It's time to level the playing field for bicycle commuters. Bicycling is one of the cleanest, healthiest, most energy-efficient and environmentally friendly modes of transportation that exist today. Nearly 500,000 Americans already ride their bicycles to work on a daily basis, and 52 percent of Americans want to bike more than they do. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, bicycles are second only to cars as a preferred mode of transportation, demonstrating their significant potential for commuter use. Many Americans own one or more bicycles, but limit their use to recreational purposes. At a time when communities across the country are seeking to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, increase the safety of their neighborhoods, and decrease petroleum dependence, bicycles offer a wonderful alternative to driving for the more than 50 percent of the working population who commute five miles or less to work. In addition, since the adoption of ISTEA in 1991, Federal spending on bicycle facilities and infrastructure has increased dramatically, contributing to a significant improvement in the bicycling environment in a variety of communities. This legislation is an important step in making the Federal Government a better partner for more livable communities. The Federal Government should further support these goals by providing transportation benefits to people who choose to commute in a healthy, environmental, efficient and neighborhood-friendly fashion.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to nobody my concern that this bill has regarding the environment, but that is not the point. We have already had our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Duncan), talk about how we passed specific legislation signed by President Clinton that suspended the Endangered Species Act. What we are talking about here is far beyond this. It is talking about suspending all laws, health, safety, immigration, payment for private property. All laws, not the environment. My colleagues would be creating not a couple of miles of exception to finish a fence, but you would be creating a zone 7,514 miles long under the terms of this bill, 5,500 in Canada, almost 2,000 with the border of Mexico, where all laws are suspended in the vicinity of the barrier. My colleagues have no idea how much land they are exempting from compensation. Mr. Chairman, there are only 11,751 people who have been privileged to serve in this Chamber. I do not think any of them have ever been asked to vote on anything more irresponsible. It is a terrible precedent, unnecessary, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today's bill would not be nearly as flawed or controversial if it had the benefit of going through the committee process. Unfortunately, we are faced with costly legislation that overturns States rights and does little to address the problems of our immigration system or to protect Americans from another terrorist attack. Instead, this bill places enormous regulatory and financial burdens on State governments and makes Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) employees de facto immigration officers. This policy promises to be ineffective as there are approximately 70 different kinds of immigration related documents issued by the Federal Government. This bill will not deter illegal immigration; it will probably mean illegal immigrants will drive without licenses. In addition, in order to complete three miles of a border fence near San Diego, Section 102 of this bill suspends all laws, from public health and labor to the environment and property compensation. In fact, all barriers and roads along 7,514 miles of U.S. borders would be exempt from all laws. One person in the Department of Homeland Security would be above the law without any judicial appeal or remedy. This is unprecedented. Some of the environmental laws waived would include the Noise Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the Farmland Protection Policy Act, and the Bald Eagle Act. In addition to being bad public policy, this exemption is unnecessary, as most of these laws have security exemptions already written into them. This legislation will not make us safer or reduce illegal immigration. In the end, it is hard to imagine a more dangerous precedent.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, and I agree with her very strongly. Make no mistake, our side of the aisle is supportive of this legislation. We want to work with the State and local authorities first to do it right. These are the people who feel these concerns every bit as strongly as Members of Congress. In fact, they are on the line every day providing for the safety and security of our constituents in a much more immediate sense than we are. Do not be afraid to work with them. But with all due respect to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, I have one other provision that deeply offends me as a former elected official, as a Member of this body and somebody who believes in checks and balances. I look at section 102. I wish that it were buried in the legislation, but it is not. It is right here in the beginning. If this provision, the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards, using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review. Now, bear in mind you are giving this authority to the head of Homeland Security, hardly a paragon of sensitivity and efficiency. Anybody who stands in those lines week after week or watches the bizarre color-coded warning system knows that that is hardly the exemplar. Security at the borders is important; and if somebody has a problem with building a security fence, by all means, Congress should deal with it. But as far as I know, no committee has been called upon to do that yet. There are important waiver provisions that are available. But waiving all laws for construction is an inappropriate decision. And with all due respect, it is a dangerous precedent that anybody on either side of the aisle should be deeply offended by.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I have long admired the services of the many Boy Scout volunteers and have benefited from the organization myself. It is sad that their good works have been clouded by a policy that governs who can participate in the organization. Until the organization changes that policy, I do not feel comfortable voting for resolutions such as this.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to view the devastation in Southeast Asia as a result of the tsunami. As appalled as I was by what I saw, I must confess that occasionally my thoughts drifted back to the United States. What would have happened if last September, Hurricane Ivan had veered 40 miles to the west, devastating the city of New Orleans? One likely scenario would have had a tsunami-like 30-foot wall of water hitting the city, causing thousands of deaths and $100 billion in damage. The city has always been at risk because of its low-lying location, but that risk has been increased because of rising sea levels, groundwater pumping and the erosion of coastal Louisiana. Twenty-four square miles of wetland disappear every year, since the 1930s an area one and a half times the size of Rhode Island washed away. Considering the reaction of the American public to the loss of a dozen people in the recent mud slides in California, it is hard to imagine what would happen if a disaster of that magnitude hit the United States. The experience of Southeast Asia should convince us all of the urgent need for congressional action to prevent wide-scale loss of life and economic destruction at home and abroad. Prevention and planning will pay off. Maybe the devastation will encourage us to act before disaster strikes.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as the cochair of the Congressional Public Broadcasting Caucus, I am introducing a bipartisan resolution to recognize the achievements of the National Captioning Institute, NCI, in providing closed-captioning services and other media access technologies to Americans who are disabled by hearing loss and/or vision loss, or who are limited by their inability to read or master English as a second language. Given that communication delivery systems such as television and, more recently, the Internet, play an absolutely essential role in American society, this resolution salutes NCI's quarter-century of progressive development in bringing media-access technologies to the American people. The National Captioning Institute was founded in 1979 as a nonprofit corporation with the mission of ensuring that deaf and hard-of-hearing people have access to television through the technology of closed captioning. Prior to this time, captioned television was offered on an extremely limited basis, and the captions were ``open,'' resembling subtitles, an obtrusive system roundly rejected by broadcasters and audiences alike. NCI pioneered the closed-caption technology in which captions could be accessed through special decoder units. This revolutionary solution made it possible for both hearing and hearing- impaired audiences to enjoy television programming at the same time, and made the goal of accessible television a reality. NCI pioneered the way for the first, nationally broadcast closed captioned television programs 25 years ago--an event so momentous that it was announced from the Rose Garden of the White House and made international headlines. It is estimated that more than 100 million Americans benefit from captioned programming. These audiences include 28 million people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing; children and adults learning to read; and those learning English as a second language. Hearing and nonhearing audiences are most likely to use closed captioning in their homes, although the system is embedded throughout today's society in public spaces such as bars, gyms and airports. As part of NCI's commitment to providing media access to everyone, NCI is making great advances in the development and application of described video technology, a service that provides an audio description of the visual elements of video programming for people who are blind or have low vision, which is an audience of more than 14 million people. The span of NCI's perseverance and dedication extends far beyond technology for our televisions. NCI established the Nation's only free consumer help desk for communications access issues where citizens may pose questions on topics such as the availability of captioned programming, how to resolve problems with displaying captions, accessibility of closed captions with digital cable and high definition television, and the availability of closed captions in Spanish and on DVDs and home videos. In addition to its technologic achievements, NCI recently took the lead on auditing how the entire captioning industry is performing. It commissioned the field's first study to evaluate the quality, availability, and use of the Nation's use of captioning services in order to improve performance throughout the entire captioning industry. In light of all of the above achievements, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this resolution and demonstrate our support for the National Captioning Institute's dedication to improving media access to millions of our fellow Americans.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following vote on Thursday, January 6, 2005, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall Vote 7: I would have voted ``Nay'' on agreeing to the objection to the certification of the Ohio electoral votes. While I do not protest the outcome of the Ohio electoral votes, irregularities in the 2000 and 2004 elections, especially in Florida and Ohio, make it clear that we need to do a lot more to give voters confidence that every vote is accurately counted. The 2004 State of Washington gubernatorial race shows how narrow the outcome of a race can be even with millions of votes cast. The 109th Congress must act to ensure that no future elections are mired in controversy and that the United States provides a clear and strong example of democracy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is a relief to finally pass this important legislation to make America safer. The bill moves our national security and intelligence coordination efforts forward and paves the way for future counterterrorism measures. I am concerned by some of the limits placed on the powers of the National Intelligence Director and would like to have seen stronger safeguards for individual civil liberties. I am pleased to see that the most egregious immigration provisions were removed by the Conference Committee. While it is unfortunate that it took two months to pass this bill, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill two months ago that had the support of the 9/11 Commission, families of the 9/11 victims, and President Bush. That legislation could have been passed immediately. Instead, we almost didn't get a bill at all. The challenge now will be to focus our efforts on the greatest threat to America today: terrorism. My commitment is to work to make the new structure a success and to not allow the quagmire in Iraq to divert us from the essential task dealing with terrorism.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following votes on Saturday, November 20, 2004, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote 538: I would have voted ``nay'' on waiving the House rule to allow for the same day consideration of legislation. Congress should follow the House rules and have adequate time to review legislation before casting its votes. Rollcall vote 539: I would have voted ``yea'' on the resolution recognizing the Boy Scouts of America for the public service the organization performs for neighborhoods and communities across the United States. Rollcall vote 540: I would have voted ``nay'' on the resolution waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the fiscal 2005 omnibus appropriations bill. Rollcall vote 541: I would have voted ``yea'' on passage of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act. While this legislation only allows the Federal Aviation Administration to regulate technologies that ``have resulted in a serious or fatal injury,'' this will be an interesting test for safety regulations of a very narrow group of consumers who are aware of the risks they face. Rollcall vote 542: I would have voted ``yea'' on passage of the fiscal 2005 omnibus appropriations bill. The uproar caused by the last- minute insertion of a provision opening up tax returns to the Appropriations Committee is not a surprise based on the manner in which the bill came to the floor under a ``Martial Law'' rule. Congress deserves the opportunity to have the time to thoroughly review bills before being asked to vote on them. While I disapprove of the manner in which the omnibus bill was brought to the floor, funding for the 15 governmental agencies receiving funding from this bill are indispensable to my district and the country.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the Native American Youth Association (NAYA) for thirty years of diligent work in serving the Native community in the Portland Metropolitan area. Aiding Native American youth and families, NAYA Family Center has answered an important call to reach the urban Indian population in Portland, estimated to be 31,000 people strong. As Native American high school students experience a dropout rate 13.3 percent higher than the national average, the need for youth intervention is clear. NAYA Family Center has tirelessly pursued these issues with a focus on providing the cultural, educational, family, economic, spiritual, and leadership resources necessary to deliver service to this important population. NAYA worked as a volunteer-based service provider for 20 years, incorporating as an official 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in 1994. Now, in 2004, thirty years from the beginning, it is my honor to recognize the organization's first ``Celebrating Native American Month'' development dinner.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the Reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act conference report is an improvement on the current program. I have been committed to fulfilling the Federal Government's promise of funding at least 40 percent of the IDEA program like it was intended during its enactment in 1975. Even though this bill does not immediately do that, it will by 2011. I am glad Congress was able to work in a bipartisan manner for our children's future. I hope we all keep faith with the spirit of this legislation. This legislation contains new opportunities to make the program work better for students, parents, teachers, and schools. It provides opportunities for parents and schools to address concerns before the need for due process hearings and fosters parental involvement in an Individual Education Plan. The conference report also provides quality service and instruction at all stages, from early childhood through high school. Now it is up to the future Congresses to live up to the promises of this legislation and provide the funding to fulfill these programs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time, and I applaud the sponsors, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for bringing this forward. In a sense, it is bittersweet that we have to do this because of the continuing crisis in Sudan, but the fact is that this Congress has been moving forward and shining the spotlight. This is another step towards making a difference, helping provide safe haven for hundreds of thousands of innocent people. As the world proceeds with words of concern, the people of Darfur continue to suffer at the hands of the Sudanese government and their militia allies because good words are not a sufficient substitute for appropriate action. I appreciate the commitment we have here in Congress to do something, to take action. I view this resolution as the next step in moving us along that path. It authorizes desperately needed humanitarian aid for over 1.5 million people forced from their homes. It includes both a carrot and a stick. It gives aide to Sudan if the government finishes the north- south peace process, begins to protect civilians and disarm the militia, and provides for sanction against senior government officials if they do not. Time will tell whether or not we have hit the right balance. I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) talking about the role of the United Nations and the work we need to do there. It is an important issue for us as Members of Congress, because this is one of the areas, frankly, that I felt even in the fall when there was a lot of partisan passions, there were legitimate disagreements on areas of policy from Members, but this is an area where our shared values as Americans were more important than any partisan differences. I remember the evening of our last resolution where Members came together in this Chamber, and it made me feel that maybe we would be able to take that step forward. I appreciate this resolution as being a part of the process, but I would offer the question for my colleagues if maybe we might take another small step. I have been in consultation with some of my colleagues like the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and others, about whether or not we might resolve as a Congress that in the next session we would make a priority to take one small step, that each Member in the 109th Congress be able to visit the Sudan, to be able to spend a night on the ground in Darfur, and as we leave that country to stop off in Khartoum and let the government of Sudan know that their behavior is reprehensible and the spotlight of the world is trained upon them. If we as Members go to our leadership in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that this resolution has been authored, with the leadership of our International Relations Committee, and ask that the leadership, the Speaker, the minority leader, the majority leader, join with us in making sure that there are a series of CODELs over the next 2 years, I would respectfully suggest that there is no man or woman that serves in this Chamber that cannot find 4 days out of their lives in the next 2 years that could result in the saving of tens of thousands of lives. I have received feedback from people in the NGO community that are doing outstanding work; they say if every Member of Congress would go to the Sudan over the next 2 years, that it would have a transformational effect, even if we had only 50 or 60 of our colleagues. So by all means, approve this resolution, stand, speak out, move forward; but I would ask that my colleagues join me in making a visit on the ground to be a priority for us all. This small gesture can save tens of thousands of lives.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in yielding me this time. I heard the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules talk about how this is an easy issue to be a demagogue. Well, I would suggest what we heard from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was the antithesis of demagoguery. It does not require an emotional or irrational appeal to prejudice. They have been direct and straightforward in telling the consequences of the Republican approach to debt management and spending. I should amend that. It is not the Republican approach, because the gentlemen I just referred to from South Carolina and from Texas represent many Republicans, like I do back in Oregon, that do not subscribe to this; and it insults them to suggest this is the Republican approach to budgeting. The distinguished Committee on Rules member from New York talked about the mandate. Well, I would think the Republicans and the President would have a mandate if they had ever talked about this. I did not hear a single Republican talk about increasing the debt. I did not hear them talk about reckless spending on programs for special interests, divorcing it from reality. In fact, they employed tactics to disguise the fact that we had exceeded the debt limit. They have been borrowing from retirement and disability funds, for instance, we expired in October. No, if they had talked about this directly and honestly to the American public, I would accept the notion there is a mandate. And in fact I would suggest if they had done that with their plans, they would not have had a mandate, because they would not have won the election. The fact is we are incurring more debt than is necessary for weapons that do not add to security, for handouts to special interests that do not need them, and tax cuts for people who need them least, making them permanent regardless of the fiscal consequences. We are given a program from the majority party and the President that, if we approved it, would almost double this problem over the next 10 years. I, for one, cannot go back home to campuses and look these young men and women in the eye and suggest that I was a part of approving it. I long for the day when we have a bipartisan effort to reduce the deficit and to deal meaningfully with our spending priorities. But unless and until that happens, I will vote ``no'' as the one way I have of protesting this bizarre divorce from reality, of the fiscal reality that all of us are going to have to live with. Mr. Speaker, would that their rosy scenarios come to pass. In some respects, I hope that they will. I do not wish ill on our country. But the fact is, the policies and the practices are leading us down a path that we will regret for years to come.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, there are all sorts of problems along the United States-Mexican border, but to take a sensitive area that, as my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), has pointed out, where there are serious issues relating to native Americans. We are working on areas here, in terms of the massive amount of fill that would be involved, twice the size of the Hoover Dam, is something that people need to take a pause, a deep breath, and take a careful look. There is a lot of environmental damage that can be done. We cannot keep people, illegal aliens, from crossing the border. It is porous, we know it. To move forward with this massive project now, suspending environmental regulations, extends a precedent that I think is chilling. Our Capitol is a monument to our inability to get things right in terms of things that all of us know are not going to retard terrorists but make our Capitol into sort of a fortress. We are spending money, trying to make people feel good. Suspending environmental regulations in a way that is not going to have any long-term impact. I urge its rejection.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this rule and the underlying bill. I think there is much that is desirable to be found in it. Certainly it is important to meet the needs of our Armed Forces in this difficult time, especially in Iraq. However, the bill continues to spend too much money on the wrong things. One of the most graphic examples is an 11 percent increase for missile defense, over $10 billion, that is critically needed now in areas of homeland security and defense activities. There are also important elements for protecting our communities that are underserved in this legislation. With almost $446 billion, we ought to be able to have the Department of Defense clean up after itself. What this bill does not address is literally a ticking time bomb. I have come to the floor in the past talking about the millions of acres around the country that are contaminated with military contamination, unexploded ordnance, or UXO, the military waste and unexploded bombs left over from former military sites. The estimates range from 10 million to 40 million contaminated acres. I noted a moment ago my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, was here. They are having subdivisions creeping out to the Lowry Air Force Base, a former bombing range, where soon people will be living near areas where we fear there are unexploded ordnance. I note the gentleman from Texas is here. He is near an area in Arlington where there were people out Rototilling their backyards in a new subdivision literally turning up an unexploded bomb. The Department of Defense estimates that identifying, assessing, and cleaning up contamination from military munitions will cost in the area of $8 billion to $35 billion, but most experts say it is going to cost far more. But we are spending at a rate of only $106 million annually. According to GAO, it will take 75 to 330 years to clean up these unexploded ordnance on already closed sites, and it does not include all the new contamination that we are creating. Leaving this toxic legacy does no favor to the Department of Defense. In the long run it is going to cost more to clean it up, because clean it up we must. It is going to threaten the environment, and we have seen situations like the Massachusetts military reservation that is creating serious ground water pollution; it endangers our military and their families. I sincerely hope this is the last such piece of legislation that does not appropriately address the problem of unexploded ordnance and military contamination.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy for yielding me this time, and his leadership. Indeed, following on the heels of my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), our distinguished ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation, with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) and with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), we know in our committee how to work together to solve problems. We should be celebrating today what should be the ultimate expression of bipartisan support to make America safer. Sadly, as has been chronicled by my friend, the gentleman from Oregon and others, that is not what we are doing today. We bypassed these opportunities and, instead, we have inserted in this bill provisions that would allow the deportation of suspects to countries where they can be tortured, enshrining a bizarre and despicable practice, even after the debacle at Abu Ghraib. It is not just immoral and in violation of treaties we have signed; it is a terrible risk to American lives. If we were working together the way we know we can in our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we would not have provisions like this. We would have been able to work through the Commission recommendations, not leaving out 14 that are incomplete and 16 not included at all, but the way the other body has done, supported by the administration. We would not have failed to take action to strengthen nuclear counter proliferation efforts. We would find a way to provide additional security assistance in Afghanistan, and we would not be in a situation where we failed to bring together, to give the National Intelligence Director sufficient authority over the budget and personnel of all of the intelligence agencies. We still have not remedied a fundamental flaw in our system that was made so evident in the report from the 9-11 Commission, what every Member of this House who has looked at it has discovered, that the FBI and the CIA could not communicate with each other, let alone with people within their chain of command. Mr. Chairman, we can do better. The America public deserves better. We need to reject this proposal, adopt the Menendez amendment, and use that as a point of departure to give the American public the security they need, want, and deserve.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4520 illustrates what is wrong with how we're operating in the House. In seeking a legislative solution to a relatively minor requirement to correct a problem that made our Tax Code for manufacturers conflict with our international trade obligations, the Republican leadership pushed aside a no-cost, bipartisan solution for a special-interest loaded bill that is much more expensive and complex. The argument that H.R. 4520 is revenue-neutral is fiction. The actual cost that taxpayers will pay are hidden by delaying the starting date of some provisions and scheduling others to unrealistically end. It is certainly the intention of the sponsors of this bill to fully extend these tax cuts, which will add billions more dollars to years of projected deficits. To compensate for its deficiencies, this bill was laden with targeted tax provisions that will secure the votes of those who represent various interests ranging from tobacco farmers to race track owners to manufacturers of bows and arrows. This has resulted in a bill with 700 pages of additional Tax-Code complexity, making it more difficult to enforce and creating a compliance nightmare for taxpayers. This is not the way to craft tax policy. It erodes the confidence of the public, adding to their distrust of the political system and their belief that they are not being fairly treated.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as an ethical cloud hovers over the House of Representatives, as the fog of misrepresentation on the war in Iraq is slowly lifting, homeland security should be one thing that unites this country. But sadly, the greatest failure of the Republican leadership is the inability to bring us together around this issue. The squabbling on a flawed bill later this morning is just one more example. It is not just its bad provisions; it ducks entirely the issue of unifying our fractured intelligence service. The 9/11 Commission under Governor Kean and Lee Hamilton did their job in a bipartisan manner. The Senate, working together with every, every Republican supporting it, did theirs. The tragedy for the House and the American people is that the House Republican leadership is unable to do their job with this critical task. The good news is the Senate and the 9/11 Commission did their job. Mr. Speaker, it is more important than ever that the American people do their job on Election Day.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. I rise in support of it. Our hearts again go out to the victims of natural disasters like the hurricane in the Southeast, but I would, with all due respect, suggest that we ought to start thinking about how we can do more. This is the second time we have done this in 2 months, but it is not just a once-in-a-century occurrence in Florida. In 2003, President Bush issued 56 major disaster declarations. So far this year he has already issued 46. During the 8 years I have been in Congress there have been at least 10 disaster supplementals, and we have appropriated over $20 billion in disaster relief funding in supplementals. CRS has testified that there is no systematic accounting of disaster relief funding, even just the Federal cost. Now these bills are popular and they are important. They make us feel better; they help people. But always acting after the fact we create a wider hole for the taxpayers, and we keep putting people in harm's way. I remember in 1999, where we had supplemental funding that put hog lagoons back in a flood plain. Now, we should not just continue to clean up after these tragedies and these messes. Congress has an opportunity to make a real difference to prevent some of the future damage when we have major legislation like this. Whether it is flooding, fires, hurricanes, drought or earthquakes, we can make a difference ahead of time. I look at what happened in California with the recent wildfires that we have seen earlier in this Congress. We saw in Ventura County and Los Angeles County, Stevenson Ranch, where people did some thoughtful planning before the fact and the losses were dramatically reduced. We should at a minimum create a comprehensive national strategy for responding to and preparing for recurrent natural hazards. It ought to include consistent Federal policies. We should shift some of our Federal investments to prevention and protection. We should provide technical and financial assistance to support State and local mitigation efforts like in the State of Florida, hazard mapping, land use planning, building standards, retrofitting existing structures. We should use our Federal facilities in States like Florida to model the best practice in terms of location and safe construction. Now, earlier this year, we stepped in this direction, reforming the flood insurance program. The funding in this bill will save the Federal Government millions of dollars in avoided flood damage, such as we are currently seeing in Florida, and it will reduce losses in the future and take people out of harm's way. Unfortunately, this bill, authorized, has not been funded. I sincerely hope we pass this bill today, and I look forward to seeing what the chairman and the ranking member can work out to do it in a comprehensive way to make sure that people are not left in the lurch. But when my colleagues are adding more in, please consider doing a little bit to help people in Florida and other areas avoid danger in the future. Fund the flood insurance reform that does not cost any general fund money. It simply takes some that is already there in that fund and allows it to be used. And let us not put people back in harm's way; let us give them a helping hand, as well as assistance.