Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I support the underlying objective of the bill, to expand the Amber Alert system nationwide and to improve the National Coordination of Amber Alert Communications to help save the lives of kidnapped children. Unfortunately, a wide range of troubling provisions were added by the House Judiciary Committee. For example, this bill would include a provision to expand the type of homicide that can be punished by the death penalty. It would also increase mandatory sentencing, thus further eliminating judicial discretion and potentially leading to unfair punishments. By bringing this bill to the floor in the form of a suspension bill, the opportunity for amendment and discussion of these controversial provisions has been hindered. I therefore withhold my support for H.R. 5422.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my fellow Oregonian's courtesy in allowing me to speak on this; and I would rise first to express my appreciation for the leadership of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman, for the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for work that has been done on our subcommittee this session. This is important work, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the water resources of this country. The bill we have before us today, H.R. 5169, is an example of where we have been able to hone in on a problem to be able to deal with meaningful solutions, advance them in a bipartisan and expeditious fashion. I plan on supporting it today. I wanted to add my voice here publicly on the floor to what I have said before our full committee and before the subcommittee, where I have expressed my appreciation for the way in which the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) have been able to bring together the disparate voices dealing with water resources. These are areas that are not without controversy. They are complex, they are expensive, and they touch the lives and livelihoods of virtually every family and every business in America. I think because of my colleagues' good work it has been given more of the attention that it deserves, not just in the aftermath of some horrendous tropical storm where maybe we have dodged a bullet or in the course of some sad scandal that appears in a newspaper where the process has broken down and it brings disrepute on our system here, and my colleagues have focused the attention of the subcommittee on how to fix the problem. I am here today not just to support the bill and to thank them but to hope that the leadership of the full committee and of the House is mindful of what they have done, is mindful of the legislation that is in, if my colleagues will pardon the expression, the pipeline from the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. The most significant example of that is the Water Resources Development Act, which is 90 percent finished; and we were promised in subcommittee, at the staff level and at the full committee, an opportunity to bring these issues to the floor, to have a fair and honest debate and let the chips fall where they may. Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that as a result of the record that the chairman and ranking member have compiled before our subcommittee, as a result of the hard work that has been done throughout the Congress and frankly in the outside world with our friends, not just in the environmental community, I have had these conversations with General Flowers since soon after his appointment, he too wants to change the way that business is done; he wants to make sure that we are respectful of the tax dollar and of the environmental concerns to bring forward a new era of water resources activities with the Corps of Engineers and with the Federal Government. But in order for that to happen, we have got to bring these issues to the floor, and we need to realign what Congress is doing. I reject the notion that problems with water resources lie solely at the feet of the Corps of Engineers. There is over a 200-year history of that agency performing admirably. There have been problems. Some of the problems on the floor we are dealing with. Again we did this with our committee last session, dealing with the problems in the Everglades. But frankly we are putting $8.5 billion in the Everglades as a down payment to change some of what we did to it in the first place. We need to have this discussion. We need to bring the product of our subcommittee to the floor and be able to deal with these issues meaningfully and honestly. It is time for Congress to get its act together, because frankly some of what people feel in some instances are scandals and problems with the Corps of Engineers I think are a result of past practices and the traditional cross-currents they face. In no small measure it is pressure from individual Members of Congress. We need to have this discussion here; we need to help the Corps of Engineers; we need to be part of the solution, not continuing to be part of the problem. I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by expressing again my appreciation to the subcommittee chair and ranking member. I pledge my efforts to continue to work with them, with a group of Members of Congress who have organized the Corps Reform Caucus, to be able to make sure that this Congress does not adjourn without considering the fruits of their hard work. It is time to allow that on the floor. I look forward to working with them so that we can have other successes like we have here with H.R. 5169.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5383, debated and passed today, includes language that allows two streetcars manufactured in the Czech Republic to enter the United States duty free. These streetcars are additions to the recently opened and highly successful Portland, Oregon streetcar line. I would to take this opportunity to thank the Ways and Means Committee Members and staff for working with me to solve a problem that would have led to unnecessary tariffs on these two streetcars. The work that they have done is important not only for Portland as it addresses its transportation needs, but hopefully can be developed as a model that can help other cities as they attempt to offer their regions greater transportation choices. This past weekend, as a participant in the 2002 Rail-Volution conference held in Washington, D.C., I heard from local officials, land-use planners, transit employees, citizen advocates, and developers from more than 200 communities nationwide that are working to address transportation needs and options. Creating a trade import model that helps communities explore transportation alternatives that improve the livability of our cities is a worth endeavor of Congress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Tuesday of this week, the 2003 fiscal year began and Congress has not yet completed a single appropriations bill. The Republican party's split among its conservative members continues to stall the appropriations process. This failure to complete our budget and funding responsibilities leads to more strain on our fragile economy. I again support this short-term resolution to keep agencies operating, but I urge leadership to move the appropriations process along so we can find the education programs we promised in the No Child Left Behind Act; so we can find the technology and new-hires needed for seaport and airport security; and, so we can find the many other priorities and commitments that the American people expect of us.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that a crisis exists relating to the costs of medical malpractice liability insurance premiums. This bill is no a solution, and I will not vote for it. The problem deserves an effective solution based on a real causal evaluation, which this bill lacks. Even insurers and their lobbyists reject the notion that tort reform would achieve any specific premium reduction. I am particularly concerned that the model for this bill, California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), does not appear to have made any improvement at all in the battle against high malpractice insurance premiums. MICRA included a $250,000 cap on non- economic damages as well as arbitration and attorney fee provisions, yet doctors still pay premiums that are higher than the national average. Furthermore, the caps on damages in this bill are arbitrary, and based on a scale established in 1975. In Oregon, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that even looser caps are a clear violation of state law, and Oregon voters have resisted efforts to change this. This bill would overturn their decisions, as well as patients' rights laws in 11 other states. Since Congress is very unlikely to enact this tort reform, we ought to look into the effect that poor investments, the legislative framework, and other insurance industry-side elements might have in this crisis. Until we achieve a greater level of transparency in the accounting practices of insurers who hold the strings to these premiums, we will be unable to truly provide the relief that the medical system needs. I am committed to working with all parties to solve the malpractice premium crisis.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have not been able to deal meaningfully with the appropriations process. The fiscal year ends in a few more days and we have not completed our appropriations work. Indeed, we have barely begun. The Republican part has a split between its conservative and its more conservative members, which is keeping the remaining appropriations bills from being brought to the House floor for debate and action. The funding of our federal departments and program is one of the most important jobs of Congress. We must honor our commitments to defend our country, educate our children, and protect the environment. I am willing to support this short-term continuing resolution. However, we must, sooner rather than later, face up to the consequences of a massive tax cut, more demands for security, and the impact of the wasteful farm bill, and get on with the job the American people expect of us.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman said it well, and I thank her for her participation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments and her leadership. I will always remember the visit we took last year with some of our colleagues to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where we were camping on a plain amidst the caribou; where we had a chance to really sense the vastness of that area, to get a feel for what was at stake as we looked at other areas that had been developed and were continuing to be developed for oil production. It was clear that this was one of America's jewels, and I have appreciated the gentlewoman's commitment in terms of going up there to see it firsthand and the gentlewoman's continued advocacy for a more rational and thoughtful energy policy. Hopefully, working together, we can advance these causes here in Congress that will make a difference for America's energy security.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House this evening, as we have had speakers here earlier, focusing on issues of energy and the potential for war in the Middle East. I think it is appropriate that these two issues are in fact before us, because oil and the Middle East are linked in the minds of the public; and, in fact, I think any credible observer would agree that in fact they are linked in fact. Tonight, as one reflects on the status of the potential growing cloud of war in the Middle East as we are dealing in this country with issues that relate as we speak now, there is a conference that has been meeting in terms of the energy policy. I think it is appropriate for us to step back and reflect on the status of what this Congress has done in the course of the last year to deal meaningfully with energy policy. It is something that in and of itself is important for us to focus on, but it would seem that in the aftermath of the horrible attacks of September 11 of last year, the rising tensions in the Middle East, the pressures that took place as we moved into Afghanistan, what we have seen in terms of the potential problems with oil that is concentrated in terms of the 50 percent or more that comes to the United States from foreign sources, that there would be a sense of urgency about that discussion. Americans want and deserve a national energy policy that ensures safe, affordable and clean energy. One must only be disappointed by the lack of leadership and urgency that we have seen with the administration, and, sad to say, here in Congress, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to say nothing about reducing the impact of the pollution that is associated with that dependence. We have now been working on an energy bill for almost 2 years; and the plan that has come forward from the House does not even employ simple steps to reduce the demand for oil that years of study have demonstrated beyond question are necessary and in fact will work. Sadly, this is in the midst of the economic challenges that we face as we have seen the promise of fiscal stability go out the window. In my State of Oregon we have consistently in the course of over the last year and a half had among the highest unemployment rates in the country. It was less than a year and a half ago when we heard from the President that we could in fact embark upon a massive tax cut because we were going to have over $5 trillion in surplus; and, in fact, it was alleged that one of the real problems we were facing as a Nation was the possibility that we would be paying off the national debt so rapidly that we would not have safe investment instruments. Well, we have dodged that bullet. We have not just a tight budget, but we have deficits now for as long as the eye can see. We are going to be borrowing between 100 billion and $200 billion of Social Security trust funds. One only hears faintly the echo of the lockbox that people were going to set aside these monies, and we are looking at a significant long-term structural deficit. But in the context of that, we have the conferees looking at an energy bill that would give away billions of dollars in new subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuel, for the automobile industry, for the nuclear industry while sadly shortchanging clean, sustainable energy sources. Having a dependable supply of energy and using it wisely is critical for Americans to be able to have livable communities. However, in response to the terrorist attacks and the call for more stable and predictable energy supply, we should not increase our dependence on fossil fuels in the way that we have for a century. The question is not whether we should reduce our dependence on oil, but whether we have the will; not whether we will reduce dependence on fossil fuel, but how and when we are going to achieve it. What is our strategy? With the United States holding some 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, yet consuming over 25 percent of the fossil fuels, we will never drill our way out of reliance on the unsustainable sources of oil. But aside for a moment that the vast majority of the oil that we rely upon is concentrated in a handful of countries in an area that has never been particularly stable, but has been growing increasingly unstable over time, much of the recoverable oil in the United States, the 2 or 3 percent, is environmentally and politically difficult to access. Now, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle in the Republican Party and, of course, the White House believe that drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife refuge is an important part of the solution. Well, the fact is that even if we were to disregard the serious questions and problems associated with it, the reserves that we can recover in the Arctic are likely to provide only a few months energy supply for the United States, some have suggested 6 months or less, and it is not going to be available to us for the better part of a decade. If we, in fact, are concerned about energy security, if we are concerned about potential terrorist threats, putting our reliance on the 800-mile Alaskan pipeline seems to be a rather slender thread to rely upon. Recall that it was just a year ago when we had a drunk with a hunting rifle shoot up the pipeline, spilling almost 300,000 gallons of oil before the problem could be solved, and that was in the early fall. Consider what would have happened if this drunk had assaulted the pipeline later in the year, in the winter. Interrupting the flow of oil would have caused the entire pipeline to be subject to freezing up, and we would have an 800 mile long piece of Chapstick, hardly a safe and secure method of assuring oil supply to the lower 48 States. If a drunk with a hunting rifle can disrupt the flow, think what would happen along 800 miles if a few determined terrorists decided to inflict damage on it. Not something that we are going to rely upon. The notion that this is, in fact, part of a comprehensive energy solution that is going to be an important part of solving our problem is, at best, disingenuous for the American public as it is damaging to the environment. The public has made clear its opposition to drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Now, where would the administration take us next? According to the petroleum industry, western Federal lands hold 95 percent of untapped United States oil and 40 percent of untapped natural gas. In the last year, 2001, the administration approved 3,800 permits for companies to drill for oil and gas, the most in one year since 1988. Reflecting for a moment that it has taken eons for the radiant energy from the sun to convert by natural process to fossil fuels, in the course of a few generations we will have used up nearly all of the Earth's entire supply of accessible petroleum. The question is increasingly not just how much oil is left in the ground, but how long can we go on increasing the rate at which cheap oil is extracted. I think it is clear that there is a finite duration; it is just a matter of time when that curve is crossed and when the cheap oil is reduced, starts to go away that we change the economics of the petroleum industry. One hopes that we can convince our friends in the administration and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join the American public in realizing that we do have the technology to meet more of our energy needs through alternatives. Through energy conservation we have not, by any stretch of the imagination, exhausted the potential of energy savings through conservation, through increased full efficiency. Remember that a 3-mile per gallon increase in fuel efficiency for SUVs would offset the entire amount of oil that we expect to extract some day from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, if we change our policy. It is an opportunity for us to think about new creative ways to accelerate that progress. In one hour, there is more energy that the Earth receives from the sun, through the solar process, than is the entire year's output in fossil fuels. Energy and fuel efficiency is the quickest, cheapest, cleanest way to save not just energy. Most people will recover in a relatively short period of time over the course of the life of a vehicle the savings for any increase in the price of that vehicle. If they are going to have to have a more expensive SUV, if the people are not going to cut down on the power at all, they will end up in being able to recover those costs through savings that they will achieve in terms of reduced expenditure that they have. Passenger cars, for example, use more than 40 percent of the oil consumed in America. The average American driver spends 443 hours driving every single year. In fact, America's cars, light trucks, consume one-tenth of the annual global oil production. Mr. Speaker, we have resources available to us to, in fact, make a difference in energy efficiency, and it is something that we want to focus on with this Congress, not allow this time to get away from us, use the opportunity of the energy conference bill and each opportunity that comes before us from now until we adjourn to be able to advance the cause of America's energy security. I note, Mr. Speaker, that I have been joined by the gentlewoman from southern California (Ms. Sanchez), my colleague, with whom I have been pleased to work on a variety of issues that speak to the environment, to transportation. She has a wide variety of interests that range from the environment to national security. I am honored that she would join us this evening. I yield to the gentlewoman should she have some comments that she would wish to share.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution honoring and congratulating Lance Armstrong on his fourth successive victory of the Tour de France. One of the world's most grueling athletic events, this year's Tour de France bicycling race covered 2,036 miles in 20 days. Winning this challenging race is an amazing feat in itself but Lance Armstrong's triumph is even more remarkable considering his comeback from cancer. Through his efforts with the Lance Armstrong Foundation, Mr. Armstrong has been an effective advocate for cancer survivorship and research. What I find particularly interesting is the connection between health and bicycling. The active lifestyle inherent in bicycling and the environmental benefits of bicycling as an emission-free, non-polluting transportation alternative is a cornerstone of my work on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and as Chair of the bipartisan Congressional Bike Caucus. The resolution being introduced today is a deserving tribute to Lance Armstrong and his Tour de France victory, commitment to cancer awareness and survivorship, and promotion of bicycling.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 4691 and urge my colleagues who care about women's health, states' rights and the legislative process to vote against this measure. Not only is the underlying bill objectionable, but the House Republican Leadership has forced this bill to the floor without any committee consideration or the possibility for amendments. This bill puts the health and well-being of American families at risk by permitting any hospitals, health-insurance corporation or HMO to exempt itself from any federal, state, or local law that guarantees women access to abortion services. The language of this bill not only applies to the provision of legal abortion services, but also to the important responsibilities of counseling, payment and referral to other providers. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and women, regardless of whether their hospital or HMO provides actual abortion services, have a right to information about their medical options. My anti-choice colleagues will make many false claims today on the floor, but the reality is that the federal government is not forcing hospitals or doctors to perform abortions against their will, the American public does not support this type of legislation and this bill is not a mere ``clarification'' of current law. The bottom line is that health-care organizations should not be allowed to gag medical providers; women should not be denied necessary and appropriate medical information or services; and Congress should not supersede a state's right to create and enforce its own laws. I will support the motion to recommit so that we can send this bill back to committee and better address its major flaws.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is debating and voting today on H.R. 1784, the Women's Health Office Act, a bill that I support and have cosponsored. This measure will provide the tools necessary for successful coordination of women's health efforts in the federal government. Passage of this bill will bring needed attention and coordination to federal efforts to prevent, treat and research women's health needs. Streamlined federal communication regarding women's health issues is vital. This bill will also prevent attempts, like those made last year, to eliminate the offices of women's health throughout federal health agencies. Specific statutory authorization, as provided under this bill, will allow the women's health offices to carry out their tasks without fear that their programs or funding will be cut. It is essential that we provide stable funding and statutory support for the good work these programs do to promote women's health, study diseases that affect women and promote the inclusion of women in research studies. I urge the speedy adoption of this important measure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, at 8:46 this morning I came to this Chamber, where I was exactly a year ago, to reflect on the events that had transpired that terrible day and what has ensued since then. As we all shared a flood of remembrance in honor of the memory of the victims and the heroes of last September 11, I think, Mr. Speaker, it is just as important for us to reflect on the progress of this past year. Because tragedy gave us an opportunity and a responsibility, not just to deal with additional threats to our families, but to use the vast wealth and power of the United States to be a leader and a partner around the world, while we fulfill the promise of America here at home. I thought about how much I have been inspired by the reactions of the American public at the time of the tragedy and of what we have seen throughout the year. But, Mr. Speaker, I wonder honestly what we think we have accomplished as a Congress in this last year. Immediately, we did do, as the resolution says: Local, State, and Federal leaders set aside differences and worked together to provide for those who were attacked and to protect those who remain. But since then, since then, is America really safer because of congressional action? Do the vast intelligence and security agencies now work together seamlessly? Have we made progress, not just against the Taliban and al Qaeda, but to promote democracy and freedom, peace and prosperity around the globe? Is this Congress working together cooperatively on issues of peace, the environment, human health, and education? By any objective measure, we as elected officials have fallen short of that mark. We have yet as a body to provide voice, not just to the fears and frustrations, but to the hopes and aspirations of Americans that we will seize this moment. Now, I think people on both sides of the aisle will disagree as to why this is so, but I do not think anybody can argue that we have done all that we could, or even, frankly, that we have done all that much from airline security, to reducing energy dependence in the Middle East, to giving coherence to our policies in the Middle East and around the world. We have fallen short in doing all that we could for peace and democracy. As part of this solemn occasion, the most fitting tribute of all is not for us just to reaffirm as the resolution suggests an honoring of the memory of those who lost their lives and that we will bravely defend the citizens of the United States in the face of all future challenges; part of what we need to do is to acknowledge where we have fallen short and to renew our commitment that in this next year, we in Congress will catch up to where the actions and the expectations of the American public are; that we will enter in as Members of this Congress with a new spirit of cooperation and achievement, that takes the actions that make achievements of our values real, towards making our communities and, indeed, the world more livable and our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. We met with business people, governments, and with academicians from around the world; and it does not seem that this is something that should be beyond our capacity. First, the simple fact is that the future of energy in some way is going to deal with solar energy. In 1 hour, the sun radiates as much energy as the world consumes in a year with all of its fossil fuels. Being able to advance the technology, which is moving forward, to be able to harness virtually an unlimited supply of energy for the Earth's needs seems to be a top priority. We had advocated, all of us in the U.S. delegation, Members of Congress from both parties, suggested there be one simple step, that when we have all of these export credit agencies, OPEC, the World Bank, Ex-Im, that there be a commitment that 10 percent of the energy facilities be renewables. We could do that with the stroke of a pen. It would move forward, help jump-start this. Sadly, that was resisted. The goal of 15 percent by 2015 seems to be within our grasp if we use opportunities like this. But both gentlemen have been talking about United States leadership. I am frustrated that the United States steps back and uses excuses in lieu of leadership. In that session that the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) chaired, there was a minister from India, and we point out that the United States consumes 36 times the energy and has 36 times the greenhouse gas emissions than the average Indian. The average citizen of India emits one-sixth of the greenhouse gases of the world average, whereas the United States emits six times the world average, 25 percent for less than 5 percent of the world's population. Yet somehow the administration feels that this desperately poor country of India that is emitting less than one-thirtieth of the greenhouse gases than we are, somehow they should step up and assume leadership. I think it is an abrogation of our responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I appreciated the way the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) guided that forward to have a resolution that was approved by these parliamentarians unanimously.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Does the gentleman from Maine have some concluding thoughts?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I appreciate the leadership that he developed. I know it was not easy, having witnessed a little tiny bit of his Maine summer the week before, I do not know how hard it was for him to fly halfway around the world for a couple of days, but I think the conference was better for it and I deeply appreciate his willingness to do so. I must say that at the summit, I was encouraged by some other people that we encountered, where some of the hypocrisy of some of the richer countries, they were taken to task by well-organized and articulate poor people, by representatives of nongovernmental organizations, by a growing consensus of elected leaders like the gentleman helped guide dealing with renewable energy. We saw business step forward to embrace the challenge of the Kyoto Protocol. The gentleman from Maine and I went to Abutu village where there were spectacular exhibits, one that was managed in part by the Smithsonian, that had a number of United States agencies that told a lot about the environment. But if you looked at that exhibit, and we walked through the exhibit tent, including the Department of Energy and NOAA and EPA, the Department of the Interior, there was no information on global warming, on climate change. None. But if you went next door to the exhibit of BP, British Petroleum, there they had information. There you had an international corporation that has sometimes had its problems with the environmentalists, but they have a saying, ``BP stands for Beyond Petroleum.'' They have made a corporate commitment to meet the Kyoto protocols as a corporation. We found that the World Business Council for Sustainable Development joined in the fight for a real target for investment in renewable energy. We had citizen advocates and nongovernmental organizations that were effective in holding governments accountable. They were able to cut through the secrecy and the backroom deals. They provided us with the best information about what was actually occurring, who was doing what. I think it is important to note that their reactions were anything but knee jerk. I think they were very sophisticated in terms of their analysis of trade, environmental practices, the impact on our globe as well as proposing simple, commonsense solutions that are actually within our power to implement. I personally came away from that summit surprisingly encouraged. Yes, at times the problems seemed overwhelming: 325 million children not in school; 1.1 billion people without clean water; 2.4 billion without adequate sanitation. Yet amazingly progress is possible in sanitation, water supply, affordable housing and agriculture. The citizens from around the world and business leaders are moving in that direction. It is clear that we have the know-how, the skill to change current destructive practices and teach people how to help themselves. I was stunned by the potential resources that are within our grasp. For what Americans spend on cosmetics every year, we could largely meet the target for sanitation, saving millions of lives each year and promoting a more stable world. By reforming our costly, environmentally damaging farm programs, we could help poor farmers around the world while we protect the U.S. taxpayer, the environment and our family farmers, cleaning up, as we mentioned, the dirty coal plants as required by the Clean Air Act in this country, and I salute the gentleman from Maine's leadership to try to make sure the United States does something about it, would put us on track to meet the Kyoto goals. Simply by doing what we know how to do, spending money more wisely, following our own environmental laws and heeding the wishes of the public, we can save the planet. The world summit, I feel, was an important step in pulling these pieces together and making them a reality. The United States is the world's richest country. As its biggest polluter, it has a special obligation and responsibility to address these global environmental issues. I assure you that I am willing to work with you to make sure that we in Congress move in that direction. Did the gentleman from California have any concluding thoughts?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have just returned this last week from participation in the United Nations World Summit for Sustainable Development. It was truly an amazing experience, Mr. Speaker. It was the largest conference ever conducted by the United Nations. It was attended by over 100 heads of state who took part in the summit, joined by over 21,000 people, 9,000 delegates, 8,000 representatives of a variety of nongovernmental organizations and 4,000 members of the press. It was something that I will remember for a variety of reasons. In one respect it was interesting in terms of the context in which the summit was taking place. Amidst news of drought, forest fires, devastating storms and flooding around the world, millions of people had been displaced in Asia, there were disastrous floods in central Europe, everybody that I met with and I had the opportunity to visit with the representatives of over two dozen countries, there was not one person when did not feel that the terrible ecological disasters that provided the backdrop in the news were not somehow connected to the cavalier treatment that we have accorded to the environment. There was virtually no skepticism expressed on behalf of the concerns for global climate change, for instance. Now, while personally embarrassed that the United States did not have a greater presence, and somewhat overwhelmed by the environmental challenges we face, I returned from that experience with a greater sense of optimism than I would have thought possible just a month ago. Now, make no mistake about it, I fear the United States was the big loser at that summit. I mention that there were 104 heads of state, not the President of the United States, who was staying on his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and participating in various fund-raising events around the country, allowing the United States to be portrayed as an obstructionist or uninterested in a conference to which most other countries sent their leaders. I found a certain amount of irony when the United States, at least some members of the administration are beating their drums for a potential action against Iraq, when a number of people noted the need if we are going to be moving forward to have a global alliance similar to that which was assembled by President Bush's father when he was involved with the war against Iraq with Operation Desert Storm. It seemed particularly ironic that the head of our government, who had an opportunity to meet with our global partners, strengthen bonds, and obtain support for difficult policies that require international cooperation was not there. It had a number of other spill-over effects. Frankly, we did not get credit for many of the more positive developments that we were involved with. For instance, during the negotiations on the plan of implementation, which was the international agreement produced at the summit, the United States negotiators opposed most of the specific targets in the plan dealing with climate change and energy. The United States opposed language that would have set a goal for industrialized countries to increase their use of renewable energy by just 2 percent over the next decade. It is kind of hard to believe that the United States, with all of its resources and technology, its leadership, with a public that understands the need for energy independence and not being further reliant on unstable energy sources in the Middle East, hard to believe that our administration thinks it is not possible that the United States could meet the challenge of increasing our use of renewables in the next decade by just 2 percent. It was disappointing that the United States seemed to avoid any discussion of global climate change, our contribution to the problem, and meaningful solutions. The United States did finally support the summit goal to cut in half the number of people living without basic sanitation, matching our objectives for clean water, drinking water. This was important, Mr. Speaker, because by linking those two goals together, we have the opportunity to increase 300 percent the effectiveness of our investments. And I was pleased that at the last minute the United States abandoned its advocacy of destructive language that would have undercut women's reproductive health and freedom. It was a little embarrassing for a while that our partners in the fight for reproductive women's rights were those coming from the Arab states. In its original form it would have been a declaration that the Taliban would have felt comfortable with. But as I say, this was one area where we were able to see some changes that took place. Mr. Speaker, I have some other thoughts and observations relative to the experience here; but I note that I have been joined by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Los Angeles, California (Ms. Solis), and I yield to the gentlewoman to make some comments, a woman who is deeply concerned about environmental issues and provided leadership internationally and at home for herself in California.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have also been joined this evening by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), my colleague from Carmel/ Monterey, a gorgeous district in California. I have been impressed since the day I first came to Congress with the Congressman's deep appreciation for the environment and the leadership that he has provided, whether it is for scenic highways, coastal conservation, understanding the role that sustainable agriculture plays, and was host to the first White House conference on the oceans. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for comments on the world environmental summit.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's attendance and his focusing on the leadership, for instance, that has happened now in California dealing with more fuel-efficient cars. I think it is clear that the American public would have responded, if Congress and the administration, when we were dealing with an energy bill, would have stepped forward to produce similar standards on a national level to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, to protect the environment, to reduce greenhouse gases has ultimately saved the taxpayer money. The gentleman referenced our being joined this evening by our colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). Let me just say that one of the positive aspects of this conference, for me, was watching men and women from around the world who were policymakers and who understand the need to protect the environment come together. I had the privilege of watching our colleague from Maine participate in an organization called GLOBE, Global Legislators Organized for a Balanced Environment, and I am pleased to say that the United States Congress was well represented in a bipartisan fashion. I think the international president, or chair, is our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who was eloquent on several occasions in pointing out that there is some bipartisan support for improving environmental standards. The national chair is the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) chaired some interesting negotiations with representatives from a dozen different countries around the world dealing with renewable energy. I am pleased that the gentleman is here. I am pleased to have watched him in action provide some leadership in Johannesburg on behalf of not just the United States but parliamentarians from around the world, and I would be honored if the gentleman would join in this discussion at this point.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Could I just interject for a moment? Because I enjoyed touring that exhibit with the gentleman from Maine by BMW, and it did strike several chords. One, to the point made by our colleague from California, we are already being foreclosed by certain market segments. Next year, there are three hybrid vehicles that consumers can choose from, all made in Japan. And they have a waiting list for them. People want them. They are in my colleague's district, in my district, and it is a little frustrating to see that. We have, however, American automakers who are meeting the standards, the higher standards in Europe. They are meeting the 40-mile-per-gallon fleet standard. They are having to contend with that. They are competing in the European market already. But they are somehow feeling that they cannot impose those higher standards here at home. And I find that a little frustrating. And I know that the gentleman's point is right. In the long run, to the extent to which we resist that, we are going to lose business, not just internationally but we are going to lose business here at home.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. If I could make one last point, then turn it back to my colleague from Maine. Just following up on that, in that session that the gentleman from Maine chaired, we were joined by a friend of ours from Great Britain, a member of parliament, Tony Coleman, who pointed out that in Great Britain in the 1990s, they made the transition from dirty coal-fired power plants to cleaner gas power plants to generate electricity. We in the United States, if we, instead of as the administration is suggesting, undercutting the new source review and dealing with the requirement of our own Clean Air Act for these dirty power plants that are having a devastating effect on my colleague's State, amongst others, we would just deal with the spirit and the letter of the law, clean up those power plants, we would reduce our emissions to the level that we had in 1990 and be well on our way to meeting the Kyoto protocols.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that concerned me was that we seem in the more developed countries to have a blind spot towards that equity, and there did seem to be a dual standard. There was a fascinating meeting which discussed the devastating impact that the more advanced countries' agricultural policies have on poor countries. All three of us had deep reservations about the agriculture bill that passed on this floor and was signed into law by the President just a couple of months ago. But the European Union, for example, is ignoring its own egregious agricultural practices, which are actually worse than ours. For instance, poor countries in Africa were denied access to the European sugar market where prices are kept artificially high, some three times the world price, to deal with the sugar beet industry in Europe. Poor countries cannot have access to that market; and the Europeans are producing so much that they are dumping that sugar on the world market, undercutting the poor sugar farmers in Africa, much like corn from the United States is going to Mexico and driving poor farmers out of business in Mexico. And our farmers are getting rich subsidies from our government. It costs them more to produce than they get from the market, and the surplus is dumped overseas. Yet we have aggressive policies to try to force some of the poor countries to open their markets to protect intellectual property I understand, to protect capital I understand, to protect drug patents; and sometimes it is less understandable why we do not do more to protect poor countries, and yet we hammer them with our inconsistent, and I would be prepared to argue, improper agricultural policies that are bad for the taxpayer, bad for the environment, and bad for most farmers and end up devastating poor farmers around the world.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman from California. When we talk about leading by example in energy efficiency, does the gentleman from Maine have any experience?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for joining me.