Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act is a step in the right direction in promoting profitable agri-business in the United States that incorporates responsible land use and levels the playing field for producers. Specialty Crop production is big business in Oregon, accounting for $905 million a year in revenue for the State of Oregon. There are over 30,000 producers of specialty crops in Oregon, dozens of processing/ packing companies, and over 250 vineyards. These specialty crops, which are not currently subsidized by the Federal Government, stand in stark contrast to sugar, cotton, and the other major crops that cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year and hamper the economies of developing nations. Oregon has been a pioneer in maintaining an urban growth boundary that preserves valuable farmland that can be used to raise these niche climate crops that have a growing demand, both domestically and internationally, Not only does this benefit the Oregon economy, but our world famous pears, wines, berries, hazelnuts, and other specialty crops bring communities together in farmers market settings that benefit 64 communities in Oregon. I urge my colleagues to usher in a new era of responsible crop production and vote for H.R. 3242.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the good news is that Congress is again showing bi-partisan leadership in addressing the ongoing genocide in Darfur. The bad news is that there is much more to be done. I thank my friends, Mr. Tancredo and Mr. Payne, for continuing to ensure that this issue is in front of us. It is important that tonight we are taking specific action to pressure the Government of Sudan to end the genocide. This bill will place sanctions on Khartoum and on companies that continue to do business with this genocidal regime and authorizes assistance to address the humanitarian crisis. The Scope of that crisis is vast: 50,000 Darfurians have already been murdered, a million and a half people have been internally displaced, hundreds of thousands have sought refuge in Chad and close to 1 million people are still beyond the reach of relief agencies. International aid agencies such as MercyCorps and CARE are actively working to provide emergency lifesaving assistance in Darfur and deserve our highest gratitude. However, this crisis goes beyond the humanitarian. This genocide has a political basis and will require a political solution--either diplomatic or military or, more likely, a combination of both. The President should move the international community to action, supporting international efforts at sanctions, and ensuring that the African Union mission has the mandate and logistical support they will need to be effective at protecting the civilians in Darfur. I strongly support H.R. 5061, the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act, and am proud to have been a co-sponsor of it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I must correct the record. I am not a sponsor of the bill. It was introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), though; but I do celebrate the spirit in which it is offered to recognize the contributions in terms of memorializing the notion of making sure our youth are physically fit and active and expressing the sense of Congress that National Take a Kid Mountain Biking Day should be established in Mr. Doub's honor. I think it is important for us to move in this direction in part to take someone who loved the spirit, the challenge, the physical activity of cycling and to translate that to promote and encourage children of all ages to learn to ride and lead a physically active lifestyle. This is serious business. The committee has been working throughout this session of Congress, focusing on the needs of fitness for our youth. The notion of childhood obesity, the rates have nearly tripled in adolescents in the United States since 1980, and we know the research indicates that overweight adolescents have a 70 percent chance of becoming overweight or obese as adults and the range of physical problems that are associated with it. That is why the Surgeon General and the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports recommend regular physical activity, including bicycling, for the prevention of overweight and obesity, as well as general health promotion. Mountain biking is a growing activity around the United States. In my State of Oregon, over 400,000 people participated in mountain biking last year. Bike Magazine identified the area around Hood River, Oregon, just to the east of my district, as some of the finest singletrack in the mountain bike universe, lying within an 80-mile radius of Hood River, incorporating all of the area that I represent. It is important not just to fitness and recreation. It is also important to the economy. Overall, bicycling and mountain bike tourism is important to local and State economies. We are finding across the country cycling activities are gathering tourists for organized rides, for touring and for mountain biking. In our State, tourism is a $6.1 billion industry, and we are watching as bicycling is becoming an ever-increasing part of that effort, programs like Cycle Oregon that bring together 2,000 people from around the country every year. It also is the source of a growing industry just in terms of cycle manufacturing and sales. There are thousands of small businesses across America that are part of the bicycling industry and specifically mountain biking. We just found this last year in Oregon the Chris King Precision Components relocated from California to Oregon because of the local support for mountain biking. And they join one of dozens of companies that are a part of that effort, creating a critical mass in terms of the component, manufacturing, sales and service. For all of these reasons, in terms of celebrating the spirit of mountain biking, the importance of promoting fitness, particularly among our youth, because it is so important in areas like tourism and small businesses, I rise in support of this resolution and urge my colleagues not just to support it, but find ways that they can translate this back home to their communities to make a difference.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that neither the administration nor the Republican leadership in Congress is willing to face the facts. The reckless rush to war in Iraq without being prepared to win the peace has put our troops seriously at risk. We have a situation that continues to deteriorate on the ground in Iraq. We are forcing young men and women to stay in the military and are exerting inordinate pressure to extend their enlistments. Finally, we are reducing the qualifications of new recruits into the military. This is all a desperate attempt to maintain our inadequate troop strength levels. Rather than acknowledge the problems and deal with responsible proposals that have been offered by a number of our colleagues, the Republican leadership has instead advanced to the floor legislation to reinstate the draft which they do not even support. It is time to stop playing games with the welfare of the young men and women that are serving us in Iraq and around the world. They deserve better. They deserve proper equipment and an increase in our overall troop level. They need leadership in the White House and in Congress to help stabilize and reverse the perilous situation into which they have been thrust, against the best advice of uniformed leadership. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and to provide a responsible alternative to increasing the troop level and increasing the range and nature of support from other countries. Sadly, it appears that this White House, the current Secretary of Defense and the Republican leadership in Congress are not equal to the task at hand. Hopefully, after November we will be given a new opportunity to address these critical issues.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's notion about having the funds flow.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the explanation of my friend, the gentleman from New York, and I agree with a number of the things he said. There will be a large, bipartisan majority supporting this extension, but the notion that somehow there are not problems associated with the repeated failure of Congress to pass, despite what my friend from New York says, what should be one of the easiest bills. We can take the bill that passed the Senate and put it on the floor of the House, and I am quite confident that it would pass with an overwhelming majority. It passed the other body with some 72 or 73 votes. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure offered up an approach to the Floor of the House that was substantially above that level. We have assembled the broadest coalition in the history of infrastructure legislation. We have interests ranging from the Sierra Club to the Chamber of Commerce, from the Women's Federation Garden Club of America to the cyclists, to the people who put down asphalt, who all agree on the basic structure of this legislation. There has been a lot of hard work on behalf of the gentleman from Alaska and the gentleman from Minnesota to try and craft a piece of legislation that is acceptable. I see on the floor here my friends, the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Illinois, who have been working, chairing the subcommittee, trying to put something forward underneath these artificial restrictions. But the point is that it is not a failure of agreement between the Members of the two bodies of Congress. We are substantially in agreement, and we are in agreement with the vast majority of the American public. And the failure to allow that agreement to be fully and fairly debated on this floor and enacted means that we are holding in suspense important transportation priorities. Yes, we are going to allow the spigot to be opened, or rather, we will avoid slamming the spigot closed at midnight tonight. I do not think anybody in their right mind thinks that we would or should do that. But that does not mean that there are not negative problems associated with it. We have projects in the Pacific Northwest that were slated to go forward that are multiyear in nature, and because of the uncertainty, these are on hold; significant problems that speak to economic development, that speak to environmental protection, to reducing congestion. And it is not just in the northwest. It is New York. It is in Massachusetts. It is Florida and Texas. If we talk to any of the transportation officials, they will tell us that we are not well served having to repeatedly come to the floor with a short-term extension. But I am going to argue in support of this 8- month extension because, frankly, it is better to kick the can down the road past the election. We have shown that we are not really capable of doing that in an election year. With a new Congress, maybe with a new administration, without the pre-election posturing, I think we will, in fact, have a better piece of legislation. Were we to enact a flawed piece of legislation, it would not just be a problem for today or tomorrow; we would be crippling our transportation initiatives for the entire 6-year period of the authorization, and it would establish an artificially low standard for subsequent reauthorizations. We would be severely penalizing transportation for a generation to come. I hope that, in the course of the next 8 months, but particularly in the course of the next 5 weeks, the American public takes the time to pin down the politicians in the House, in the Senate, running for President, about where they stand on transportation infrastructure. This is the most important transportation piece of legislation for the next 6 years. It is also the most important economic development legislation, and done right, it is the most important environmental legislation. This should have been the easiest piece of legislation for this Congress to pass. Sadly, we are seeing today that it has proven that we are not up to the challenge. I hope we can take these next 8 months and do better by the American public.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am seeking not to debate. I was just trying to establish a context for a question. Is it not true that, in both the House and the Senate version of the transportation reauthorization, there are a vast number of specific projects, new starts, that are multiyear in nature and that cannot proceed in the absence of their being reauthorized, and that this extension has no bearing on those longer-term, complex, important projects in the gentleman's State and in mine?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as the damage, pain, and suffering of the recent hurricanes slowly recede in the memories of most Americans, we would do well to remember that this is but a small taste of what is likely to occur given the increase in global warming. A recent study by the Commerce Department's Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Lab in Princeton University, the most extensive to date, indicated that global warming is going to make it a lot worse. The typical hurricane is going to be one-half step greater on the 5-step scale, rainfall up to 60 miles away will be up to 20 percent more intense, and even if the number of storms remains the same, which is not at all clear, there will be much increased potential for damage, and the rising sea levels will create more flooding from the storm surges. It is time for the United States to work with other developed countries to recognize the threat of global climate warming, to cooperate on solutions to reduce greenhouse gases. Future generations will be grateful.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard this afternoon about children and activist judges, because that is how the focus groups suggest this debate should be framed. My children have been raised around people in committed same-sex marriages, relationships in some cases which have included children. They, and most of us, have seen neighbors, relatives, and friends in dysfunctional heterosexual marriages. It is not their sexual orientation, it is people's behavior. My children and most American young people know that marriage is not under attack, and activist judges do not prevent citizens in States from making their own decisions, like we will in Oregon in November. It is shameful to play politics with the personal lives of millions of Americans who are not just gay, but elderly, and for whatever reason are not married but are in a committed relationship. Luckily, because my children and the vast majority of America's youth disagree with the world view of the supporters of this amendment, it will not only fail today, but it certainly does not represent the future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in firm opposition to this legislation, which aims to repeal Washington, DC's local gun ban. I find it troubling and illogical that the House is repealing a ban on handguns and assault weapons in a city where the Federal Government has invested millions of dollars to increase and improve security. It is foolhardy for Congress to counter these actions by allowing loaded assault weapons to be carried around this city, putting officers as well as citizens and visitors in danger. Washington, DC has made great strides to reduce its crime rate-- homicide has decreased by 25 percent over the past year and it has decreased by 55 percent since the passage of the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. Despite these improvements, violence remains a serious problem in the District of Columbia. Sixteen children have been killed by gunfire in DC so far this year. These numbers are not going to improve if we allow loaded assault weapons to be carried within the city. Not only is this legislation ill conceived and dangerous, it is a local matter that should not be within Congress's jurisdiction. The District of Columbia City Council and Mayor passed this ban during its first session in 1976. No laws have been passed locally to repeal the law and the courts have maintained its constitutionality. Now, this body, which does not even grant over half a million United States citizens living in the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress, is trying to further strip rights to these citizens by taking away a self-imposed law to protect their safety.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, on the floor of the House we regularly deal with problems and tragedies. Recently, we have been contending with the horrible consequences of the hurricanes in Florida. But the greatest tragedy in the world today is seldom mentioned here on this floor. Between 2 and 5 million people each year die needlessly because of a lack of access to clean water and adequate sanitation, up to 10,000 people a day and even more tragically over 4,000 children each and every day. Eighty percent of all illness in the developing world is water related, and at any given time, half the population is sick from water-related disease. Inadequate sanitation makes worse the problems of poverty, disease, bio-diversity loss, climate change impact and general environmental degradation. In the developing world, 90 to 95 percent of household wastes are released untreated into streams, open drains, lake, rivers and coastal waters and lead to wider environmental problems. Many young women in the developing world are not able to go to school because of how much time they spend just getting the water supply for their family. The magnitude is difficult to comprehend. More than 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water. One in six of the world's population and more than 2.3 billion, one in three, lack access to adequate sanitation. We have established under the United Nations' Sustainable Development Conference goals, that we are going to reduce by one-half the people in this desperate status. In order to achieve the targets we are going to have to supply 175,000 people a day for the next 10 years with drinking water and sanitation targets for 400,000 people a day. Yet this is a problem that can be solved. We know what to do. We know how to do it. Yes, it will cost tens of billions of dollars. But just in the United States each year, we spend $61 billion on soft drinks, $71 billion on beer, $23 billion on bottled water. Do we think that the United States can help provide 4 cents a day per person to be able to stop the ravages of water borne disease? Indeed, if the developing world would step up to do its share, it would not even be 4 cents a day because, already, in these troubled countries people are spending an inordinate amount of money on inadequate water supplies. It would be just 2 cents a day extra if the developed world would meet its responsibilities, less than the price of a take-out pizza every year. I urge Members of the House to consider this issue. This month marks the second anniversary of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg when we made this commitment--the United States and 185 other countries to reduce the population in need by one-half. We have a resolution, H. Res. 782, that reaffirms this commitment, commending the President's initiative, Water For the Poor. It calls for increased efforts by the United States and all developed countries for allocating water aid to the communities with the greatest need and to communities where it can make the largest difference. It requests the administration to report to Congress on efforts that we make to keep this commitment. On the second anniversary of the resolution, it is important for us to keep our eye on the ball, to make progress in incremental steps to help prevent tragedy on this global proportion. The resolution has already been bipartisan sponsorship of over 25 Members. We urge Members to cosponsor H. Res. 782.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today that I welcome the crewmembers of the USS Ozark back to Portland, OR to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the ship's commissioning on September 23, 1944. The Ozark, built by the Willamette Iron and Steel Corporation here in Portland, crossed the Columbia River bar less than 2 weeks later and played a vital role in our Nation's victory in the Pacific Theater during World War II. The Pacific Theater saw some of the war's most dangerous naval encounters, and the commitment of the USS Ozark's crewmembers is a testimony of their bravery and sacrifice. In the Pacific Theater, the ship and its crew transported troops for the invasion of Iwo Jima and evacuated wounded Marines to hospitals in Guam. After seeing further action in the Pacific Theater, the USS Ozark was present in Tokyo Harbor during the historic ceremony where the Japanese surrendered on board the USS Missouri. The ship then returned 950 recovered American prisoners of war to the United States via Guam and Pearl Harbor. I want to take this opportunity to thank those who served aboard the USS Ozark for their brave efforts in the defense of our Nation. I wish them a festive 60th anniversary celebration this week in Portland.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in this House continues to play games with the budget. This bill contains only short- term extensions of many important tax breaks because Congress refuses to face the long-term consequences of its actions. I support middle- income tax relief, but families will only be better off in the long- term if we act responsibly now. The last 2 years have brought the largest budget deficits in our history and H.R. 1308 will add another $146 billion. New projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that the Bush administration's policies will lead to annual budget deficits in excess of $300 billion every year for the next 10 years. In other words, under the Bush administration, record deficits are here to stay. We can do better for families and those in need by acting responsibly. Cutting taxes while at war is questionable at best. Tax cuts for the most privileged and comfortable while shortchanging education, healthcare, and our Nation's infrastructure is not responsible. Providing short-term extensions so the long-range cost of policies is hidden is not responsible. Continuing to put off a permanent fix of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which poses the most serious tax threat to middle-income families, is shameful. I oppose this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this resolution represents the third time in as many years that the House has brought needless legislation to the floor to ``protect'' the Pledge of Allegiance. At a time when we should be discussing issues of great consequence, like the genocide occurring in Sudan, the implementation of the recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission, and the use of our federal surface transportation dollars, the House leadership has again decided to bring up this stale topic. This time, however, the legislation is not simply frivolous; it is downright dangerous. This bill, which will purportedly protect the Pledge of Allegiance, is the continuation of a reckless and destructive pattern to strip courts of their ability to determine the constitutionally of the Pledge of Allegiance. This is an outrageous assault on our fundamental constitutional framework. Personally, I do not think individual liberties are threatened by the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. Regardless, this remains a decision that should be made in federal courts--not here in Congress. The very notion of this legislation is unconstitutional. It should be fundamentally and decisively rejected today.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow on the heels of my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and join in celebrating the amazing athletic accomplishments of Lance Armstrong. As my colleague mentioned, it is not just one person's struggle against the finest athletes in the world on bicycles, or the most challenging terrain; it was a signal event in terms of concentration and endurance to be able to win this an unprecedented sixth time in a row. It was also one person's struggle in terms of recovering in a battle against cancer to become perhaps the preeminent athlete in the world. Finally, the point I would make is that Lance Armstrong helps us put a human face on the mode of transportation by cycling. It is not just the most efficient mode of urban transportation ever developed, it is something that is making a difference in the lives and livelihood of people around the country. It is a $6 billion industry. Over 33 million Americans rode their bikes last month, and about half a million get to work every day commuting by bicycle. Last, but by no means least, at a time when we are deeply concerned about an epidemic of childhood obesity, cycling is a simple, common- sense way for young people to become physically fit, while they help protect our environment and learn lifelong health skills.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, two years ago this month, over 18 nations came together at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and made a commitment to increase worldwide access to clean water and sanitation. Today, I introduced a bipartisan resolution to affirm the commitments made by the United States in Johannesburg, recognize efforts made to meet this commitment, and call for a greater effort by the U.S. and all developed nations towards meeting this public health, economic development, and environmental challenge. Original cosponsors of this resolution are Christopher Shays, George Miller, James Greenwood, Tom Allen and Mark Udall. In 2002, 17 percent of the world's population lacked access to safe drinking water and 42 percent had no access to basic sanitation. Between 2 million and 5 million people die each year because of this lack of clean water and sanitation, including 4,000-10,000 children every day. The resolution is supported by CARE, the Natural Resources Defense Council, MercyCorps, the National Wildlife Federation, Living Water International, and WaterPartners International.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as the co-chair of the Congressional Public Broadcasting Caucus I am introducing a bipartisan Congressional 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, the proposed Congressional Resolution salutes NCI's quarter century of progressive development in bringing media access technologies to the American people. NCI's stated mission is improving access to communications for all, and this Resolution supports the organization's laudable efforts. 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. Since the first, nationally broadcast closed captioned television programs appeared in 1980--an event so momentous that it was announced by the White House and made international headlines--tens of millions of deaf and hard-of hearing Americans have been able to access television for entertainment and news content every day. With the anniversary of September 11, 2001 this past week, we are reminded of the special importance of captioned television in the case of national emergencies. On that terrible day, NCI's dedicated captioners remained on the air for countless hours over a period of several days, captioning in real time the event and its harrowing aftermath for millions of Americans who, without NCI's work, would not have been able to fully comprehend the attacks and their profound impact. 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 non-hearing 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 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 bill 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, barely have we recovered from Hurricane Hugo and we are seeing Hurricane Ivan pose the threat that has long been feared by those in Louisiana, that this actually might represent the loss of the City of New Orleans. Located 15 feet below sea level, there is the potential of a 30-foot wall of water putting at risk $100 billion of infrastructure and industry and countless lives. We all hope that it does veer to the west as projected, but I hope that this brings us to a realization that now is the time for the Federal Government to deal with policies that will make a difference protecting people. Careful planning, strong building codes and balanced transportation are not slogans and bureaucratic hoops. These are simple, commonsense provisions that can save lives, protect property and prevent countless billions of dollars in disaster aid from the Federal Government.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, there is an ongoing debate that I find somewhat ironic. There is, on behalf of some of my colleagues, an almost theological belief that the United States should be the only industrialized country in the world that does not have subsidized passenger rail service, that it is not an integral part of our transportation system. We have Amtrak today because the private sector that had rail passenger service from the 1830s until 1970 and was mammothly subsidized by the Federal Government to do so, reached the point where it was not particularly profitable for them to do it. Then the private rail roads with Congress and the Nixon administration, created Amtrak so that there would be a rail passenger alternative. Some people now think that somehow the private sector is going to step in and run a national system so that we would not be actually the only country without passenger rail. Even most Third World countries have rail passenger service as well as all the developed countries that surpasses the United States. I find that somewhat ironic because this Congress year after year after year puts billions of dollars into the air passenger service which in its long illustrious history of being force fed by Federal subsidies, starting with airmail, dealing with air traffic control and the construction of airports, in its entire history has a net profit of zero. And we continue, appropriately, to put billions of dollars into it because it is an important part of the Federal transportation infrastructure. Now there are those that want to pull the plug on Amtrak. We passed out of our Rail Subcommittee and then our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee a year ago with broad bipartisan support, there may have been one or two people who voted against it, in the largest committee in Congress, maybe one or two, but I cannot remember them, that bill has been languishing for 1 year because the Republican leadership cannot somehow bring it to the floor and allow the will of Congress to be worked. So we have this travesty today where we have a program that is not authorized despite the fact that the authorizing committee did its work a year ago. This embarrassing charade, and I am embarrassed for the majority party that we are going through this, is not going to be sustained. As George Will pointed out in his column of June 2003 when we were going through the last shutdown charade, that support for Amtrak is strong enough among all regions, ages, education levels, and income groups. A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll put it, at the height of last year's funding crisis, at 70 percent American public support. No indication of anything that that is not even stronger today. So ultimately we will bump along, we will go through this, we will fund Amtrak. Unfortunately, the inability of this Congress to move forward to meet the other body in a responsible fashion and put a reasonable authorizing bill on the floor means Amtrak is going to continue to be hamstrung. You will not kill it because the public will not let you. When we will have a crisis like 9/11 where if we did not have our rail transportation system, the east coast would have been shut down in gridlock from Alexandria to New Haven. Ultimately, this bill will fail, but it continues to cut away at the ability of the new administration in Amtrak to move forward, to build on the strong ridership increase and to build the private and public partnerships with State and local government that will be necessary, ultimately, to have a successful program. I as a Member of Congress am embarrassed that we are going through this again. As somebody who cares about a balanced transportation system, transit, air, road and rail, I am embarrassed because we need this as a critical component. We will get there, but today's failure makes it harder, more expensive, as Congress is increasingly marginalized.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 143, on page 27, lines 10 through 17.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the second sentence of section 143 would prevent any State or agency from enforcing the U.S. Department of Transportation hours-of-service regulations for operators of utility service vehicles. This provision imposes a new duty on the Department and the States and agencies. This section is legislative in nature and is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is a certain humor in the Bush attacks on Senator Kerry's budget plans. The Bush administration, after all, has the most reckless fiscal management in our Nation's history. It has produced the largest deficit, after turning the largest budget surplus that they inherited into a sea of red ink. His prescription drug Medicare program hid the true cost even from Republicans in Congress. His proposal to privatize Social Security, all independent observers indicate, will cost at least $2 trillion. While he wastes money on missile defense, he is shortchanging homeland security, all the while proposing more tax cuts for people who do not need them while ignoring the needs of those who do. No wonder he wants to talk about John Kerry's fiscal proposals. His record is indefensible.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4571 is a thinly veiled attack on the trial lawyers at the expense of injured plaintiffs. By requiring mandatory sanctions that would apply to civil rights cases, H.R. 4571 will prohibit many legitimate and important civil rights actions from being filed. No one wants frivolous abuses of our court system. There is no need to sacrifice the rights of individuals to do so. I vote in support of a substitute amendment offered by Congressman Turner that will protect the civil rights of individuals and against H.R. 4571.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill, and I do appreciate the hard work that the subcommittee has been grappling with. Clearly, there is not enough money that is allocated to meet all of the varied transportation interests that we have. I also appreciate that this is a dynamic process and that there is going to be probably more give and take on top of the give and take that has occurred. I would like to speak briefly on behalf of three simple points. First, I heard the chairman talk about the new starts being oversubscribed and talked about how there is more in the pipeline than is likely to be funded at current levels for some time. I agree wholeheartedly, but I would think that that is a signal, a signal about the popularity and the importance of these programs across the country, the way the chairman a moment ago talked about the need for more highway funding because of the need for highways. We have an extraordinarily popular and important program for communities across the country, including some that may not leap to mind for people thinking about multimodal transportation systems, like in Houston, Texas, where the voters there just this last fall, actually against formidable political opposition, the voters decided that they were going to extend that program. It simply as yet does not keep pace with demand, but we have a broad and growing range of interest around the country. I would suggest that unlike the highway projects which are basically an entitlement that are not subjected to rigorous analysis in terms of cost-benefit, I know of no projects in the Federal arena in terms of major capital outlay that are subjected to more aggressive cost-benefit analysis than what we do now to the new starts. I think they meet the test. They are in community after community proving to be the most cost-effective ways of reducing congestion, far more effective than spending a similar amount simply widening roads as has been the case in the past. That is why it is popular. That is why it has been supported by Republican and Democratic administrations. That is why we see it in communities large and small across the country. I am concerned, because I know that there has been some report language that talks about how to deal with the weighing of land-use considerations. I would respectfully suggest that this is an area that I think the FTA can, in fact, improve its performance; but it is rather, I would suggest, looking at the value of land use rather than to undervalue land-use criteria. What community after community is finding is that if you do not look at supportive land uses around transportation facilities, without proper land use you can have them be ineffective, you can have a road project that is basically producing congestion the day it is opened if you are not careful with what the land uses are there. We ought to strengthen the land use provisions, not weaken them. That was part of the original ISTEA. That was part of TEA-21. That is part of what is going through the process now if we ever reauthorize the Surface Transportation Act. This is in TEA-LU. I would hope that we could work with the FTA to balance, to strengthen, to give more of these choices and, frankly, to provide some weight to the economic development potential of these activities. My concern is at the FTA now there is not enough weight for the economic development potential of transportation. I have seen it, and I can give example after example where it has arisen. I would hope that we are able to provide proper weight for it. The final point that I wanted to raise deals with Amtrak. I am concerned that the Republican leadership, with their Rules Committee, that we have not been able to protect the spending under Amtrak and maybe subject it to a point of order. This continues an ongoing drama we have here where the administration proposes to undercut it, where there are proposals here in the House to chop it down even further, but it is always restored because it is something the public understands is an essential part of our transportation infrastructure. It is critical in corridors like in the Northeast. It is something that we have historically starved and underfunded. We have spent less in total of Amtrak's entire history than we do in 1 year of highway spending. I would hope that we not get involved with that charade this time where we go through the motions of cutting Amtrak funding or even eliminating it, because the American public will not stand for it. It will ultimately be reinstated, but it undercuts the effective administration that we see with the new director, Peter Gunn, who is the best I have seen since I have been in Congress. They deserve better and so does the rail passenger public.