Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just respond very briefly to two points of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. What he describes with the notion of this being a misdemeanor is part of the catch-22 that some of the people in this Congress who are fronting for the illegal fighting animal activities have produced for us. When we had an amendment on the floor that was approved in the farm bill last year, it was to increase the penalties so that it would be easier to pursue. But, sadly, in conference, contrary to the will of the House, these provisions were watered down. So now we can plead, well, it is only a misdemeanor so we should not be involved with it. The fact is, as I mentioned in my statement, 55 local jurisdictions and State jurisdictions in law enforcement have asked us to come forward, because while these provisions may be misdemeanors, they are tied up in a network of illegal activity that breeds violence, drug, and other activities and is serious. It is not just animal cruelty, if somebody wants to dismiss that. Second, the gentleman's argument that we cannot afford it I think is a false economy. First of all, I am taking from an account that they have already significantly reduced. It is an area that would already have $156 million. We are only speaking of one-half of 1 percent, but the $800,000 here has the opportunity to prevent vast losses to the Federal Government. As I pointed out, Exotic Newcastle Disease and all the evidence suggests it is illegal game-fighting that has spread it throughout the Southwest. That is the conclusion from the gentleman's home State of Texas, from California, and has cost us upwards of $100 million that we have had to spend tracking these down, eradicating poultry and other birds and compensating people, including $11.5 million for what are probably illegal fighting cocks. I would suggest that the gentleman, with all due respect, is not being responsive to the overall economic impact, and it is not simply that we just dismiss as something not worthy of more law enforcement attention. It does not get the attention because the interests that are sympathetic to animal fighting, illegal animal fighting, have deliberately fought to have strong enforcement provisions. The least we can do, the least we can do is provide the resources within the extent of the existing law to cut it back, stop the illegal activity, and prevent the waste of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, attached is a letter signed by 122 members requesting this $800,000 increase, as well as a letter of support from the Humane Society of the United States. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, May 23, 2003. Hon. Henry Bonilla, Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC. Hon. Marcy Kaptur, Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member Kaptur: We are writing to thank you for your outstanding support in FY 2003 for improved enforcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of key animal welfare laws, and to urge you to ``hold the line'' in FY 2004 so that this effort can be sustained. Your leadership is making a great difference in helping to protect the welfare of millions of animals across the country, including those at commercial breeding facilities, laboratories, zoos, circuses, airlines, and slaughterhouses. As you know, better enforcement will also benefit people by helping to prevent: (1) injuries to slaughterhouse workers from animals struggling in pain; (2) orchestrated dogfights and cockfights that often involve illegal gambling, drug traffic, and human violence; (3) the sale of unhealthy pets by commercial breeders commonly referred to as ``puppy mills''; (4) laboratory conditions that may impair the scientific integrity of animal based research; (5) risks of disease transmission from, and dangerous encounters with, wild animals in or during public exhibition; and (6) injuries and death of pets on commercial airline flights due to mishandling and exposure to adverse environmental conditions. For FY 2004, we want to ensure that the important work made possible by the FY 2003 budget is continued, that newly hired and trained inspectors will be able to stay on the job, and that resources will be used in the most effective ways possible to carry out these key laws. Specific areas of concern are as follows: office of inspector general/$800,000 increase for animal fighting enforcement In last year's Farm Bill, Congress enacted provisions that were overwhelmingly supported in both chambers to close loopholes in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regarding cockfighting and dogfighting. Since 1976, when Congress first prohibited most interstate and foreign commerce in animals for fighting, USDA has pursued no cockfighting cases and only three dogfighting cases, despite rampant activity across the country. USDA has apparently received innumerable tips from informants and requests to assist with state and local prosecutors, but routinely ignored or declined such requests. It is time for USDA to take seriously its responsibility to enforce the portion of the AWA dealing with animal fighting ventures. Dogfighting and cockfighting are barbaric activities in which animals are drugged to heighten their aggression and forced to keep fighting even after they've suffered grievous injuries, such as pierced lungs and gouged eyes. Animal fighting is almost always associated with illegal gambling, and also often involves illegal drug traffic and violence toward people. Dogs bred and trained to fight endanger public safety. Cockfighting has been linked with the recent outbreak of Exotic Newcastle Disease that has already destroyed many poultry flocks and cost taxpayers more than $40 million for containment and compensation, with costs estimated to rise as high as $250- $500 million. Given the dangerous nature of animal fighting enforcement work, we believe that the department's chief law enforcement arm--the Office of Inspector General (OIG)--is best suited to lead this effort. We therefore respectfully request an increase of $800,000 for the OIG to focus on animal fighting cases and inclusion of bill language directing the Secretary to coordinate intelligence gathering, investigation, and prosecution of animal fighting cases, pursuant to Section 26 of the AWA, through the OIG, working with local and state law enforcement personnel to complement their efforts, and drawing on other federal entities including the Attorney General, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, and the Office of the General Counsel as needed. Food Safety and Inspection Service/Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) Enforcement We greatly appreciate the inclusion of $5 million in the FY 2003 bill to hire at least 50 inspectors whose sole responsibility will be to ensure that livestock are treated humanely and rendered unconscious before they are hung upside down, skinned, dismembered, scalded, or killed. Having these new inspectors focus on unloading, handling, stunning, and killing of animals will bring much-needed attention to slaughter plant practices that have had little oversight in recent years. We also appreciate your inclusion of language specifying that the ongoing activities of 17 District Veterinary Medical Specialists hired as a result of $1 million provided in the FY 2001 Supplemental should be limited to HMSA enforcement rather than the various unrelated duties with which they had been charged. And we commend you for directing the General Accounting Office to review and report by July 1, 2003 on the scope and frequently of HMSA violations, with ``recommendations on the extent to which additional resources for inspection personnel, training, and other agency functions are needed to properly regulate slaughter facilities in the areas of HMSA enforcement.'' There are nearly 900 federally inspected slaughter plants in the U.S., handling millions of animals each day. In addition to requesting continued funds in FY 2004 to sustain at least 50 new inspectors and the 17 positions mentioned above, we hope you will give full consideration to any recommendations the GAO may have for enhancing enforcement of this important--and very basic--law. APHIS/Animal Welfare Enforcement Thanks to funding increases in the past four years, Congress has enabled USDA to begin to reverse a serious decline in the number of AWA compliance inspections. However, the President's FY 2004 budget proposal--which suggests $1.7 million less for the Animal Care division than in FY 2003-- would fail to cover the salaries of recently-hired inspectors and substantially undo the gains Congress has made possible. Moreover, there is still much room for improvement. Many facilities continue to escape oversight for long periods of time, giving rise to situations that threaten both human and animal health and safety. Nearly half of the sites that do get inspected are found to have apparent violations of the minimum standards under the Act and, therefore, follow-up visits are badly needed. We urge you to sustain Animal Welfare funding at the FY 2003 appropriated level of $16.4 million, in order to keep the current number of inspectors (approximately 100 to oversee about 10,000 sites). Again, we are very grateful for the Subcommittee's leadership in addressing enforcement needs for key animal welfare laws. We hope you will stay the course, so that funds necessary to administer these laws effectively will continue to be available and will be appropriately used. We look forward to working with you in the coming year, and thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Smith, Earl Blumenauer, Thomas Tancredo, Robert Andrews, Mark Green, Elton Gallegly, Roscoe Bartlett, Gary Ackerman, David Wu, William Delahunt, James Moran, Louise Slaughter, Steven LaTourette, Frank LoBiondo, Dennis Kucinich, David Price, James McGovern, Steve Israel, Tammy Baldwin, Bob Filner, Barney Frank, Tim Ryan, Rush Holt, Rick Larsen, Jerry Costello, Jim Leach, Steven Rothman, Nancy Johnson, James Langevin, Michael Ferguson, Gary Ackerman, George Miller, Carolyn Maloney, Mark Udall, Vic Snyder, Jim Saxton, Rob Simmons, Anthony Weiner, Donald Payne, Johnny Isakson, Richard Neal, Frank Wolf, Neil Abercrombie, Dennis Moore, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Ellen Tauscher, Judy Biggert, Luis Gutierrez, Michael Doyle, Karen McCarthy, Jerrold Nadler, Janice Schakowsky, Robert Wexler, Phil English, Mike Thompson, Peter DeFazio, Dale Kildee, Sherrod Brown, Frank Pallone, Elijah Cummings, Zoe Lofgren, Robert Menendez, Jay Inslee, Joseph Hoeffel III, Michael Bilirakis, Bernard Sanders, Chris Shays, Henry Waxman, Brad Sherman, Charles Rangel, Fred Upton, Tom Lantos, Hilda Solis, John Tierney, Peter Deutsch, Edward Whitfield, Lloyd Doggett, Edolphus Towns, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Barbara Lee, Major Owens, Adam Smith, Eliot Engel, Michael Honda, Lane Evans, Julia Carson, Corrine Brown, William Clay, Jr., Brian Baird, Adam Schiff, Grace Napolitano, Robert Matsui, Albert Wynn, Anthony Weiner, Martin Meehan, Nicholas Lampson, Thomas Allen, Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Kennedy, Sherwood Boehlert, Anna Eshoo, Sander Levin, Shelby Berkley, James Clyburn, Howard Berman, Jim McDermott, Nydia Velazquez, Gene Green, John Lewis, Lynn Woolsey, Sanford Bishop, Jr., Charles Gonzalez, Michael Capuano, Benjamin Cardin, Ed Case, Harold Ford, Jr., Pete Stark, Stephen Lynch, William Lipinski, Charles Bass, Clay Shaw, Jr., Jim Greenwood.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this resolution this afternoon and commend him, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). There is truly a bipartisan consensus on our committee that the time has long since passed for us to address the critical need to change the regime in Burma and to be able to recognize the courage of Aung San Suu Kyi, the potential we have there to have a transformational effect in that troubled country. It was my great privilege to spend an afternoon with my children in her compound when she was under house arrest. Watching the harassment we went through just to go there with the charge, thinking about what that represented, this brave woman, insightful, being surrounded by thugs at a time when her country was ravaged in terms of AIDS, in terms of economic deprivation, in terms of the atrocities that have been documented on this floor already this afternoon in terms of what the junta has inflicted upon their people. It seems to me that it is an opportunity for us at a time when people want the United States to throw its weight around the world that we focus on this troubled country that has a recognized leader, that has the potential for us to bring together the force that we saw in South Africa, to be able to focus time, energy, attention in a peaceful fashion but to force the junta to know that we mean business as it regards Burma. I am one that will continue to call it Burma unless and until that name is changed by the democratic majority of that country, and I think the name is a small symbol of why we need to stand up to push back. This resolution, I think, is a starting place. But beyond that, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that there will be an opportunity for Members in this Chamber to pick up this cause, to beat this drum, to carry it to those who are in business, NGO, other governments, because I think there is now an opportunity for this consensus to work. I am pleased with the work that our committee has done, I hope the House will unite behind it, and I hope that each Member of this Chamber will find something that he or she can do to advance this important cause.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2214.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education appropriations bill is a logical consequence of misplaced priorities in the budget resolution and tax cut proposals that have been pushed through the House of Representatives this year. Despite the overwhelming support from people in my community and around the country for investing in the future, and for funding our commitments in the President's signature No Child Left Behind legislation, this bill would systematically undercut funding promises. This Congress has authorized funding levels that would help school districts implement costly new programs and provide Pell Grants to help low-income college students struggling in a difficult economy. The House finds itself allocating far less than it authorized just months ago for IDEA programs. The administration's fiscal management leaves us with shamefully low funding levels for these programs and soaring budget deficits. While our school districts fight their own fight back home, this Labor/HHS bill cuts education funding for Oregon's children by a total of $98,039,089 below the levels authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act and the IDEA Reauthorization Act. This is illustrative of the impact that will be felt in every state, and we ought to avoid this added burden on the nation's school systems. At a time when so much has been done for a few who need help the least with massive tax cuts, it is unconscionable that we are not meeting obligations under prior legislation or even the minimal levels established under the Republican Budget resolution.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make in order an opportunity for an alternative proposal from my colleagues Ellen Tauscher and Cal Dooley, in the form of H.R. 1568. Looking carefully at the arguments from both sides of the aisle on the proposals before us today, I am inclined to think that they are both right. There are egregious problems in the proposal by the Republicans. It is going to have serious dislocative effects; it doesn't adequately meet the needs of low-income people; it could actually deteriorate prescription drug coverage for others; and, it extends services to many who do not need it. The Democratic alternative is well-intentioned and more generous, but there are questions about whether this will be affordable over time. We may be biting off more than we can sustain as Medicare goes into a time of severe strain with regard to cost and the capacity to meet the needs of an exploding retirement population. I continue to be troubled that low income senior citizens without drug coverage pay the highest prices in the world for their medicines. This is intolerable. There is real potential to harness the vast purchasing power of the United States to negotiate better prices, the same way private employers, local governments and hospitals do. The power of the free market and negotiation should not be denied to the sector that would benefit from it the most. There is no reason that the nation's Medicare recipients should pay a higher price for the same drugs that recipients who are part of our veterans program receive. We can craft a program that is not unduly coercive, and does not lead to a disruption of the drug industry. The pharmaceutical industry needs to be more accommodating of this approach, or I feel that they will inevitably end up with far more draconian solutions. They cannot continue to mine gold from low income senior citizens. The alternative that I would rather have had on the floor today would expend the same amount of money that we have determined is affordable, and target it to low-income seniors without coverage, and people with extraordinarily high prescription drug needs. That is where we should target our Medicare resources. It would permit us to keep promises made to help remedy this serious situation. It does not over commit, and leaves the way open for subsequent Medicare reform. It would appear that if either of the other two bills were adopted, it would make long term reform more difficult and would pose significant budget pressures at a time when our fiscal policies are in disarray. I truly think this is one of those times when less actually is more, and being careful will pay long-term dividends. I am voting accordingly, against the two alternatives, and hope that Congress will reach the point where we can have a more targeted, sustainable, and effective approach that can provide a foundation for future reform.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I come today with deep respect for the hard work that this subcommittee has done. I think it may be the toughest subcommittee in the House given the amazing pressures in terms of the military requirements of our country during a difficult time. This is a difficult budget, and there are crosscurrents that I cannot even imagine, but I get a little hint as I look from a distance. My special interest has been in an area dealing with unexploded ordnance, being able to protect people at home and abroad from the consequences of everything from landmines to training munitions that are unexploded. This has been an area that I have been deeply troubled with. It is an area that around the country there are potentially millions of acres in the United States that are so affected; and when we look at what has happened overseas, whether it is in the war in Southeast Asia and Vietnam, Afghanistan, what is going on right now in Iraq, and we just had a boy back home die this week in my community as a result of efforts trying to clear landmines. Around the world, over 300 million landmines have been built, and 75 million that have been placed remain undetonated.

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

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am deeply appreciative of the spirit of cooperation from the chairman and ranking member and willingness to work with us. We had made a request initially of $20 million before the subcommittee. Frankly, as I watched what moved through the process, I thought we had identified an area with the new generation of ballistic missile defense interceptor, additional research that frankly would be a higher priority. But given the strong encouragement to work with the subcommittee and their willingness to work with us, I look forward to working with them to make sure that at least the $20 million is there to protect Americans at home and abroad. Candidly, Mr. Chairman, it is not just going to save our fighting men and women. I would just conclude on the notion that every single day civilians, including a sad number of children, are killed and maimed as a result of landmines and unexploded munitions. This investment will reap dividends for generations to come. I deeply appreciate the cooperation of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my support for the efforts of public transportation advocates around the country. Today, the National Alliance of Public Transportation Advocates (NAPTA) is distributing a letter to the Hill, which asks Congress to double the investment in public transportation to $14 billion by FY2009 when it reauthorizes the federal surface transportation program. Providing increased, guaranteed transit funding is critical to improving the livability of our communities. In Portland, we have been proud to be leaders in understanding the connection between land use and transportation. Our light rail system has not only provided additional choices to our residents, it has also helped with environmental problems. Portland's transit system, Tri-Met, has the 13th largest ridership in the nation, despite being only the 29th largest transit district. Rider totals increased 65 percent the last decade. This growth is a reflection of the increased transit investment provided by the federal, state and local levels. In my community, transit truly is making a difference in the quality of life for our citizens. NAPTA also points to the strong success of such existing programs as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Enhancements, and Transportation and Community and System Pilot Preservation Program (TCSP). Communities nationwide are experiencing the flexibility and freedom of having more public transportation choices. For every federal dollar invested in public transportation as many as $6 are returned in congestion reduction, safety benefits and access to economic opportunity. At the same time, 47,500 jobs are created for each $1 billion invested. Increasing guaranteed federal funding in public transportation can bring these benefits to people across the country.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, hometown security should be our number one priority to ensure the American public is safe from terrorism--both domestic and foreign. The federal government has made significant commitments, but unfortunately these have been more show than substance. The most recent example is the budget for the homeland security appropriations. I know from my own experience that there are vast unmet needs in every community around the country, and Oregon is on exception. The federal government should be helping communities to pay for the costly precautions that local governments must take to respond to high level security alerts, the effects of which ripple through crippled local budgets. We have yet to make local governments whole from the federal government imposed shut down of airports following September 11th. There are vast and clear needs for the Coast Guard which this budget virtually ignores. We are lavishing hundreds of billions in tax relief for those who need it the least when we are investing billions of dollars in questionable military expenditures, like theater missile defense or Star Wars. It inexcusable that we do not do a better job of listening to and meeting the needs of our local communities around the country. I, in good conscience, find it very hard to vote for this appropriation and hope that we will send the message that Congress should step up and make its action match its rhetoric and the need.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the Republican leadership taking a non-controversial, bipartisan bill and adding provisions to turn it into a divisive and bitter battle. The underlying bill contains technical changes and provisions that would make it easier for taxpayers to manage the tax system. We all support these changes and this bill would pass unanimously without the games the leadership insists on playing. Unfortunately, the games they are playing pose terrible threats to many working men and women across the country. In this instance, Republican leadership has included a provision that strikes important health insurance standards protecting workers laid-off as a result of trade-related competition. Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, enacted just last year, provides for a tax credit for 65 percent of the cost of health coverage for eligible individuals and qualified family members and establishes protections designed to ensure coverage for all participants. H.R. 1528 undermines the consumer protection provisions provided in the current TAA law and would essentially allow insurers to avoid covering workers 55 and older, who are the majority of TAA participants. The timing of this could not be worse considering the President was only recently granted Trade Promotion Authority by Congress and we are moving quickly on free trade agreements with several countries and regions around the world. Overall, these free trade agreements will benefit our economy, but there will be sectors that will lose out to foreign competition. Knowing this, Trade Adjustment Assistance programs and benefits have been set up to help those negatively impact by free trade. I am appalled at the Republican leadership's ability to take a productive, bipartisan bill that benefits taxpayers across the country, which the underlying bill does, and risk it all by including a provision that hurts American workers.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in the Oregon legislature some years ago, I actually led, as Chair of a tax committee, a reform of the estate tax. I thought I understood some of the principles; but after listening to the rhetoric regarding this issue, looking at the facts since I have been a Member of Congress, I thought maybe I would go back and check to see if there was something I was missing. I invited a number of tax professionals in my community, CPAs, tax attorneys, financial planners, to come down and talk to me about how the effect of this proposal actually works. It was fascinating, giving these people a grant of immunity, and I urge any of my colleagues to do the same with tax professionals in their community. They said, number one, under existing law anybody who could not shield at least $5 million of an estate was really guilty of malpractice. Number two, they said it was not the estate tax that broke up small business. It was idiot sons, and they said in their experience when they watch great inherited wealth after three generations, it looks like it becomes a genetic defect. It was fascinating what they told me, people who in the main were Republicans who work in this every day. They pointed out that huge wealth, which would be tax free under the Republican proposal today, huge wealth often was not even taxed once. One does not become a billionaire based on their W-2s. It is capital appreciation. And the clever approach of eliminating the inheritance tax, eliminating dividends from taxation means that you will be able to manipulate it, while people with great means will not be paying any tax at all if they do not want to. If my colleagues truly wanted to help protect the family farm and small business, they would join together with the vast bipartisan consensus in this Chamber to index the inheritance tax to be able to deal with the Pomeroy amendment, which actually would help the mother of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), not the proposal that he is going to vote for. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that we approve the Pomeroy amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, people who care about the environment were heartened 2 weeks ago when the administration declared that it would uphold the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. But alas, the other shoe dropped. Last week, the administration proposed exempting Alaska's national forests from the roadless rule, reopening them to logging and roadbuilding. Even more troubling, the administration will also turn over significant authority over our Federal forests to the States, allowing governors to provide for exemptions. Allowing States to exempt themselves from our national environmental laws is not a healthy precedent. States have a mixed record when it comes to environmental stewardship. They are too often overwhelmed by understandable local interest from snowmobiles to timber to water. We need a strong presence. These are, after all, our national forests. Rather than the administration's vigorous enforcement of environmental laws, this is another example of a settlement to further erode, rather than strengthen and uphold. There are about 50 pending timber sales in roadless areas in Alaska currently protected under the roadless rule that are ready to go forward when the Tongass exemption is finalized. Despite the assurances that 95 percent of the Alaska's forests will be protected, the remaining 5 percent allows hundreds of thousands of acres which are among the most valuable for both the timber companies and the environment. This roadless conservation rule was developed during the last 3 years of the Clinton administration. It was finalized after the most extensive public outreach process in history. Six hundred public hearings and more than 1.6 million official comments overwhelmingly in support of this initiative. The rule protects 58\1/2\ million acres of pristine national forests in 39 States. In my State alone, in Oregon, 2 million acres would have been protected. The independent editorial boards around the country have zeroed in. In The New York Times, it pointed out that this is part of a continued assault on environmental protections. From day one, the Bush administration has sought to unravel the intricate tapestry of rules and regulations that have shielded the national forests from excessive logging and other commercial activities. In the last 6 months alone, the administration has finalized or proposed new rules that would short-circuit environmental reviews, restrict public participation in land-use decisions, and weaken safeguards for endangered species. The administration's latest target is the roadless rule. The San Franciso Chronicle pointed out the administration's pattern of disingenuousness. The Bush administration's doublespeak about the environment reached a new level of shamelessness this week when it announced it was retaining the roadless rule and then an announcement that it would prohibit logging on 95 percent of Alaska's national forest. Let none be fooled. What the Bush administration did was carve out huge exceptions and loopholes through a thoroughly vetted and well-balanced, popularly-supported plan to protect the ever shrinking swath of untrampled national forests. In the Boston Globe last week, National forests are called that because they belong to the Nation as a whole, not the governors, and certainly not to the administration in Washington, who has put a former timber lobbyist in charge of them. The Minneapolis Star Tribune, the administration's version of the roadless rule for the National forests to be published later this month, is portrayed by its authors as a fine tuning of what was arguably the Clinton administration's most important wilderness initiative. Right. It strains credibility for Clinton's successors having relentlessly assailed the rule, to claim that they are now prepared to accept it with minor modifications. Indeed, there is nothing minor about the modifications the Interior Department outlined. Fine tuning with such changes is akin to edging a lawn with a chain saw. Edging a lawn with a chain saw. Not fine tuning. Mr. Speaker, the American people and their forests deserve better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, people who care about the environment were heartened 2 weeks ago when the administration declared they would uphold the roadless area conservation rule. But alas, the other shoe dropped. Last week the administration announced it would be proposing new regulations to exempt Alaska's national forests from the rule, reopening them to logging and road-building. More troubling, the administration will also turn over significant authority over Federal forests to States, allowing governors to apply for exemptions. As pointed out by the Boston Globe on June 15, the national forests are called that because they belong to the Nation as a whole, not to governors, and certainly not to an administration in Washington that has put a former timber lobbyist in charge of them. Now the Bush administration is doing its best to turn over large sections of the forest to timber companies in spite of a Clinton administration rule that would have protected them. The result is the largest, most extensive rulemaking in United States history is now being undertaken, and it is a tragedy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the pages of our newspapers have been filled with accounts of corporate abuse of investors and consumers. Part of the reason Oregon has the highest unemployment rate in America for over a year is the result of the Enron scandal and the California energy crisis. To make it harder for Oregonians who have been abused to seek legal redress is nothing short of outrageous. This legislation would severely undermine the ability of Americans to seek relief from activities that harm consumers, the environment and public health. We should be working in Congress to help mend the relationship between corporations and the American public, rather than promote measures like this which will make it more difficult for injured consumers to bring class-action lawsuits. By allowing corporations to move most class-action lawsuits from state courts, where they properly belong, into already overburdened federal courts and by imposing new procedural hurdles, the measure would delay, if not deny, justice to plaintiffs in legitimate class- action lawsuits. The federal courts have fewer than 1,500 judges compared to more than 30,000 judges currently serving on state courts. Thousands of class actions lawsuits spending in state courts around the country would be added to the federal docket under H.R. 1115 because of its retroactivity provision. This legislation would also dilute the right of consumers to bring class action lawsuits against the firearms industry. Firearms are one of the only consumer products not subject to federal consumer safety regulation. Citizen lawsuits--including class actions--are one of the only incentives for the firearms industry to act responsibly. We should not take away this important tool for the American public to protect their rights and secure compensation for their injuries and losses.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is appalling that a substantive vote on H.R. 1308 has been denied. The use of a self-executing rule has transformed the House action into a procedural vote guaranteeing its passage while denying any kind of fair fight on the spending of nearly $80 billion additional dollars. The bill before us today says more about our long-term priorities than about helping the lower income families and children left out of the recently enacted tax cut. Apparently, based on the actions of the Republican leadership, there is not enough money for hard- working, low-income people, but there is money to help people who are much better off. The gist of the tax credit debate these last two weeks has been about the lesser tax credit offered to families that make between $10,500 and $26,625 per year. Providing these families with the same child tax credit as families making up to $110,000 per year would cost $3.5 billion. Today, we are debating a bill with a price tag of $82 billion. This comes on the heels of new projections that our budget deficit this year will surpass $400 billion, far exceeding any other one year budget shortfall in history. Many economists are projecting a 2004 budget deficit on one half of a trillion dollars. The exploding deficit will, in this year alone, add about $16 billion in extra interest payments, which simply reduces funding available to other needed programs. All the groups that care deeply about children and poor people are appalled by this bill, and will be left to hope that the Senate has the good sense to resist it. If this bill succeeds it will accelerate the pace of reauthorizing these proposals, eliminating the sunsets and making them permanent leading to even more dramatic budget shortages. These deficits will squeeze out funding for necessary programs and establish the principle that we are not going to help those that are struggling in this depressed economy. The Republican leadership is spending 6 times as much to give the tax credit to the top 10 percent of the population as they are to extend the benefit to the modest income families they left out. For about the same cost as giving it to the most well off, they could extend coverage to those making as little as $7,500 per year. It's all about priorities. I do not share these priorities. I only wish there would have been a chance to vote against their proposal.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the other gentleman from Oregon for his courtesy. Mr. Chairman, the modern airport is a building block of a livable community. Air transportation is essential to cities being competitive in a global economy and being integrated into the national transportation framework. It is time for us to start making plans for what the role of airports should be in the future so that they do not pose a threat to livability and are truly integrated with other modes of transportation. The manager's amendment contains two items I think can help point the way towards better, long-term integration among aviation, rail, and surface modes. First, there is an effort to clarify and publicize how passenger facility charges can be used to assist in the development of ground access projects. For too many people, the worst part of the trip is trying to get to and from the airport. Second, there is a provision that requires plans for airport and runway construction and expansion to be shared between the airports and the metropolitan planning organizations. Currently, there is no guarantee that the aviation and surface transportation agencies are even talking to each other, let alone actually planning together. A sound transportation process includes all the players and respects their obligations and responsibilities, and it will work to the benefit of all. Twelve years ago, with the ISTEA legislation, Congress started a revolution in how our communities' transportation services are provided. It gave local communities more flexibility and provided strong signals that it made sense to plan comprehensively and to work intermodally. It is time for us to think about the next step of the transportation revolution as it relates to aviation, and extend these concepts to the other interrelated modes of rail, aviation and surface transportation. I appreciate the courtesy of the subcommittee in including these provisions in the bill to at least start some cooperation between the modes, and hopefully in the future we can break down those barriers further and make more progress to truly having an integrated, seamless transportation system with airplanes, the critical role that we know that it needs for tomorrow's future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by and opposed to the increasing reliance of government on gambling. We are seeing more evidence of its destructive power, even as the current financial crisis is driving more States to expand their gaming operations. Gaming has been one of the tools that has enabled Native Americans to regain some economic footing after centuries of neglect, abuse, and broken promises. While this is not my favorite tool for their economic development, I do not favor treating tribal interests differently than we do for other private and State-sponsored gaming. The State exemptions in this bill violate that fundamental principal by regulating tribal gaming differently from State gaming, which is unfair and ultimately an unwise precedent. I am opposed to illegal offshore betting and I would be happy to regulate internet gambling. I stand ready, if we can ever breach the wide array of vested interests to support legislation that does restrict gaming without singling out Native Americans for unequal treatment. This bill falls short of that mark, and I will not support it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I cautiously approach my colleagues' zealous concern about the European Union's long-standing moratorium on agriculture and biotech products. The World Trade Organization agreement does recognize that countries are entitled to regulate crops and food products to protect health and the environment. However, WTO members must have sufficient evidence for their regulations and must operate approval procedures without ``undue delay.'' The EU's current moratorium lacks sufficient justification and at 5 years has reached a point of undue delay. At the same time, consumers have a right to know what they are eating and the food industry should remain transparent and accountable. I fully support labeling and a comprehensive paper trail that would ensure that consumers are aware when they are purchasing genetically modified ingredients. I am more cautious than the Bush administration on this issue, but also feel the European Union's moratorium is extreme. I support this resolution in the spirit of fair trade, but urge my colleagues and the administration to not interfere with consumer awareness to be gained by labeling and industry transparency.