Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in the past, I have often been reluctant to support omnibus bills, which package multiple pieces of legislation into one. It is poor policy to legislate in this manner. This particular omnibus appropriations bill, combining eleven appropriations bills totaling $397.4 billion is the worst example of this that I have seen. Many of the individual bills were never brought before the relevant committees and we are barred from offering amendments on the floor. The final draft of more than 1,000 pages were first made available to the full Congress less than 12 hours before we are being asked to vote on it. Nobody knows the extent of the riders, earmarks and provisions that have been added to this bill. What we do know is in here includes some of the most egregious environmental riders imaginable: allowing nearly unlimited clear-cutting of our national forests; exempting the Administration's Tongass National Forest management plan from all judicial or administrative appeals; and, allowing preliminary work for drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--despite the fact that it is currently illegal to drill there. Many of my constituents have expressed concern about the process that has taken place to get us to this point. I am not able to defend the process to them and, therefore, cannot support final passage of this bill. It is not fair to legislators or the people they represent to conduct Congress in this manner. I look ahead with promise to a new fiscal year when Congress can again return to legislating.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, amidst all the international drama and trauma, it is sometimes easy to forget that the primary goal of government is to provide a partnership where our communities can be livable and where our families are safe, healthy and economically secure. My hometown of Portland, Oregon, has received international acclaim as one of America's most livable cities, but actually, Mr. Speaker, ours is a region of two dozen livable communities. Under Oregon's unique land use system, each community is encouraged to develop its own special identity. One of the unique places that deserves special attention is the city of Milwaukie, Oregon, as it now celebrates its centennial this month, an example that thousands of small communities across the country could look to. Milwaukie's hard-working citizens are keenly interested in making the next 100 years something that is even better. The community of Milwaukie has played a key role in the history of our State. The city was actually settled in 1840 and played a critical role in shipping up and down the Willamette River. The commerce from those docks served to link Willamette Valley's pioneers with goods from the Hudson's Bay Trading Company and beyond. Oregon's founder, Dr. John McLaughlin, often supervised commerce on those very docks when he visited from his nearby home. Today, Milwaukie is the second largest city in fast-growing Clackamas County. It serves the Portland region as a transportation hub, hosting the intersection of two State highways and two freight railroads. But it is how Milwaukie has approached the future that is intriguing to me. In the latter part of the 1990s, this city looked at how they were going to join the region's light rail system. Some had serious questions about what it would do to their community and how it was going to be compatible with how they wanted to grow with the rest of the region. Instead of joining the region's light rail system at that point, they took time out to reflect how they should grow and relate to the surrounding communities. In the course of the next 5 years, the community carried out literally thousands of hours of community meetings. Some were informal. There were scores of neighborhood association meetings and workshops. As a result of this searching and introspection, the community, its neighborhoods and elected leaders, including some who were the most skeptical of earlier plans, are now among the most active and aggressive advocates of rail coming to their town; and not only light rail, but they are also supporting an innovative commuter rail system serving Milwaukie, as well. They are looking at other ways to make their community livable. Milwaukie, Oregon, like so many communities across the country, made decisions early in its career that cut off its waterfront from the community. It is inaccessible now because of a State highway that makes pedestrian and other access impossible. This beautiful and historic resource is now out of their reach, home only to a treatment plant. Milwaukie residents are now working to overcome this barrier to connect their historic waterfront and natural resource with the heart of their downtown. Milwaukie, Oregon is an outstanding example of how a livable community grapples with issues of growth, transportation, development, its past and its future. It is a community that other cities can look to for inspiration, how people of strong and varying opinions sitting down and working through their issues together for the common good can make a city safer, healthier and more economically secure. I, for one, am proud to represent the ``City of Dogwoods'' as it celebrates its centennial. Congratulations, Milwaukie, Oregon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me time and the kind words both he and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) had. It is an honor to recognize the outstanding achievement of the NCAA Women's Soccer champions from the University of Portland to share with the rest of the country the excitement in Portland as the Pilots brought home the university's first national championship. It must be noted that this is not just an achievement of an outstanding group of young women. It is a symbol of the achievement of an outstanding institution in Portland, Oregon. Once a small regional Catholic college, the University of Portland has grown in prestige and esteem, drawing a diverse student body from across the United States and around the world. The U.S. News and World Report last year ranked the university as one of the top five regional universities in the Nation. The faculty, students and trustees can be justly proud of the accomplishments of the last quarter century under the leadership of Father Paul Waldschmidt, the late Father Tom Oddo, and more recently, President David Tyson. The leadership of these presidents and trustees has had a tremendous impact on the academic programs and the physical development of the campus. But the University of Portland's Women's Soccer Team symbolizes that level of achievement, commitment and dedication. The Pilots Women's Soccer Team has for over a decade compiled an outstanding record, six times reaching the highest levels in play-off competition. But one must understand that these players are students first. The University of Portland has one of the highest rates of graduating student athletes among the NCAA Division I colleges and universities across the country. The soccer program at the University of Portland has produced women athletes who are today household names in the soccer world like Tiffeny Millbrett, Shannon MacMillan, both Olympians. They are role models for our community, for young women in Portland and around the country. I have watched my own daughter and her high school teammates be inspired by their example. I have watched these outstanding college athletes share their skill and knowledge of the game with children in the community. Part of this achievement is due to the outstanding coach, Clive Charles who, along with leading the Pilots to victory on the field, recently fought and won a difficult battle against cancer. He is one of only five coaches in NCAA history to win 400 games. All of those, we are pleased to say, are with the University of Portland. Even by the university's high standards, this particular win was special. This determined team fought from the eighth seed in the tournament to take it all, as has never been done before in college cup history. While one hesitates to single out specific players on this outstanding team, four Pilots were named to the all-tournament team, including Sinclair, Arase, defender Lauren Orlandos, and midfielder Erin Misaki. I would be remiss not to mention the numerous records that were broken by the team in this effort. Christine Sinclair set an NCAA tournament record with 21 points on 10 goals and one assist, shattering Mia Hamm's 1993 record of 16. Lauren Arase allowed just one goal in the 2002 play-offs, setting an NCAA record for play-off goals, an average of 0.016, allowing just one goal in six games. Her gutsy effort was recognized in a recent New York Times article chronicling her will to push on despite a terrible injury in the championship game, illustrating the continued significance of Title IX. The Pilot women who brought this title are the pride of an outstanding university. There is no more fitting symbol of the power and purpose of women's athletics than their championship. I am pleased that President Bush will honor the team with a White House ceremony later this month, and I am pleased the House of Representatives is honoring them today with this resolution.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the city of Milwaukie, OR, on the 100th anniversary of its incorporation. This is a community in my district that has played an important role in Oregon's history. While incorporated for 100 years it was actually founded in 1840. Milwaukie began to play an important role in riverfront shipping with the advent of docks on the Willamette River. The commerce from these docks served to link the Willamette Valley's pioneers with goods from the Hudson Bay Trading Company and beyond. Oregon's founder, Doctor John McLaughlin, often supervised commerce on those docks when he visited from his nearby home a mile away. Oregon's third newspaper, The Western Star, was founded in Milwaukie in 1850. It quickly became Oregon's premier newspaper up and down the Willamette Valley for settlers as far south as Eugene. It gave the pioneers their only information on the Oregon Territory, the coming statehood, events at Champoeg, and the Civil War. Reaching beyond Oregon's borders and to the rest of the world is Milwaukie's contribution to the American Produce market. A little known fact is that the Bing Cherry was first cultivated in Milwaukie. It was named after a Manchurian Chinese immigrant who worked for the Lewelling Family Orchards, in what is now the Lewelling Neighborhood. Today, Milwaukie is the second largest city in Clackamas County with a population of 20,470. Its large employers include United Grocers, Oregon Cutting Systems, Dark Horse Comics, Warn Industries and Providence Milwaukie Hospital. It serves the Portland region as a transportation crossroads, hosting the intersection of two State highways, two freight lines, and hopefully a future light rail line. I am proud to represent the ``City of Dogwoods''--Milwaukie, OR.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am submitting to the House a resolution congratulating the University of Portland Women's soccer team on their winning the 2003 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Championship. This title marks the first national championship in any sport for the University of Portland. The championship game between Portland and reigning 2001 champion Santa Clara was hard fought, going down to a rare double-overtime. The victory by the Pilots brought their season record to 20-4-1 to tie the school record for wins in a season. The team's performance garnered other records as well; Christine Sinclair set an NCAA tournament record with 21 points on 10 goals and one assist, shattering Mia Hamm's 1993 record of 16; Goalkeeper Lauren Arase set a record for goals-against average, allowing just one goal in 6 games. I want to commend the coaches at the University of Portland for their hard work and dedication to helping these young women grow and ultimately bring national recognition to their school and our state. Head Coach Clive Charles, Assistant Coaches Bill Irwin, Garrett Smith, Nyla Stuckey, Trevor Warren and Wynne McIntosh all deserve recognition for the work that they have done developing an outstanding collegiate sports program. Coach Charles has built an impressive record over the 14 years that he has coached women's soccer at the University of Portland. Collectively, his men's and women's teams have won 12 conference championships, losing only 31 league games, and earned 16 NCAA playoff berths, including seven Final Four appearances, in a combined 27 seasons. Twenty-five Pilots have earned All-America status during Charles' tenure. Early in the 1998 season, Charles won his 300th career college game. The Portland men and women won on the same day, making him just the 11th coach in NCAA soccer history to amass 300 wins. I am honored to represent many of these individuals in Congress and proud to have the University in my district. This resolution is a fitting tribute to the accomplishments of the coaches, players, and the University of Portland.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and focusing on what we could be doing, what we should be doing, as opposed to what it appears that the President is focusing on, an economic stimulus package that will create less than 200,000 jobs, which is only 10 percent of the jobs we have already lost in the last year, that will provide the top 1 percent of the taxpayers with 40 percent of the benefits, and will increase the deficit by more than $900 billion. Mr. Speaker, I yield next to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), who is an experienced legislator with an impressive victory which brought him to this Chamber, and a Member who has impressed not only his constituents in Ohio, but also Members here in Washington with the way the gentleman has hit the ground running.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his focusing on the program that has been advanced by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. It is an immediate economic stimulus plan that will create 1 million jobs this year. It would put money and purchasing power in the hands of consumers, provide relief to 3 million laid-off workers. The House Democratic plan proposes a $300 tax rebate now for every working taxpayer, tax breaks to help small businesses and encourage business investment, and a 26-week extension of unemployment insurance. It would provide money to the States to deal with their fiscal crises, dealing with homeland security, transportation, and health care costs. All told, this Democratic plan which would put more on the table this year would cost far less than that of the President. We look forward to being able to carry this debate forward in the aftermath of this important week here in Washington, D.C. I appreciate the courtesy, Mr. Speaker, of being able to be here on the floor this evening.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman joining us and the gentleman's focus on the plight of prescription drug coverage for our senior citizens. It continues to be, I think, an outrage and a shame that poor American senior citizens pay the highest prescription drug prices in the world. It is in this context that we are moving forward dealing with the economy, with the weakest economic growth in 50 years, over 2 million private sector jobs eliminated since this administration started, 2 million more employees out of work, the median household income being down, and the inequality gaps growing, and States facing huge deficits and having to cut programs. Then we are given an economic program on the Federal level which will actually reduce State revenues for the majority of States and not meaningfully deal with the problems that our States are facing. I am hopeful that this Congress at least will respond to the efforts of the Democratic minority here in the House to make sure that we fully fund our commitments to State and local governments, local governments being the first line of defense against terrorist acts here at home. Promises to local governments have been left unfulfilled. I am pleased to turn to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), my colleague who has finished a distinguished career in the California State Assembly and who is now adding his voice here in our Nation's Capital dealing with the needs of the people of California and around the country.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to consider what would have happened if such a challenge had been made last year, energy independence, for instance, instead of spending up to $230 billion on national missile defense. We have already put an $8 billion downpayment this year. We are starting work in Alaska which, ironically, is something that is not going to make this country safe from terrorist attacks. If people in North Korea actually have a nuclear device, we are as vulnerable to somebody bringing a motor boat into the Puget Sound, into San Francisco Bay, into New York Harbor. Instead of moving forward with a challenge like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) talked about, instead this last year has been characterized by a systematic assault on the environment. There was a classic cartoon by Gary Trudeau in ``Doonesbury'' in the Sunday paper which appeared around the country. The text of it that builds the momentum is ``For instance, Mr. President, we've produced new rules to speed up logging in national forests, rolled back protections of 58 million acres from roads and developments, eased pollution controls for power plants and factories, rejected new fuel- efficiency standards, sped up permit-granting for power companies, lifted a ban on snowmobiles in parks, proposed 51,000 new natural gas wells, removed limits on coal producers for dumping mountaintop fill in streams, reduced EPA fines of polluters by 64 percent, opened up Padre Island to drilling, halted funding for several Superfund sites, replaced scientists who don't support our views, rejected the Kyoto Global Warming treaty, and much, much more!'' Gary is not making this up. This is all part of the environmental legacy of this administration in the course of the last year. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the only librarian in Congress and a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce who has been dealing with questions of poverty, education, and how we get our communities rolling again.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's passion and insights. Another colleague from the Pacific Northwest, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), has served on the Committee on Ways and Means arm-wrestling with these proposals for a number of years and has particular expertise dealing with health care and the economic revitalization through tax policy. If the gentleman would be interested in sharing a little of his insights with us in terms of what we can look forward to and what we should look forward to instead.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a gentleman who has been involved with some tough budget times as a local official and has been involved with a series of schemes here in Congress, and who has never been shy about sharing his opinions about what the appropriate approach should be from his perspective. I appreciate the gentleman being here this evening, and I am pleased to yield to him now.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's tireless efforts on behalf of children in our society, and focusing our attention and making sure that people on this floor have this constantly brought to their attention. It is really deeply appreciated.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I do think the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has sketched an interesting conundrum. I mentioned the concern I have over what happened in the last year, but he raises an interesting dimension if we reflect back at what happened with previous administrations and previous Congresses 10 years ago. Ten years ago, men and women in both parties, both the Republican and a Democratic administration, made hard choices to control spending, to not cut taxes even though it is fun, but the first President Bush worked with Congress, put forward a balanced program of some modest tax increase, some fiscal discipline in cutting. It was followed later by both Republicans and Democrats with the Clinton administration, so we got a balanced budget. We were able to turn things around. The economy was booming. Today we are turning our back on that story. At the same time, the first President Bush, when he was involved in the Middle East with Iraq, painfully, arduously, worked and put together an international coalition of almost 40 countries of allies and some unlikely supporters dealing with that activity; and today, we are looking at a situation where the United States is not anywhere near that position and, instead, is relying on some rather aggressive rhetoric rather than the hard work in the trenches that characterized what happened with the first President Bush and the first Gulf War. Let me, if I could, I would like to begin by recognizing some of my colleagues that are here. I know the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) has had a special interest dealing with the effects on young people and education. We appreciate her leadership and would welcome comments that she would care to give at this point.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague helping shape the context for the important discussions that we will be having in the course of the week. This is a very important time of the year. This is the time where the President of the United States has an opportunity to give his or her vision for our country. It is a unique opportunity. It is a time, particularly at the beginning of a new Congress, when we are coming together with fresh optimism and enthusiasm. People are just off the campaign trail. Hopefully, for a while, we can concentrate on the people's business. There have been times when the President of the United States has come before this Chamber rallying the American people. I was one, Mr. Speaker, who was very impressed in the aftermath of September 11 with the challenge that was faced by our then new President, President Bush, how he came forward at a time of great tension and anxiety in this country, having been subjected to an unprecedented attack on our shore, and I thought that he rose to the occasion. I thought his message was direct, was forthright; and I noted in this Chamber that men and women in both parties came forward, making it clear that we were united in terms of dealing with our responsibility to the American people, working together. I contrast what happened immediately in the aftermath of September 11 with what happened in last year's State of the Union and thinking about what has happened in the year since then. We had an unfortunate notion dealing with the ``axis of evil,'' where we had an unfortunate, some would say reckless, rhetorical flourish that has sort of lumped together three of the most vexing problems we have in the foreign policy arena with North Korea, Iraq and Iran; and unfortunately, in the course of the last year, we have seen increasing problems because of an inability on the part of the administration to distinguish and have a clear and thoughtful approach to all three of those problems. We have had a situation dealing with the issue of international terror, which is and remains the greatest threat to American security; and frankly, I think all of us in our heart of hearts has to admit that, as a result of the last year, America is no safer as it relates to terrorism, and in fact, there are questions and ambiguity. We have this great amorphous security agency, and we really have not addressed vexing problems between a lack of coordination between the CIA and the FBI. Now we have got a third entity with more questions than answers. There was not a call in the last State of the Union asking Americans to step forward. There was not a sense of shared sacrifice and urgency. In the course of the last year, we have been dealing, frankly, with sort of misdirected economic policies, and we will be talking about those this evening. I see our colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), from the Committee on Ways and Means who I think has something to say about it. We have the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), who has some significant information to share about the impact as it has to deal with poor people. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) can deal with impacts on children. We will be dealing with the economy here in the course of our discussion this evening, but I think it important to note that we have got the economy, we have not addressed it; and in fact, the proposals that have been slowly leaked out and trial balloons that have been floated on some of the President's speeches do not give me any cause for comfort as I look at the problem of a State like Oregon, which has the highest unemployment rate in the country. Nothing that has been proposed to this point is going to do anything to put these people back to work. It is not going to deal with investments in infrastructure and cleaning up the environment that could make a huge difference tomorrow, and there is not anything that speaks to the concerns and the problems of the vast majority of working Americans. We are going to be getting into that later this evening. Last but not least, I hope to return to a brief conversation about the environment. Certainly, we have seen dramatic events around the world that present the problems we have to global climate change in terms of the economic devastation and that assault on human health in terms of what is happening to the environment; and sadly, sadly, this is an area that not only have we not had a series of positive initiatives that could make the world healthier, safer and more economically secure, but sadly, in the course of the last year, we have seen a series of below-the-radar assaults on the environment by this administration, which are going to have profound effects for years to come. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding to me, and I look forward to participating with him and our other colleagues in the course of the evening, painting the context for what the American public needs, deserves, anticipates, and contrasting that with what it appears the administration is going to do and certainly what it has done.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that the first major action of Congress will begin with a flawed process. One can only hope that this is not a sign of things to come with the Republican leadership at the helm of both chambers. Over 20,000 workers in Oregon alone were affected by the failure of Congress to pass this extension last session. These people deserve our best, not the lowest common denominator of benefits that the Republican leadership has decided it has to offer. Furthermore, the Republican leadership is not even allowing debate to occur on more reasonable options, instead choosing to limit the democratic process. The Democratic alternative provides for 26 weeks of extended unemployment benefits, helping nearly 2.5 million Americans over the next six months, while the Republican proposal only offers 13 weeks. While I am grateful for my jobless constituents that an extension will now be implemented, it is too little and too late. Extending unemployment insurance is the fastest way to help the people that need it most, since it provides targeted and effective economic stimulus. These critical benefits increase consumer spending in the hardest-hit areas and sustain and strengthen economic recovery. It makes more sense to invest in expanded unemployment benefits now to help millions of Americans, than exploding the budget deficit with President Bush's economic stimulus plan which will cost almost $850 billion, including debt service, and whose own economists say will create less than 200,000 jobs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Chair and ranking member for moving this forward expeditiously. It is important. I appreciate their commitment to look at the long term. My colleague the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) has been working on this for some time. It is a critical program for the lives and livelihood of many people around the country. It is a good example of how the Federal Government can step in and help work with local communities to lessen the impact that disasters have on people's lives and property. However, as we look at this reauthorization we must indeed look at the big picture, because the Federal Government can do a much better job of providing the right signals and incentives for individuals, communities, and State governments to act responsibly. Unfortunately, some aspects of our disaster policy on the national level are themselves a disaster, including a dominant structural model for flood plain and flood management that has a serious number of problems. Despite spending over $40 billion in the last 40 years on flood program management to reduce flooding, we have actually seen flood losses increase to an average of $8 billion a year, six times what it was before the program was enacted 40 years ago. Forty percent of the payments go to 2 percent of the property. We have a serious problem of repetitive flood loss. I have often cited an example of one home in Houston, Texas, with an assessed value of less than $115,000 that has received over at least 16 losses totaling over $806,000. It is an example of a program that needs to be corrected. Flood losses are only going to get more expensive as global warming leads to more extreme weather events. The world's largest banks and insurers are already estimating that the cost of financial losses from events such as this summer's devastating floods in Central Europe and in India will be $150 billion over the next 10 years. Our national flood policy often encourages development and rebuilding in places with a predictably high risk of future catastrophic loss. It also fosters an unsustainable reliance on the Federal Government. That is why the Bush administration in one of their first actions upon taking office identified flood insurance reform as one of the areas that could both help the environment and save money. It is an area of reform that was identified by the Clinton administration and James Lee Witt, a FEMA director that we all worked with. I am pleased to join with my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), in co-sponsoring the Two Flood and You Are Out of the Taxpayer Pocket Act that would reauthorize the program until the year 2007. I will not go into the details other than to say it is the sort of heavy lifting in terms of legislation that will actually unite the administration, environmentalists, people who are fiscally conservative, people who care about being able to make sure that we do not encourage people to put themselves in harm's way. I appreciate speaking in support of this bill today and look forward with working with people in this Chamber on important reform legislation that can be a source of pride for this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, only one day into the new Congress and the Republican Leadership's procedures for advancing legislation are an outrage that purposefully seeks to limit meaningful debate. By stifling opportunities to present alternatives by either Democrats or Republicans, the House leadership is showing its unwillingness to legislate and its lack of fiscal responsibility. This morning we passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits for millions of Americans out of work. Unfortunately, due to the Republican leadership procedures, provisions could not be added to provide benefits to 1 million whose benefits have already expired. Now, with this Continuing Resolution, we are faced with a provision for the Department of Homeland Security that would allow the Administration to bypass a normal review by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and win blanket approval on the House floor for its plan to lease up to 575,000 square feet at a cost of up to $250 million. There are important security, infrastructure, and fiscal considerations left undiscussed by this approach. The Republican leadership is not just afraid of the Democratic proposals, but they are afraid of their own moderate members and the American public. Decision-making that leaves out normal congressional and committee processes is an attempt to remove democratic debate and public opinion from the table. This is a horrible way to begin the new Congress. The American public deserves better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of the homeland security debate, after studying evidence and listening to Oregonians, my priorities have been clear. Strengthening the capacity of our government agencies to defend our nation from terrorist attacks is necessary and vital to our society. Our nation will benefit from better communication among federal agencies and from improved safety of air travel, our borders, our ports, and our water supplies. However, we must develop a focused strategy to protect our nation rather than taking cosmetic actions. We need to address the intelligence failures that led up to the event of September 11. We need to work with local governments to coordinate responses to future attacks. The proposed Department does not address either. A massive restructuring of the federal government will not necessarily improve the security of our nation. As has been documented time and again in jarring detail by the news media, the FBI and CIA were not properly coordinated before September 11. This enormous reorganization, rather than dealing with fundamental problems between these two agencies, adds a third governmental department to the uncoordinated mix. My own experience is that government reorganizations are difficult and complex. There are many demands on employees and stripping away workers' protecting will only create friction and uncertainty. It would be more simple and fair to make adjustments for those employees that work primarily with intelligence or terrorism investigations than to strip away the collective bargaining rights of all employees included in this new government. Finally, the timing is problematic. The leadership rushed the first bill through the House in an attempt to pass it into law before the anniversary of September 11. Now, just days after the election, the House and Senate Republicans produce a new bill, exempting labor protections for workers, in back room negotiations. A significant reorganization would be better served by an open, inclusive process. The Homeland Security Department, as proposed in this bill, will detract from our ability to truly protect our nation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to offer my support for Mr. Spratt's Amendment to the proposed Joint resolution. Its emphasis--on international action, the role of the United Nations and diplomatic means to achieve full compliance with multinational efforts to destroy Iraq's capability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction--is exactly right. This amendment includes key elements of the proposal for compulsory arms inspections put forward by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace to the House International Relations Committee. I was impressed with the wisdom of that third approach then, and I am now. This Amendment recognizes and honors Congress' role in the initiation of war and in monitoring its conduct. It rightly places our actions within a broader multi-lateral framework and calls on the international community, particularly Arab and Islamic countries, to work with the United States in the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq. For all these reasons, I urge adoption of the Amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment recognizes that diplomacy is an option that is not yet exhausted. The Administration's Resolution makes a number of assertions that are questionable at best; the clauses in this Amendment, on the other hand, are indisputable. Surely, we can get the United Nations to reinstate newly-empowered weapons inspectors, who can keep a step ahead of Baghdad--inspectors that are allowed to inspect Saddam's presidential sites without notice. We must build a coalition of nations with the support of the United Nations, a coalition similar to that formed by the former President Bush. It is the duty of responsible nations to give a convincing case to the world before embarking on any military action on another country. And the world is not convinced. War is a last resort, and is recognized as such by Democrat and Republican alike. Because we are not yet at that point, I support the Lee amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, earlier today the House voted to authorize the President to unilaterally use force against Iraq. It's appropriate that we immediately follow the Iraq debate with the largest Department of Defense appropriations bill ever put before Congress. I did not support the Iraq resolution and I do not support spending $1 billion per day on a variety of wasteful programs, many of which do not improve the security of our nation. The bill spends $355.1 billion; $35 billion more than the current level. The conference report is $395 million more than what we passed in the House in June. Unfortunately, $7.4 billion of this conference report is for a misguided missile defense system, which will do nothing to protect us against terrorists like Osama bin Laden. At this critical time in our nation's struggle against terrorism, we must spend our resources on America's immediate defense needs. Missile defense is not among them. In addition, this bill supports a controversial plan to lease as many as 100 Boeing 767 aircraft for the Pentagon. Leasing, rather than buying the aircraft will cost taxpayers more money in the long term. There are some aspects of this bill that I find encouraging. The bill provides no funds for the outmoded Crusader mobile howitzer, a weapons system designed for a war from an age long past. Providing an additional $368 million for work on a lighter and more flexible weapons system is more appropriate. The bottom line is that we are spending almost a billion dollars a day on programs that do not do all they should to protect our country from threats to its national security.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I vote in support of the Military Construction Conference Report, H.R. 5011. I am encouraged that the conference report provides $835 million more than the Administration requested for barracks construction, family housing, medical facilities, and environmental clean up. I am especially pleased that this conference report includes $561 million for the Defense Department's Base Realignment and Closure program, which is $16 million more than what we passed in the House earlier this summer. I am disappointed that the Conference Committee could not support the Senate's request for $645 million, but what we have is a good step. This increase will help the Department meet its environmental restoration and reuse commitments. I would also like to express my appreciation to Chairman Hobson, Ranking Member Olver and Mr. Farr on the House Committee for focusing on one aspect of the military construction budget that deals with the problem of unexploded ordnance, the bombs and shells and military toxins, that have been left over and littered across the landscape of this country. I thank them for their foresight and leadership in bringing this issue front and center.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today marks an appropriate conclusion to the closing days of this 107th Congress under the guidance of Republican Leadership. First this House voted to authorize the President for unilaterally use force against Iraq. Next, they passed the largest Department of Defense appropriations bill ever put before Congress. And now we are debating a resolution to put off our remaining funding responsibilities until after the election. The Republican Leadership continues to stymie the appropriations process because they cannot come to an agreement within their own party on how to fund important programs in the wake of their massive tax cut. Simply continuing funding at fiscal year 2002 level is a way of skirting the tough decisions before the election. However, there are significant consequences to this strategy. By keeping funding at 2002 levels we are compromising our Nation's security and a host of other important programs that the American people care about. For example, the Coast Guard is awaiting a $500 million budget increase, which would allow more hires and increased harbor patrols. The current appropriations hold up is threatening $3.5 billion in anti-terrorism grants for emergency rescue teams. The spending freeze represents a $372 million cut from the President's budget, which is already grossly inadequate and falls far short of the promises made in the No Child Left Behind Act. The Securities and Exchange Commission will continue to wait for the funding increases promised to protect investors and monitor corporate activities. Many projects across the country are threatened, even though they have agreements with the federal government, because discretionary funds cannot be allocated without a fiscal year 2003 bill. In Oregon, this threatens $70 million for Portland's Interstate Max, $3 million for the Sauvie Island Bridge, and $2.8 million for Jobs Access. The Republican Leadership should be embarrassed to turn its back on its responsibilities to return home and campaign instead of dealing with their unfinished business.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time and the leadership for promoting a full and thoughtful debate on this critical issue for our country. It has truly been a very positive experience on our committee, and I am looking forward to bringing it here to the floor of the House. As I listened to President Bush attempt to make his case for war last night, what I heard him debate was debating with thousands of Americans who have voiced their concern to us in e-mails and letters and conversations. These are our constituents, ordinary citizens, raising straightforward, commonsense arguments against unilateral preemptive military action. Those voices were unanswered last night. Unanswered was the learned warning of a respected Portland rabbi recently returning from another month-long stay in Israel who assures me that Israel will, in his judgment, undoubtedly respond with nuclear weapons if Saddam Hussein unleashes Scuds armed with chemical or biological agents against it. Unanswered was the common knowledge that some allies have already used the rhetoric of this administration to pursue policies against their own terrorists, complicating the lives of our officials who must deal with the results. Unanswered were the countless questioners in our meetings at home who asked why some of the same people who are promoting this action against Iraq are the same who aided Saddam Hussein in getting chemical and biological agents in the 1980s and who did not speak out when he used them against his own people then. As the President confidently predicts our precise military strikes, I hear the viewers and readers of Black Hawk Down reminding us how things can go horribly wrong, all lessons learned by Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. Unanswered are those critics, including my colleagues, who fear not that the United States would ultimately be defeated by Saddam Hussein, but that the young American soldiers lack sufficient preparation and equipment for chemical and biological warfare and could suffer horrible losses. I was intrigued with the insight of my own son about to return to Southeast Asia calling this a policy of national insecurity, putting him at greater risk in the weeks ahead traveling amongst the Muslim populations in Asia, while increasing the likelihood of terrorist violence here at home. Our constituents describe a much more complicated world, one where the United States has yet to develop a coherent strategy for democracy in the Middle East, a world where other elements are at least as great a threat. Persuasive cases have been made against Iran and North Korea. Remember the axis of evil. And we are not yet finished in Afghanistan. President Karzai is barely the mayor of Kabul. It is uncertain whether we or the countries who supported us there are ready to do the job. In addition, it is important to point out that this is not Munich. No one talks of appeasement. If Saddam Hussein takes one step outside his borders, his forces will be annihilated. There is no question about it. It is interesting how recently the polls are starting to more accurately reflect the mood of the American public that has been expressed to us for months. But regardless of what the polls say, some things are just wrong. Unilateral preemptive action as an operating principle is wrong. Delegating the unfettered authority to this President or any President to wage war is wrong. Missing the chance to build a more secure future with a more coherent foreign policy is also wrong. This debate does not yet capture the nature of the many challenges we face or the legitimate concerns and observations of the American public. It does not prepare America for the real struggle ahead. I will vote ``no,'' and I urge Members to do likewise.