Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, strengthening the capacity of our government agencies to defend our nation from terrorist attacks is necessary and vital to our security. 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. The proposed Homeland Security Department, as proposed in this bill, does not achieve this end. We need to address the intelligence failures that led up to the events of September 11th. We need to work with local governments to coordinate responses to future attacks. The proposed Department does not address either. Instead we will create a new bureaucracy that, I fear, gives more the illusion of safety. By concentrating on a massive restructuring of the federal government, we will not be able to focus on actually improving the security of our Nation. Under this proposal, those working at all levels will have to divert their attention from national security to bureaucratic reorganization. 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 massive reorganization, rather than dealing with fundamental problems between these two agencies, adds a third governmental department to the uncoordinated mix. There are real questions about whether we are spending the necessary amount of time to ensure the success of this new Department or are setting it up for failure. We need only look to the Department of Energy reorganization, which occurred over 25 years ago, and today still has failed to become a streamlined, effective department with an efficient process. Past successful reorganizations required more time and enjoyed fuller cooperation and interaction between the administration and Congress. The proposed Homeland Security Department would include agencies like the Coast Guard and FEMA, whose primary responsibilities are not related to the terrorist threat. Focusing the resources of these agencies instead on homeland security could well detract from the majority of their other vital services that affect the health and safety of millions of Americans every day. The cost of this new department is another factor that needs more attention. The President has suggested that the most massive reorganization in 50 years will not require any new spending. History and my own experience in governmental reform and reorganization suggest the contrary. This proposal was developed in private by the Administration with very little Congressional deliberation and input. For such a significant reorganization we should include all segments of our community: local government officials, first responders, and private entities. Homeland security should not be a Washington-driven agenda and we must ensure that local consultation is part of the process. Finally, the timing is problematic. There appears to be an imperative to rush this into law before the anniversary of September 11th. A more fitting tribute than marking the anniversary with questionable legislation would be to honor those who lost their lives with our best efforts, even if it takes a few more weeks. It would be a shame if this critical legislation left America in greater jeopardy after its passage than it is today.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this measure this evening. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means professes surprise that Members who disagree with him can read the bill. I find it interesting. I remember the same gentleman told us here with a flourish that this proposal had been posted at 3 p.m. this afternoon. It has been pointed out by several people that the Members were not notified until 6:53. But if the gentleman would use the Web, turn to the bottom of the page of 304, he will find that it was not posted until 5:20 p.m. If he cannot tell time, it makes one wonder what else has been left out in the consideration of this proposal. I believe in free trade. I came to this Congress immediately involving myself in trade issues, because it was one of the few areas where we could work together in a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, that has been shattered over the last couple of years, and it is a sad, sad note. Let me give just one example of a concern that I heard from my constituents back home when they knew that I supported trade promotion authority. They talked about the imbalance under Chapter XI provisions that provided a superior position for foreign investors, and they said, that is wrong to go to an international tribunal and avoid the requirements of U.S. law. Well, what has happened in the conference committee is they fixed it, they fixed it all right, but they fixed it so that not only can foreign investors avoid the responsibilities of U.S. law, but now American interests can obey our regulatory provisions and be able to avail themselves to a tribunal rather than be involved under the same requirements that we have now. That is not what my people wanted. I strongly urge a rejection of this ill-advised piece of legislation and the willingness to draw bright, partisan lines and give up issues of textiles, steel, and agriculture. It is not the way to do the business of the House.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I support free trade. The removal of trade barriers by both the United States and our trading partners will ultimately strengthen the economies of all nations. I have long believed that the best process for achieving the elimination of trade barriers is for us to grant the President a properly-structured authority to submit trade agreements, negotiated pursuant to that structure, for an up-or-down vote by the Congress. With the proper provisions for environmental and labor protections, trade agreements can facilitate both our economic and our environmental goals. Sadly, the leadership of this House has refused to give us such legislation or even an open process to consider the bill before us. Once again the Republican majority has resorted to a ``martial law'' rule, preventing members from having even one day to look at the bill on which we're voting. This is the latest in a series of affronts to bipartisanship, collegiality and the legislative process. Until early this evening it was not even possible for Members to obtain a copy of the conference report on which we are voting. Relying as we must on third-party descriptions of the conference committee's agreement, I conclude that my concerns about labor, the environment and meaningful trade adjustment assistance have not been met in this report, just as they were not in the trade promotion bill that was rammed through this House by a single-vote margin in December. The conferees have not dealt with the flaws in the mechanisms established for investment protection under the North American Free Trade Agreement--mechanisms the New York Times yesterday called ``secret trade courts'' in its editorial urging the conferees to correct this. The conference language does not ensure the continued enforceability of environmental agreements the United States has entered into with other nations. The conference bill fails to extend the core labor standards of the International Labor Organization to trade agreements entered into with our neighbors in the Americas. The bill shortchanges dislocated American workers with inadequate trade adjustment assistance. As I have argued before, in this body and to the Administration, we could have achieved broad, bipartisan support for trade promotion authority if the Republican leadership had dealt fairly and openly with these issues as part of their legislation. Instead, the leadership has continued a pattern of unduly partisan, non-participatory legislating on trade. For me, this is perhaps the most disappointing feature of the bill before us. Finally, it is most ironic that this partisan approach to TPA has forced the Administration to make a hash of this nation's trade priorities. In the name of advancing free trade, the Administration has made egregious projectionist concessions on steel, textiles and agricultural products in order to secure votes for passage. I can only hope this atmosphere changes and we return to building a majority for an honest, bipartisan trade policy for our nation's future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak and for her hard work on this issue. It is a tough one, but the manager's amendment that is brought before us this afternoon captures my concerns about the legislation, why I am against the amendment and frankly I do not think I will be able to vote for it in its final form. This is legislation that has been candidly rushed forward. We have an artificial deadline, perhaps to beat the anniversary of September 11, but it is not because this is the best time frame to protect the security of America. It includes elements that are not necessary and some which may actually hinder both the discharge of the overall concept of the legislation and have critical functions for the American public that suffer. And we have had lots of discussions on this floor about the potential problems for FEMA, for the Coast Guard; indeed, almost all our colleagues on all of the substantive committees of jurisdiction reject the all-encompassing approach that has been suggested here, the people who know something about these functions. And this, frankly, Mr. Chairman, is an area that is where the approach that is being taken is contrary to my experience. Now, I have not had the range of experience in Congress that some of these people have who have been here for not just years, but decades; and I defer to them. But I have actually done work in government reorganization on the State level and on the local level, city and county. And without exception, reorganization costs money. It is not cost-neutral, let alone with something with tens of thousands of employees. It takes time and there can be short-term dislocations as a result of these functions. And finally, it is critical when you are dealing with people who are going to be moving in to new structures to be able to have a certainty of working conditions. And some of the proposals that we have had advanced as a part of this are going to produce uncertainty of working conditions, apprehension for tens of thousands of dedicated public employees; and that is going to hurt. It is not going to help. Finally, the manager's amendment is an example of my underlying concern. Adding the exemption that has been argued by my good friend from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), not asked for by the President, not asked for by any committees where there are legitimate questions about the logic behind it, it all sums up giving me a bad feeling. I am afraid that serious problems are going to result from the manager's amendment from the underlying bill. I hope I am wrong, but I fear I am right.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today Congress will approve the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 Conference Report, which will likely be signed into law by the end of this week. Like families nationwide who have seen investment savings deteriorate and have lost confidence in our markets and business leaders, I have been concerned with revelations about inaccurate corporate accounting and inappropriate and in some cases illegal corporate practices. Recent events have had tragic consequences in my district where employees of Portland General Electric had little control over the company's association with Enron. I support this legislation that will provide funding and regulations that will improve the integrity of the corporate world and help alleviate the anxieties of employees and investors. I trust that this is an incremental step in the process to bring about accurate financial statements and independent relationships among corporate management, auditors, and investment analysts. The marketplace or Congress will need to address the issue of stock options to ensure meaningful reporting and eliminate perverse incentives, while not preventing companies from offering this important incentive to compensate employees and give them ownership opportunities While reforms are absolutely necessary, witness the 270 public companies that restated their financial statements in 2001, I'm also concerned that Congress does not turn this into a witch hunt or pass ill-conceived legislation. I will continue to work to ensure that we do not overreach our objective of a sound economy, ethical management and arms-length transactions. We will not be helping families and the economy be implementing unnecessarily stringent regulations that are costly and burdensome. This legislation begins the process of putting in place the reforms needed to prevent future tragedies that are so devastating to the savings and lives of American workers and families. As we move forward, I urge my colleagues to continue to develop fair provisions that will both protect investors and employees while allowing the economy to thrive.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill before us today, H.R. 4965, which would ban late-term abortions. Congress has no business substituting its judgment for families in cases that may jeopardize not just the health, but the life of the mother, and a family's ability to have a healthy child in the future. I have consistently opposed efforts by politicians in Congress to play politics with the most difficult and personal decisions a family can face. Access to this procedure helps ensure a woman's health and her constitutional rights. It is the safest and most commonly used type of abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has recognized that it ``may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.'' Today's bill also fails to address a ruling in June 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down a Nebraska ban on late-term abortions in the case Stenberg v. Carhart. The Court invalidated the Nebraska law because it did not contain an exception to protect a woman's health, and it placed an ``undue burden'' on a woman's right to choose. Now, two years later, the House of Representatives is once again moving forward with a similar unconstitutional ban. The only substantive change in today's bill is the addition of a lengthy ``findings'' section that does not correct the blatant constitutional defects. The timing of this debate and procedures used to bring it to the floor suggest that the anti-choice House Republican leadership is playing anti-abortion politics rather than having a serious legislative discussion. I disagree with the unfair closed rule that the Republican Leadership has set for debate on this bill because it denies pro-choice lawmakers the opportunity to offer amendments or substitute legislation to address the constitutional defects of the legislation. Not everyone would make the same decision when faced with the wrenching decision of choosing between this procedure and the life of a loved one, but it is wrong for Congress to make that choice for American families. I urge my colleagues to vote against the unfair rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues, Congressmen Farr, Roemer, Gibbons, and Reyes, for their leadership in taking steps to establish a Civilian Linguistic Reserve Corps. As we search for ways to improve the functioning of our intelligence agencies, we must take advantage of our existing resources, including individuals highly trained in linguistics. In fact, the idea of utilizing citizen linguists was presented to me by one of my constituents who is a former U.S. Army Arabic linguist. He shared useful suggestions regarding how we can benefit from the skills of linguists, such as himself. The Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps would be comprised of United States citizens with advanced levels of proficiency in foreign languages who would be available to perform services using these foreign languages as the President may specify. I compliment my colleague Sam Farr for working to establish a registry of these linguists, which the Civilian Linguistic Reserve Corps builds upon. The Defense Language Institute (DLI) is located in Monterey, California in Rep. Farr's district. The DLI trains many members of our military in languages such as Dari, Pashto, Urdu, Uzbek, Georgian, Chechen, and Albanian. We cannot afford to lose these capabilities and the Civilian Linguistic Reserve Corps is a perfect solution to facilitate the continued service of these linguists.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today I voted for the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Bill for Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government. This bill contains key provisions that I have supported in Congress. The appropriations bill before us contains a measure that prohibits the use of funds in the bill to finalize, implement, administer or enforce the proposed Treasury Department rule declaring that real estate brokerage is ``an activity that is financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity.'' I agree with this prohibition and am a cosponsor of H.R. 3424, which would accomplish the same objective. The banking industry provides an invaluable function in our economy and the integrity of its operations and security of deposits is critical. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is speeding ongoing changes in the United States financial services industry and allows banks flexibility in responding to economic trends. However, I do not believe the benefits of allowing banks to engage in real estate brokerage and property management activities outweigh the risks. Regarding the Postal Service, the bill specifically requires that six-day delivery of mail be continued. It also requires that mail for overseas voting and for the blind continue to be free. I have always believed post offices play an integral role in the livability of our communities. They serve as business, social and often historical centers in our neighborhoods. It's for these reasons that I am a sponsor of legislation, H.R. 1861, which requires the Postal Service to engage local officials and the public it serves when opening, closing, relocating, or renovating facilities. I hope we continue to work to ensure the Postal Service is a good partner with our communities and follows local laws and regulations. I am pleased that the final bill, for the second year in a row, ends the travel ban to Cuba and allows for private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba by U.S. farmers. In addition, the House approved an amendment to allow Cuban-Americans to send money to their relatives in Cuba without restrictions. Food and medicine should not be used as weapons. The Cuban people should not have to suffer because the United States does not agree with the Cuban government. These provisions show that there is growing momentum in favor of getting rid of the embargo against Cuba altogether. Only through engagement will we be able to effectively promote the ideals of human rights and democracy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I will support this legislation. Its provision to provide funding fro Amtrak is especially critical to avoiding a shutdown of our national passenger railroad system later this year. Congress has a special obligation to fund Amtrak as part of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997. The fiscal problems facing Amtrak are not the responsibility of the railroad alone, but also reflect the unrealistic and unattainable goals that we impose on Amtrak under that legislation and our failure in Congress to provide necessary capital funding. The $205 million provided in this bill is a stop gap measure to keep the railroad functioning as we look at opportunities next year during the Amtrak reauthorization to address larger fiscal and structural issues. This conference report contains funding for homeland security that is much needed in my district. It is essential that we provide our local governments and first responders with the resources to provide training and acquire the equipment necessary to be prepared for potential terrorist attacks. Our military has responded with great professionalism to the unforeseen tragedies of September 11, but we need to utilize tools beyond those of the military in reducing global risks. I am disappointed that we had to add military spending to this bill. The FY02 military budget we adopted last fall was $351 billion, a figure already exceeding the military spending of the next 25 nations combined. Finally, the conference report appropriates $134 million for reconstruction activities in Afghanistan. I am pleased that this total includes funding to repair houses damaged during military operations. The conference report appropriates some $3000 million for assistance to Afghanistan from various accounts. Afghanistan is believed to have one of the worst landmine and unexploded ordnance problems in the world, with 5-7 million still littered about the country. In addition to Afghan citizens, U.S. service personnel have also been killed by these explosive remnants of war. $4 million is included in this conference report for humanitarian demining and cleanup of other unexploded ordnance. Representative Leach and I led a request to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee for assistance to unintended victims of the Afghan war in its FY03 bill. A bipartisan group of 38 Members joined us. This is an important gesture for us to make to the Afghan people to show them that our military campaign is not against them; it is against Al-Qaeda. I hope we can build on the assistance for housing repair that is in this conference report in the appropriation for FY03 funding when the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee marks up its bill following the August recess.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this afternoon's debate is not about American security or about support for Castro's regime. It is not even about business opportunities that may avail should we change our failed policy. This afternoon's debate is about an attempt to continue to extend this failed policy from the last 42 years. We have heard people come forward already this afternoon, making the point that it is really hard to argue that Cuba is a serious threat to United States security. It has not been named as a state that possesses biological or chemical weapons. It was not mentioned in the State Department's 2000 report of the worrisome states pursuing or possessing biological or chemical weapons. Despite all the recent hoopla regarding Under Secretary of State John Bolton's notion of Cuba being a bioterrorist threat, the State Department's been sort of backing away from that ever since. No, even if that were, in fact, the case, Mr. Chairman, what we have before us here this evening is that there is really no cause and effect between what is purported in terms of terrorism and what is before us to vote upon. As has been mentioned, we allow Americans to travel to China, to Vietnam, to the axis of evil in Iran and North Korea, which I think many people feel do pose real threats, but we are not coming forward with that. In fact, we would be coming forward with a certification process that cannot be done as has been referenced by my colleague from California for this country, as well as many other countries where we permit travel. It is very likely to be an intensely political decision given the nature of domestic politics. Mr. Chairman, it is time to free America from the shackles of this failed policy, but most important, it is not about trying to have Americans there to change practices in Cuba. Although, I truly believe that by having the free flow of people in and out of Cuba, that it will hasten the day that there is a change in the Cuban regime. People here on this floor ought to be outraged with the interference with the American's constitutional right to travel. Former Supreme Court Justice Douglas said the ``freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. It often makes all other rights meaningful.'' Americans have the right to travel the world, to make their own judgments, whether it is in Burma, in China, Iran or North Korea. It is high time that we stop the tyranny of domestic policy that is interfering with the rights of Americans to be able to travel to Cuba as they see fit, to make their own judgments and, incidentally, hasten the demise of that regime. I strongly urge the rejection of this amendment, and as we have the proposals that come forward later in the evening from the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), that would move us incrementally towards a sense of rationality, I strongly urge support for them as well.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time to speak against this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I would begin by agreeing with my colleague from Virginia that people on both sides of the aisle have a responsibility to speak out on the continuing problems with human rights abuse, particularly religious freedom in Vietnam. I noted my colleague from Michigan had a very balanced statement in terms of looking at the snapshot. This year's annual vote to disapprove the President's waiver comes less than a year after the historic vote to approve normal trade relations. We have seen solid progress and accomplishments since 1998 in my tenure in the House. Progress has not just been in economic opportunity for American companies in Vietnam and doing business in Vietnam, although those are important, particularly given these troubled economic times, we have seen progress in terms of the growing prosperity of the Vietnamese people, an 8 percent increase in per capita income in just this last year alone, and a tenfold increase in private firms that are doing business in Vietnam. We have seen progress in assuring continued progress and repatriating the remains of hundreds of Americans missing in action in Vietnam. I was there 2 years ago with President Clinton and watched men and women from both countries working to make sure that we are answering these questions. More has been done in this war than any other war in American history. We have made progress in assuring the rights of Vietnamese returnees seeking to resettle in their homeland, and of Vietnamese citizens seeking to emigrate from Vietnam to the United States. Yes, the human rights record is a dark spot, but revoking normal trade relations with Vietnam is not going to accelerate progress. Even the uneven progress in the course of this last year, we see that most of the promises, most of the benchmarks have in fact been met. I have done as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has suggested, when I have been in Vietnam, I have used the opportunity to press the need for religious freedom and the opportunity for Vietnamese to practice their faith. That is going to be critical for Vietnam to be fully accepted into the family of nations. But the fact is this is a government in transition. The old guard took over a year to figure out that they could accept yes for an answer and approve the bilateral trade agreement. Mr. Speaker, I have experienced firsthand the warmth of the Vietnamese people, 80 percent of whom were mere children or were not even born during the Vietnam War. I have seen their eagerness to embrace American innovation and American values. I strongly urge that we continue with our progress by rejecting this resolution today.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today I voted for the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Bill for the Legislative Branch. I am pleased with the focus Congress has given to livability in this bill through increased funding for the Capitol Police, important provisions for staff, and the direction to improve the Capitol Grounds. The Capitol Police will receive additional funding to help retain officers on the force and pay them for the significant overtime they have worked to protect the Capitol and visitors since September 11. This bill includes tuition payment provisions that will help attract and retain both congressional staff and officers. I am pleased to see the Legislative Branch catch up with much of the rest of the Federal Government and private employers across the country by providing funds to increase the staff transit benefit to $100 per month. Transit benefits are a valuable incentive that help reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and save transportation costs for hardworking families. The Capitol grounds have been ransacked since September 11, first by excessive and ill thought out security measures and now by the beginning construction phases of the planned Capitol Visitors Center. The bill contains language that directs that an English Elm Tree estimated to be 130 to 160 years old cannot be removed or cut down without approval of the House and Senate Appropriations committees. The committee is also working to ensure there is a long-term vision for bicycle and pedestrian accessibility on and around the Capitol grounds, which will improve the livability of congressional employees, neighboring residents, and visitors alike. For these reasons I support passage of this bill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard work that has been undertaken by the subcommittee dealing with the quality of life here on Capitol Hill for our employees, for the tens of thousands of Washington, D.C. residents, and for the millions of visitors who come to the Capitol every year, many of whom are outside right now as we are deliberating in the Chamber. I think it is important for the committee to continue its work in focusing on what is going on around the Capitol during these difficult times. I appreciate the concern dealing with the security of our visitors, of our neighbors, our employees, and of the men and women who are in Congress itself. At times, however, some things happen that we find sort of mystifying. As chairman of the Bicycle Caucus, I have received some people who are sort of mystified about the signage that has appeared around Capitol Hill indicating that no longer are bicycles welcomed on the Capitol grounds and streets surrounding the Capitol. It is somewhat ironic because bicycles have been an important part of the circulation around here. People wonder why we are prohibiting in the name of security people who use this as an important passageway. Many bicycle commuters who live near the Capitol ride to their downtown offices, staying off the streets, not contributing to congestion and air pollution. One of the few bicycle lanes that has been available has been through the Capitol grounds. One of the most convenient follows East Capitol right to the doorstep of the Capitol where some of our employees can come, and others have gone around on down the Mall and to its monuments. Now we have these signs that say people cannot do this any more. Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful we can be sensitive to what this is doing to the people who enjoy cycling around here, tourists or employees or commuters. Currently the only legal option for bicyclists is to travel on heavily trafficked, four-lane thoroughfares with no shoulders around Capitol Hill. I would suggest that perhaps Congress can lead by example by making sure that our campus is amenable to men and women who use cycling to commute. While we work to ensure safety and access for the surrounding community and visitors alike, it is no reason that we have to barricade these grounds off to bicyclists. With the recent groundbreaking of the visitors center, it is clear that it is time to address long-term plans, including, parking, circulation and cycling. I sincerely hope that we can use the influence of this august subcommittee to help the Capitol Police and the Architect of the Capitol develop plans that accommodate cyclists and visitors. We must not ignore the need of local citizens who should have input as well. We need to make sure that we are working with the citizens who are our neighbors who were never consulted. I hope that we can find language that Members can help us with that encourages a different approach so that we are aware that we are part of the community here in Washington, D.C., that the impacts that we make affect the health, safety and economy and overall livability of tens of thousands of residents on the Hill, millions of visitors every year, and the fact that the bicycle is not a terrorist threat. The bicycle provides an opportunity to improve the quality of life on the Hill for tourists, for employees, and for our neighbors.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the rhetoric, and I find it somewhat amusing. First, they have been quoting Phil Norton, the refuge manager, about the fact that there are not any problems with pesticides. First of all, it might be hard to tell the effect of the pesticides when the farmers are not allowed to go on the fields after they spray for 48 to 72 hours. That is a hint that it may not be as healthy as one suggests. The notion that this Mr. Norton somehow is a proponent of continuation, I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle. Mr. Norton said, ``We want to manage the land we already own.'' That, ``we want.'' The leased land program has to go. We get conflicting reactions from the wildlife manager; but the point is, I think it is bizarre that it is being advanced that somehow the wildlife are not going to survive unless we are growing things like potatoes on the wildlife refuge. The fact is that the wildlife got along quite well without us. It is after we went in and monkeyed with the ecosystems up and down the coasts that we have had problems. We are suggesting that farming can continue consistent with the uses of the refuge. We are hearing about potatoes; $10 million was referenced by my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger). That has been a wildly up and down notion in terms of the value. My friend who is in the Chair right now knows that last year people were leaving potatoes in the field because they cannot afford to harvest them. The point is the potatoes use extensive water, particularly during the growing season. It is not the best use. We have the charge about reckless and damaging; and with all due respect, as I think my colleagues review the hundred-year history of the Klamath Basin, the people who are reckless and damaging are those who feel that we do not need any changes, that somehow we can continue to ignore the demands of the overall environment of wildlife, of Native Americans, and that the failure to renew 17 leases for other than uses that are compatible with agriculture is reckless and upsetting, I think, Mr. Speaker is overblown, and anybody who looks at it will concur. Dennis Healey once talked about the theory of the hole; when a person is in it, stop digging. This is a tiny step to restoring the health of the Klamath Basin and protecting the wildlife refuge. I urge its passage.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. With all due respect, I wanted to cooperate with the gentleman. I did this from the beginning. It was the other side who asked for 20 minutes. I had agreed to 15 minutes a side. Now I am going to get behind the curve. If you give me 9 minutes, I will agree to 6. I think that will put us even and I am a happy guy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have been working very hard, as I think my gentleman friend from Eastern Oregon knows, to deal with the problems in the Willamette River. I negotiated a settlement. We put a lot of money into it. I am continuing to work on that. But one thing we decided is we were going to make it better, not worse. And what this amendment is seeking to do is to make sure that we are making it better. Second, the notion is given to the 1964 Kuchel Act. Well, give me a break. We have learned a lot about managing the environment in the last 28 years. And if we were doing it over again, we would not enact, I do not think even this Congress would enact something that looks like that 1964 act. And I am suggesting that what we are doing here is an attempt to bring that into conformity. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will be happy to do it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Members may remember the huge controversy from last year when the Bureau of Reclamation shut off irrigation water to farmers in order to provide enough water for endangered suckerfish and threatened coho salmon. It was back in the news again recently, where the Bureau of Reclamation announced last week that this will be another dry year in the Klamath Basin. Mr. Chairman, this issue is always going to be a story, or on the verge of being one, for two reasons: number one, land management on our refuges in the Klamath Basin, and part of what I want to talk about here today deals with this remarkable wildlife refuge, it is guided by incompatible priorities: the reclamation of wetlands for agriculture and the preservation of wetlands for wildlife. The water in this basin is overallocated by some 100,000 acre feet a year. Visualize 100,000 football fields covered by a foot of water. The water will be available for competing uses in the Klamath Basin only for perhaps 6 out of every 10 years; 2, 3, 4, 5 of those 10 years, we are going to be in deficit. Now, the Federal Government created this mess at the beginning of the century by draining regions where there was too much water and creating an artificial hydrological system in the basin. The basin was a 3,500- acre wetland. Now, over 75 percent of this 350,000 acres has been drained for agriculture and other developments. The water that is left in the basin is damaged. The Klamath River is one of the more polluted rivers in the State of Oregon, and the Upper Klamath Basin Lake is severely polluted. American Rivers has listed the Klamath as one of America's most endangered rivers. The basin is always going to be in the news unless and until we take steps to reduce the damage. This amendment is a simple, commonsense step towards addressing part of the conflict in the basin between farmers, endangered species, the wildlife refuges, and Native Americans. It aims to reduce the damage from commercial agriculture and the refuge lands in the basin. The Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge was established by Teddy Roosevelt as the Nation's first waterfowl refuge in 1908. Members may be surprised to find out, as I was, that the Klamath Basin refuges are the only refuges in the country that allow leasing for commercial agriculture of this nature. They are damaging wildlife in the process. Farming on the refuge currently uses 56 different pesticide products, including 10 carcinogenics, two neurotoxins, and 13 endocrine disrupters. At least six of the pesticides have been determined by the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey to be toxic to salmon. This is activity that is going on in one of our precious natural wildlife refuges. That is one of the reasons, perhaps, the daily peak of overall number of birds who visit the refuge have declined from 6 million birds in the sixties to less than 1 million birds today. For most of America, the conflict between wildlife refuge use and agriculture was fixed by Congress when it passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act in 1997 by an overwhelming vote of 407 to one. The act clarified that wildlife conservation is the singular mission of wildlife refuges. It requires that the economic uses of national wildlife refuges only be permitted if they contribute to the achievement of refuge purposes and that such uses not degrade biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. Unfortunately, this standard has not yet been applied to the Klamath Basin. I want to be clear: the amendment would not eliminate the lease land program on Tule Lake in the Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuge. The amendment only applies to the 17 agricultural leases that will be up for renewal in October of this year, a little over 2,000 acres out of the 22,000 acres that we are currently leasing. The amendment does not stop agricultural activity. Farmers would be able to continue to farm in the wildlife refuge; but it would prohibit the growing of alfalfa, which is water-intensive, and row crops such as onions and potatoes, which are pesticide-intensive, on any new leases. The statistics are rather stark about the intense use of water for these row crops during the summer months when water is scarce in the basin. Farmers would still be able to grow crops that are beneficial to wildlife, such as barley, oats, and wheat. The Federal Government's efforts in the Klamath Basin have been uncoordinated; and in fact, in concert with some local boosters over the last 100 years, they have made environmental shortcuts and did not honor basic agreements on the scale of ownership, financial commitment, and water use. In this process, Native Americans, the environment, wildlife, and the taxpayers have all been shortchanged. I strongly urge that my colleagues join me in helping restore the integrity of the Klamath Basin and the National Wildlife Refuge system, and support this amendment that has been offered by myself and my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson). Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to support this critical amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. A similar amendment passed on the House floor last year and I hope we are again able to demonstrate clear congressional support for arts and humanities funding today. From the beginning of my political career, I have worked to increase funding for the arts and appreciation for the public value they add to our communities. As a local county commissioner I crafted the first local government ``percent for art'' program and saw first-hand the multiplier effect it had on investment in the arts. In Oregon, the arts and cultural industry has a tremendous economic value. The non-profit arts industry alone employs more than 28,000 people and generates $64 million annually. Nationally, the nonprofit arts industry pumps $134 billion into our economy every year and provides a huge economic return on our small federal investment. This industry provides 4.85 million jobs; $89.4 billion in household income; $10.5 billion in federal income tax revenues; $7.3 billion in state government tax revenues; and $6.6 billion in local government tax revenues. The arts and humanities have more than an economic impact--they enrich our neighborhoods, our schools and our cities; Each year, NEH grants are awarded in every U.S. state and territory, going to non-profit cultural institutions such as museums, archives, libraries, colleges, universities, research centers, and state humanities councils; to film, television and radio producers; and to individual scholars. Providing strong federal funding is also what the majority of the American public expects from Congress. 79 percent of Americans believe that ``there should be federal, state, and local councils for the arts to . . . provide financial assistance to worthy arts organizations.'' Unfortunately Since 1995, when funding for the NEA was reduced by 40 percent, the NEA has had to cut most grants to individual artists, funding for seasonal support, and has had to limit the scope of their focus dramatically. Yet this is about far more than money and public opinion. The arts and humanities are what make a community vibrant, unique and lively. Today's modest yet effective increase in the Interior Appropriations bill will help improve our federal commitment and is vital to promoting livable communities where our families are safe, healthy and more economically secure. I urge my colleagues to support the Slaughter-Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment to increase arts funding.