Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am impressed with the sincerity, I think, that is being offered by our various points of view in different perspectives on the floor here. However, the longer I serve in Congress, this is an area where I do not just feel worse, I feel guilty as an American about the treatment of our Native American citizens. And it seems to me the efforts here to establish an arbitrary date, which is arbitrary, which is not going to stop litigation, which is not going to solve confusion, is not going to help make the process work. By all means, treat it as the crisis that it is. I identify with the comments from my friend from New Jersey who talked about how people are pulling all sorts of rabbits out of the hat around here dealing with corporate responsibility, including putting bills on this floor that have never been to committee, that we never had a chance to analyze, that have had significant ramifications because there is a scent of scandal in the air. Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is a scandal of monumental proportions. And I would hopefully, respectfully suggest that instead of trying to jimmie it, to cut the ground out from underneath it, to try and take a small portion of it, that we move forward, give it the treatment that it accords. Work with the authorizing committee. Work with others here who have the sincere effort to move it forward. Put serious money behind it. It is going to cost a huge amount of money, but it seems to me that it is not going to move us forward by trying to arbitrarily bracket it here in the appropriations bill. I strongly support the amendment from the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). I hope that we can use this as a way to start forward, taking the good will that has been expressed on a bipartisan basis, the acknowledgment of the financial contribution that is going to have to be made, approve the amendment, but move forward with a comprehensive approach. I know that there are Members of this Congress who would like to do some serious legislating. This is an area where I think people would step up to the plate for Congress to finally accept its responsibility. I would not like this to be perceived by our friends in the Native American community as another chapter in this long, sad history.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today I voted for the Appropriations Bill for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies for the year FY 2003. It is not a perfect bill, but it includes many provisions that are important for Oregon and the rest of the country. The bill appropriates a total of $20.4 billion, which includes an important $700 million for emergency fire fighting in the West. The bill includes an increase in funding over both the President's request and the appropriation for last year for important programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. The bill also increases funding for the National Parks Service, which has a tremendous responsibility as caretaker of some or our nation's most valued natural, cultural, and historic resources that draw nearly 300 million visitors annually. I was also pleased to vote for a bill that provides $1.4 billion for conservation programs, $120 million more than what President Bush recommended. Finally, on the 100-year anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge system, the bill provided a $60 million increase for the refuge system to $458 million. I was pleased that the bill also provides funding for programs that are crucial to Oregon. We were able to secure $10 million and $2.5 million to purchase land from willing sellers in the Columbia River Gorge and the Sandy River watershed, respectively. The bill increases funding to help fish in the Pacific Northwest, providing $4 million for fish screens and $20 million for additional fish passage projects. It also provides $500,000 for the Columbia River Estuary Research program at the OGI School of Science and Engineering. This bill was also improved on the floor. Amendments on the floor increased funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities that will help improve our federal commitment to the arts, which make a community vibrant, unique and lively. On the floor the House also voted to increase funding for the Energy Star Program and to prohibit funding for new oil drilling activity on the coast of California. Finally, adjustments were made to the bill on the floor to remove provisions that would be at best troubling, and possibly destructive to, the Native American community. More importantly, a strong commitment was made by the appropriators and members to work together to fashion a solution to the long ignored Native American trust issues. Unfortunately, an amendment I introduced that would have helped improve the situation in the Klamath Basin did not pass. The amendment would have help solveed the inherent conflicting priorities and competition over scarce basin water by farmers, endangered species, wildlife refuges, and Native Americans. The amendment would have also helped make farming on the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Wildlife Refuges more consistent with farming on other refuges around the country by prohibiting new leases from growing row crops or alfalfa. I pledge to continue to work with my colleagues in Oregon and California to address the shortage of water and habitat degradation in the Klamath basin. Overall, I believe this is a good bill for Oregon and for the United States.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this bill brought before us is not the way in which Congress should craft legislation. While I'm supportive of increased criminal penalties for corporate misconduct, which this bill includes, it falls far short in other areas necessary to bring needed changes to the corporate world--lack of whistleblower protection and extending the statute of limitations for investor lawsuits. No time was provided to review and analyze this legislation. It did not go through the committee process where it could be debated and refined in a bipartisan manner and was brought to the floor in a manner that does not allow amendments to be offered. Therefore, I do not support this bill. The only reason to treat Congress and the American public this way is to provide political cover.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it is now widely acknowledged that our Government and our intelligence agencies were not properly prepared for dealing with the events that led up to September 11th and its aftermath. We are spending enormous sums of money to convince the public that we are taking action to make our country safer, in some instances we may actually be making things worse. The project proposed by the bill from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was a cautious attempt to test a new approach to airline safety. As amended, however, it could potentially arm all airline pilots, removes the testing and automatic review of the new program and raises serious concerns about its operation. Furthermore, this bill has little support from the industry, law enforcement officials or the Bush administration. There are simple and effective safety solutions that deserve our support. Over a decade ago, industry and security experts strongly recommended that cockpit doors be reinforced to prevent plane hijackings but to little avail. Although it was included as part of last fall's airline security bill, it will be another year before all cockpit doors are sufficiently reinforced. We still have not completely dealt with the basic issues of airline security, such as baggage screening. The fundamental notion that we arm people, be they classroom teachers, pilots, or Members of Congress is no substitute for appropriate security. I am deeply concerned that we are concentrating on programs that give the illusion of security rather than focusing on doing our job to protect our country. I do not feel comfortable adding complex, controversial new programs over the objections of the administration and the airline industry. This bill, if enacted, will divert attention from existing programs and, given its current amended form, is unlikely to become law. In its present form, that is probably the best outcome.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman making that linkage because I think it is important. There is a lot of talk about corporate responsibility. There is a lot of talk now when the spotlight has been trained on some practices that are having a devastating effect on the pocketbook of Americans across the country, as people are getting their quarterly statements from their individual retirement accounts, their 401(k)s. They have watched what has happened as the stock market has been hammered by questionable practices that are in turn being reflected in a loss of wealth for Americans. It is going to make it harder to do business, yet this notion of exercising corporate responsibility is something that could be simply done in terms of an area that would actually add value to every community around the country in terms of reestablishing this principle of polluter pays.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinction because in the Northwest we have seen a significant increase in environmental consciousness, worked with programs like The Natural Step. We are seeing models of corporate responsibility where people are trying to reduce their footprint on the landscape, and we are seeing many small- and medium-sized businesses and consulting firms that are emerging that are practicing sustainable business models. The approach that is being taken here, shifting this onto the general fund, means that instead of identifying sources of pollution historically, it is going to put a greater burden on individuals and corporations who are actually doing an outstanding job. In some cases, it is in effect taxing them twice because they pay their share plus the share of people who are evading responsibilities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's thoughts and observations and the leadership the gentleman has provided, particularly in chairing for the minority the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health of the Committee on Resources. The gentleman has had an opportunity to train a searchlight on some of the practices that those who would not place quite the same premium on the environment would have. The gentleman has also provided leadership in pushing back on the notion of abandoning the roadless rule, where we had, what, almost 2 million comments in support of this important protection.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership. One of the areas we have been focusing on in dealing with Superfund needs to be in the area of hard rock mining. Frankly, there are a number of us who are concerned about the situation that is occurring in our Nation's wilderness areas that have basically been given away to mining interests with virtually no change since that law was enacted in 1872, basically the same as when it was enacted and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant. There are those that argue that hard rock mining is the Nation's number one polluter. They are currently responsible for approximately 70 Superfund sites. Of the 33 sites around the country that the administration sadly is talking about eliminating funding for, two of them were contaminated by hard rock mining companies in Montana. Yet, until recently, there were no requirements that the mining companies pay for the notion of cleaning up after themselves. That is how companies like W.R. Grace, who have been in the news for years with its notorious activities, were able to walk away from the site without being held responsible. Yet, last month, the administration issued a rule that would make filling our waterways with waste from hard rock mining mountaintop removal legal. Now, think about this for a moment: giving a grant of authority from the administration to the mining industry to legalize this notion of where they are just stripping away mountaintops and shoving it into streams to gain access to seams of coal. As if the Superfund law and the Clean Air Act were not enough, we have here a direct opportunity on the part of the administration to overturn important provisions of the Clean Water Act, all of this to protect an extraordinarily destructive mining practice. These companies have already buried over 800 miles of rivers and streams in West Virginia and Kentucky, all with the permission of the Army Corps of Engineers. But until this rule change goes through, it is still illegal for the Corps to allow waste from mining to be dumped in our Nation's waterways. Why? Why would the administration, instead of changing the Corps' practice to make them obey the law, why have they decided instead to change the law to make these actions legal? Think about the types of harmful fill we are talking about dumping into wildlife habitat and communities' drinking supplies. Hard rock mining waste includes construction and demolition debris. People have found coal ash waste, old tires, car parts, and discarded appliances. They also often contain particularly dangerous toxic chemicals, such as cyanide, arsenic, and sulfuric acid. Mr. Speaker, this is serious business. We are approaching the 130th anniversary of the mining law of 1872, as I mentioned, signed into effect by President Ulysses S. Grant, essentially unchanged. We should be talking about how to make this outdated law stronger. We should not be taking an opportunity to roll back provisions of the Clean Water Act that are here to protect public health and the environment. We are already giving the mining industry public lands and minerals for 19th century recording prices. We are not requiring that these corporations, often foreign-owned, that are extracting this mineral wealth, give a portion of it back in the form of a tax or royalty to American taxpayers to put in our Treasury. And now we are allowing them to blow off the tops of mountains, bulldoze them away to bury rivers and streams. I would strongly suggest that instead of facilitating this type of behavior, it is important that we provide more corporate responsibility, provide more environmental protection, and we make sure that we are protecting the heritage that God has given this country. It is frustrating that we have not been able to give people the type of understanding of what is at stake. Remember, as I mentioned earlier, one in four Americans lives within 4 miles of a Superfund site. Now, these sites are hazardous waste, often abandoned warehouses, landfills and mines, and 85 percent of all Superfund sites have contaminated groundwater. Research suggests that there is a markedly increased risk for birth defects when women live close to Superfund sites early in pregnancy. A few of the hazardous chemicals that people are discovering on these sites include arsenic. We had a great deal of debate earlier in this Congress as the administration proposed rolling back protections on arsenic in the drinking water. Well, that frankly blew up, and the administration did retreat because the public knows arsenic in the drinking water is not a positive development. It is known to cause cancer of the lungs, bladder, and skin. It is also linked to cancer of the liver, kidney, colon, even nasal passages; and to a variety of noncancerous health effects, including heart disease, diabetes, adverse effects to the immune system, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, and thickening and discoloration of the skin. Lead is another serious area of pollution that can damage almost every organ and system in the human body, especially the immune and reproductive system, and can cause heart disease and kidney damage. It is particularly damaging to the central nervous system, especially for children, where it is well-known and accepted now that children suffering from exposure to lead can have serious brain damage, decreased IQ scores, slow growth, and cause hearing problems in infants or young children. We have serious problems with mercury on these Superfund sites that can cause brain and kidney damage and pose a high risk for adverse neurological development of fetuses. These are some of the hazards that we face with over 1,200 toxic waste sites on the Superfund national priority list. Congress should not be undercutting the polluter-pays principle and walking away from its financial responsibility. Some of these sites have been on the list for more than a decade. Last year, in a report requested by Congress, Resources for the Future calculated that implementing the Superfund program for the current decade is going to cost us from $14 billion to $16.5 billion. Now is not the time to walk away from the financing. I mentioned that it was, I felt, unfortunate that Congress allowed the corporate tax that funded the Superfund to expire in 1995 and that the administration has no plans to work with us to reinstate this tax. It has been that combination of funding that enabled us to clean up more than 800 toxic waste sites in communities across the country. During the last 5 years, we were averaging about 87 sites per year. Last year, in its first year, the Bush administration found that the pace of cleanup was down 45 percent. In 2 years, the administration expects to reduce the pace of cleanups by more than 50 percent more, along with shifting the responsibility for the cleanup. Now, we have seen, as a consequence, that the administration has gone to the General Fund for $634 million in 2001. It is proposing $700 million this next year. When we had the Superfund in place that was funded by the tax, the General Fund only assumed about 18 percent of the program costs. Next year, if the President's proposals are adopted, they will be paying 54 percent of the associated costs, and soon, in the next year or two, the entire cost. Mr. Speaker, I find that to be unacceptable. We need to not be abandoning the principle of polluter-pays. We ought not to be putting more pressure on the beleaguered General Fund. We ought not to be cutting the pace of Superfund cleanup. After more than 20 years, if anything, we should be redoubling our efforts in providing this revitalization. We have, today, opportunity after opportunity to take a step back and to do what the American public wants us to do, which is more investment in areas that is going to protect the environment. Another critical area that we are having a great deal of discussion about on the floor of this Congress and in our committees deals with the situation we see in forest fires that have been raging across the West. In recent days, we have had 22 large fires in seven States. We have had over 300 million acres already burned this year. For comparison purposes, that is more than twice what we have had over the last 10 years on average, and we are only halfway through this fire season. There are approximately 10,000 men and women currently fighting the fires throughout the West. It has been important enough for the President and a number of governors to be involved with touring. We have been watching homes being lost. To date we have had nearly 1,500 homes across the West and over 35,000 residents have been evacuated. I would hope that this would be another area where we might be able to assess what has happened and draw the appropriate environmental conclusions and lessons, particularly since we are facing what is likely to be the worst fire season in memory. It is important that these catastrophic fires serve as a wake-up call, not senseless recrimination, attacking. In some cases we have even seen people trying to blame this on environmentalists, incredible as it sounds. This is an opportunity for us to reflect on the transformation of our natural systems of forest and even astrospheric chemistry dealing with global warming. We need to have a cultural shift to a more conservative approach, respecting the fragility of these systems and our dependence upon them. We need to stop this curious blame game. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the environmentalists who caused the drought. It is not the environmentalists who have had a policy for the last 50 years of instantly suppressing any fire anywhere so that what we have done is we have stopped the periodic fires that have swept through the forests of the West. We have seen the number of trees and other flammable material expand dramatically, and it has been actually compounded by logging practices that have opened up many of these forests and removed the most mature trees, trees that are the most fire resistant, and leave the tinder behind. And it was interesting 2 years ago when we went through this cycle, we found that the areas that had been the most heavily logged were the ones that had the worst forest fires. This current fire season will be the worst in the past half century, and I am hopeful that we will be able as a Congress, we will be able as a country to take a step back and face the hard questions about current forest management policies, funding for various wildfire management programs, and look at the Federal role in protecting State, Federal, and private land and, yes, take a hard look at the land uses that we are permitting and encouraging in this area. We need to return to ecology 101. Small ground fires that once regulated the vegetation in our great western woods need to be returned to the ecosystem. The brush and small trees that would burn while older larger trees survive were part of a natural process that made the forest healthier. We need to recognize that a century of aggressive fire suppression has rendered western forests susceptible to these massive conflagrations that cost us billions of dollars annually and that much of the cost and the agony can be attributed to structure protection for homes that are in the forested fringe. There is a lot of talk these days about the wild land-urban interface. It is a serious question, Mr. Speaker, because we have in this interface between the developed areas on formerly undeveloped forest land, it is putting people in direct contact with what earlier had been a healthy natural phenomenon of wildfires that have just rushed through. We found that people have a difficult time accepting the reality. A recent survey in the Arizona Republic showed that people in this wild land-urban interface have an attitude that, well, they know that it is risky, but I think I will take my chances because it is not that risky. Of course it is not just their chance. They will not bear the costs alone when the worst scenario plays out. Since 1985, wildfires have burned over 10,000 homes. I see my good friend Mr. Tancredo from Colorado in the Chamber. My understanding is that there will be a million people in the foreseeable future in Colorado who will be located under current policies in areas that are heavily forested, putting them in harm's way and giving us a very difficult choice about allowing the fires to burn on, risking people's homes and lives, or making some changes to deal with a more rational approach. It is not appropriate for us to continue to put thousands of men and women in harm's way needlessly, and in some cases there are bizarre situations that are a result of human activity on formerly wild forest areas. We had in Fort Windgate, New Mexico, firefighters having to stay away from certain areas because there were explosions of unexploded ordnance beneath the surface of the public land in areas that had been used for target practice. We had this a couple of years ago in Storm King State Park in New York where firefighters were out fighting a blaze and all of a sudden explosions started to occur. This was a result of shelling from cadets from West Point. Well, it is not just these unusual situations that deal with unexploded ordnance in military activities. We have to have a comprehensive approach to how we are going to permit activities into the forest land, who is going to bear the risk, what we can do to minimize that in terms of if we are not going to prohibit it outright, to regulate where it is, building materials, what is happening in terms of landscaping. In too much of the West, people have just turned their back on their responsibility, creating serious, serious problems. Since 1970, over 2.8 million housing units have been constructed along this forest fringe and out into the forest land. The total now is over 5 million dwelling units. If population growth continues at current rates, and we continue to have the ex-urban housing development and we have resort development, there will be an additional 2.4 million housing units in the next 30 years, approaching 9 million in all. As staggering as these numbers are, they only represent primary residence. They do not include tens of thousands of residences that are second and seasonal and vacation homes, particularly near resort towns. We are seeing the consequences of unplanned growth and development. Some may call it sprawl or dumb growth when it occurs in and around suburban areas; but the facts are we are seeing it leak out in the countryside, and we are going to be penalizing the taxpayer, costing money to extend services, penalizing the taxpayer for fighting fires, for example, where it is going to be exceedingly expensive and difficult to solve in the future. The final area of concern that I have that I wanted to talk about this evening deals with the way the global climate change has the potential of accelerating and compounding these difficulties. Now the unprecedented drought that we have seen in the West, we have seen in Wyoming, it is the worst in 100 years. We are seeing it throughout the eastern seaboard in places like metropolitan Atlanta where we are not used to thinking about drought conditions. This is merely a preview of what we can expect if we are going to continue to have the effects of global climate change, as droughts are going to be contributing to concerns about wildfire vulnerability. Unusually dry winters and hot summers increase the likelihood, and we are going to make it more and more difficult to contend with multiple challenges across the country. I find it ironic that the President will tour the fire sites in Arizona, but really does not have anything in the way of a plan for American leadership when it comes to mounting a plan to deal with global climate change which might forestall or minimize this very serious problem in the future. It is research from our own federally funded studies that have shown that climate change is going to have a dramatic increase in the areas burned and the number of potentially catastrophic fires, in fact, more than doubling the losses in some regions. And the changes are going to occur despite deployment of fire suppression resources at the highest levels, implying that the change is going to precipitate an increase in both fire suppression costs and economic loss due to just wild fires alone. And it is not just wild fires that are a concern dealing with the change in greenhouse gasses and global climate. Worldwide, the number of great weather disasters, including fires, in the 1990s was more than five times the number of these disasters for the 1950s. And the damages, the costs that were incurred by governments, by insurance, were more than 10 times as high adjusted for inflation than in the 1950s. We have seen in the last year of the previous decade 47 events, more than double the average for the 1980s. Well, the United States, with less than 5 percent of the world's population, is playing a huge role in greenhouse gas contributions. We produce approximately five times our per capita contribution. We as Americans know that we can do better. I sincerely hope that the administration will work with concerned people on both sides of the aisle to not abandon the principle of ``polluter pay'' and make sure that Superfund cleanup is the priority that the American public wants, to deal with the abuse of the mining industry, hardrock mining in particular, to not make it easier for them to have assaults on the environment, to fill miles of streams and valleys in violation of current law, that instead encourage, indeed mandate, that the industry clean up after itself, that we deal with the current realities of this urban-rural interface that has created such a problem with forest fire protection. And last, but by no means least, that we deal with national leadership for global climate change. Next month the United States will join with over 100 other nations in the environmental summit in Johannesburg. Mr. Speaker, this would be an excellent opportunity for the United States, if the administration cannot abide by the Kyoto Protocols, which ironically even some large businesses are stepping up and agreeing to meet those targets, at least we are obligated to have our plan, our approach, and it would be a perfect time for the administration to reverse its position, come forward with a leadership approach to make sure that these problems of global climate change, storm events, and wildfires, are not going to be worse as a result of our stewardship, but instead would be better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, ultimately the Federal Government has an important responsibility to protect the quality of life for our citizens. My sense is that it is important for us to promote liveable communities where the Federal Government is a partner to help make our families safe, healthy, and more economically secure. Unfortunately, when it comes to dealing with hazardous waste, we, as a Federal Government, have failed to follow through on our commitment. This is very serious business for most Americans. I, in the State of Oregon, have eleven Superfund sites. One in four Americans live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. Ten million American children live within a short bicycle ride of a Superfund site. These are areas, some 1,200 priority sites around the country, many of which are polluted by hazardous chemicals known to cause cancer, heart disease, kidney failure, birth defects and brain damage. There has been a very simple principle at work for over 20 years as far as the Federal Government is concerned, and that is that corporations, businesses that have been involved with serious pollution should clean up after themselves. If they are responsible for the environmental damage and the public health threats, they should be held financially accountable for their contaminated sites and should help keep them up. The law that we put in place in 1980 is based on this ``polluter pays'' principle. When the companies that are responsible for this pollution and the public health threats are unable to clean up after themselves, then the Federal Government steps in. And that part of that same legislation created the Superfund site, created a Superfund itself, that was to be supplied with money from a special tax on oil and chemical companies who, by and large, have been responsible for much of this pollution. The money from the tax was placed in a trust fund, the so-called Superfund, and designated for cleaning up polluted sites where the responsible party either could not pay or we were unable to identify them. Unfortunately, the tax that provides the Environmental Protection Agency with the funds to clean up these abandoned sites expired in 1995. Part of the Gingrich revolution was simply a refusal to reenact the tax, despite the fact that every Congress and every President since its original enactment was supportive of that effort. Now, originally when they have refused to renew the tax in 1995, it was not an immediate disaster because over the years money had accumulated in the trust fund; and, indeed, at the time of the tax termination there was over $3.5 billion in 1996. But now that fund has dwindled from $3.8 billion down to a projected $28 million next year. This leaves us with three stark choices. We either reinstate the tax, we dramatically reduce our clean up efforts, or we force the taxpayers to pick up the tab from already strained budgets. The Federal Government now, as we know, is hemorrhaging red ink. We have gone from last year being concerned that we were somehow going to pay off the national debt too quickly, to a point where we are going to be borrowing over a trillion and a half dollars from the Social Security fund. Sadly, the administration has chosen to abandon the notion of renewing the Superfund tax. It has chosen instead to slash the cleanup funding and to rely for what money will be available from the general fund. This is part of a pattern from this administration that is unsettling. In its first year, the Bush administration decreased the pace of cleanups by almost 45 percent, from an average of 87 sites per year in President Clinton's second term. It originally projected this year, the administration predicted that it would clean up 65 sites this year, but now that number will be only 40. Last month, the administration announced that it would be cutting funding for cleanup at 33 sites in 19 States. In addition to zeroing out the funding for these 33 sites altogether, it is severely underfunding sites of existing projects. We have two of them that I am following closely in Oregon, McCormick and Baxter creosote plant in Portland on the banks of the Willamette River, and a site designated Northwest Pipe and Casting Process Company, which is an area that is near a number of well areas and that drains into the Clackamas River which drains into that same Willamette River. I must say that I am rather frustrated at this attitude we have at this point. During the last presidential election, we had the candidates, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore, talking a good fight about being able to be forward protecting on the environment. Now when we have a chance to put it into action, we are not seeing the performance. It does not have to be that way. When we get a chance to work together, good things can happen. Earlier this Congress was able to work with the administration in a bipartisan fashion to deal with cleanup of brownfields, and we made some significant progress. These are the properties that are idle due to actual or potential contamination by hazardous substances and pollutants, by and large in our urban areas. We have an estimate of almost a half million of these brownfields sites nationally. We found that by moving to restore the environmental health of these sites it is an effective way to revitalize neighborhoods and in some cases an entire city. It can help communities become more livable in a number of ways. It improves the environment by cleaning up the toxic contaminants and preventing their spread and contamination and potential disease-causing aspects, side effects for individuals. The cleanup makes the communities healthier and safer, and it targets reinvestments in our city. By providing redevelopment opportunities where infrastructure is currently in place, it saves taxpayers dollars over greenfield development out in pristine farmlands that would require new roads, utility, water, and would take away open space, productive farmland, wetlands that have other purposes that help stabilize the environment. We see significant job creation and economic development opportunities provided by brownfield cleanup, and it actually boosts the tax revenues for cities and towns by improving property tax bases. In fact, the EPA estimates that for every dollar of Federal money spent on brownfield cleanup, cities and States produce or leverage almost two-and-a-half dollars in private investment. Sort of a stark example. We have the opportunity to revitalize communities with investments in brownfields, and we have been able to work on that on a bipartisan basis, what has happened with Superfund, where Democrats, I assure my colleagues, are willing to step forward with progressive, environmentally sensitive Republicans and support the administration to make sure that we take advantage of these opportunities to protect the environment and revitalize the community. I am pleased to be joined by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), my colleague from the Great Pacific Northwest, from the Seattle area, who has been very active on a whole range of environmental areas. I would be pleased to yield to him to comment, if he would, on corporate responsibility, environmental cleanup and where he sees us going in the months ahead.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, at a time when meaningful debate is at a minimum in this Congress, it is embarrassing that this resolution has been brought to the floor in this manner. Issues of great consequence to this nation, like reducing prescription drug costs, protecting investors and ensuring corporate accountability, and producing a budget that allows us to meet our military needs and protect Social Security, are being short-changed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided yesterday the case of Newdow v. U.S. Congress on the Pledge of Allegiance. One day later, we by-pass the committee process and rush this resolution to the floor. In my personal opinion, the Court's decision is an over-reaction to language that has been part of the civic and governmental life of the United States since this nation's founding. Every American responds in our own ways to the invocation of God on our currency, in solemn oaths and other customary circumstances. Our individual liberties have not been threatened by these expressions, including the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. However, I would hope we would allow this decision to work its way through the judicial process rather than engage in political grandstanding. I refuse to dignify this trivialization of the legislative process and I vote ``present.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, one of the areas that I am most deeply concerned about in the course of our dealing with the Department of Defense deals with the consequences of military activity over the course of the last 2 centuries. Unfortunately, we have left a legacy of unexploded ordnance, toxic waste that is involved from border to border, from coast to coast. It is in every State and virtually every congressional district. Unexploded ordnance, UXO, as we talk about it, is left over from military training exercises at some 2,000 formerly used defense sites and closed bases in every State; and in fact, we really do not have an inventory of actually how many millions of acres; it may be 10 million, it may be 50 million. These sites include bombing ranges, testing facilities that were once located in underpopulated areas. However, we find that, today, distance is no longer a protective factor; and sites are now often bordered by housing developments or schools or contained within parks and other public lands. Recently, there was a gentleman rototilling in his yard in a subdivision in Arlington, Texas.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and interest; and I guess I do not need to get up and thump the tub any further. But I would be interested if the chairman of the committee has any observations about the work that we may be able to do to deal with the research and development and the cleanup of unexploded ordnance.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the gentleman's interest and activities; and, too, I look forward to working with the gentleman. I would note that there appears to be a growing awareness on the part of Members across the country. I will save my stump speech, but I would just mention that there is one site we had a hearing on yesterday that is still, the campus of the American University, that 84 years after World War II we are still cleaning up chemical weapons. I think there is lot we can do. I appreciate the assurance and look forward to working with the gentleman.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I intend to support this bill before us today, but I have grave reservations about several of its provisions. This bill spends $354.7 billion, $33.7 billion more than the current level. $7.4 billion of that is for the misguided missile defense system, which costs too much and is not in the best interest of the country. At this critical time in our nation's struggle against terrorism, we must spend our resources wisely on America's most immediate defense needs. Missile defense is not among them. There are a few broader dimensions in this bill that are encouraging to me. The bill provides no funds for the outmoded Crusader mobile howitzer, a weapons system designed for a war from an age long past. I was pleased to see that the bill fully funds the President's request for the Defense Environmental Restoration Account. I especially appreciate the emerging recognition by the Subcommittee of the importance of addressing the problem of unexploded ordnance (UXO), the bombs and shells that did not go off as intended and subsequently litter the landscape. I am pleased to be working with the Subcommittee leadership on this issue. We have made a step in the right direction toward getting the federal government to clean up after itself and be a good steward of the land. As we continue to consider defense appropriations funding as the year progresses, I hope that we will be able to address the critical needs for UXO research & development and cleanup.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the pattern denying opportunity for full debate and reasonable alternatives continues as we deal with prescription drug benefits for our Nation's seniors. The House will not be permitted to vote on the Democratic prescription alternative. Instead, we will only be allowed to consider the Republican bill, which does not provide a guaranteed drug benefit, instead offering only an HMO-style managed-drugs plan for some. Medicare was created in 1965 because most elderly people could not afford to buy expensive health insurance on the private market. Most still cannot, and we as a Congress should not in fairness impose this flawed plan on seniors. Especially important to Oregon seniors are the regional inequities that already exist in Medicare, and that the Republican bill would allow to grow. Medicare already punishes Oregon for its size and efficiency with a Medicare reimbursement rate that is 66 percent of the national average rate per enrollee. As a result, Oregon seniors lose more than \3/4\ of a billion dollars every year. That represents approximately $1,660 per enrollee that ought to be going to medical care and services. We cannot tell how much we will lose under the bill before us today. Their bill allows many different insurance companies to deal with seniors differently from city to city, and state to state. A senior in Oregon might pay significantly more than someone in Louisiana for the same, or even a reduced benefit. All seniors paid their taxes, and they all deserve an equal benefit. Rural areas and western states have had enough of this regional healthcare discrimination! Choice is illusory in the Republican bill because the plans they propose do not exist and there is no assurance that insurance companies will ever offer these plans. The Democratic bill, by comparison, is simple and fair. All beneficiaries will receive the same benefits, the same low $25 a month premiums, a lower $2,000 out-of-pocket limit, with any pharmacy they choose--wherever they live. Furthermore, the Democratic alternative allows the Secretary to use collective purchasing powers on behalf of 40 million beneficiaries to negotiate lower prices, as he did getting Cipro, the antibiotic used for Anthrax, in the Fall of 2001. The Republican bill has no such provision. I support the plan that helps seniors, Medicare contractors, and is fair to the taxpayers.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Secretary made it clear weeks ago that Congress would have to increase the federal government's debt ceiling. Since that time, many of us have been requesting an open debate on a bill to increase the debt ceiling. How can the Republican leadership explain the debt ceiling increase added to the debate of the military construction appropriations bill by way of a procedural hijacking? This legislative ambush blocks any amendments from being offered, including the Democrats' intent to limit the increase to $150 billion as opposed to the Republican's increase of $450 billion. I am ready to assure the debt limit is sufficient to meet our obligations, however, I vote against this measure because this chamber and the American people deserve that we conduct business of this manner with a full debate and consideration of reasoned amendments that will clarify a blueprint for fiscal responsibility.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time to speak on this bill. I, too, would like to express my appreciation to the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), and to our good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who have been focusing on one aspect of the military construction budget which deals with the problem of unexploded ordnance, the bombs and shells and military toxins, that have been left over and littered across the landscape, really, of these 206 facilities across the country. The subcommittee, for the first time as near as I can tell in history, focused on this issue. They brought people together from the various services, looked at the context of the problem, talked to the experts; and, for the first time, we are having an inventory of this problem. We are at a time when there are a number of bases around the country, it is no secret, that probably should be closed. There are a lot of reasons why we are not going ahead with that process. One of the reasons, candidly, is that people are concerned about what they get stuck with when they are over. I think of what has happened with Fort Ord. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars and 11 years of work, we have not yet been able to quite put all those pieces together and finish the job. What this subcommittee has done here today is the culmination of work that is going to make a difference not just cleaning up these sites, long overdue, it is going to help reorder the process within the Department of Defense so that, at a time when we are giving unprecedented sums of money to the Department of Defense, we will be able to take a little bit of it to be able to make sure that we are not leaving hazards for communities to deal with for years to come. Mr. Speaker, one of the more important things is that not only are we going to be focusing the attention within the Department of Defense, but the technology that will be developed as we learn to do a better job cleaning up after ourselves is going to make a difference for the other over 2,000 sites across the country, in every State, in most of the congressional districts, that are represented here in this body. We are going to learn to do a better job. Last but not least, it is going to have international implications. Because, sadly, Mr. Speaker, every single day we have children around the world who are killed from unexploded ordnance, the legacy of what has happened in Africa, in the Balkans, and in Southeast Asia. With the help of the subcommittee in focusing on doing a better job, we are going to learn how to clean up that toxic legacy. It is going to make a difference not just with the men and women we have on our military bases, not just for the communities that are going to inherit lands that they can put in more productive uses, but I think it will make a difference for the quality of life for millions of people around the world. My only concern is that it looks like there is a little less money than we had last year. At the rate we are going, it is going to take us in the neighborhood of 100 years or more to clean up after ourselves. I am hopeful in the course of the process, as we go through the conferencing, there may be a possibility of putting the money behind it that is necessary. It is not going to get any cheaper to clean up after ourselves. The liability and the problems are only going to grow over time. And, ironically, the more money we spend to do it right, it will drive down the unit cost, it is going to return the land to productive uses, and it will make the ultimate cleanup cheaper. I appreciate deeply what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) have done and the committee has done, as well as the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). I am hopeful this body will get behind it to give the rest of the push that is needed to make sure we do the job right on the part of our military service and people around the world.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to continue the discussion this evening on the future of Amtrak. There is a rumor going around the Capitol that Senator Byrd has put together a rescue that ties together the supplemental, the debt ceiling vote with resources that will keep Amtrak going. If that rumor is true, I say good for Senator Byrd for making it happen, but I say shame on Congress and the administration for making it necessary for yet another extraordinary step to keep America's passenger rail system going. This is sadly part of the 30-year history where Congress and numerous administrations have done their best to dismantle and slowly bleed Amtrak to death. What is perhaps most remarkable, Mr. Speaker, is not that we may be able to rescue Amtrak from being shut down this week, but that despite the system that has been inflicted upon them, they continue to exist and ridership continues to increase. It was a rather bizarre deal we saw in 1997, an exercise in denial on the part of the then-majority parties in Congress where they mandated in the last reauthorization a program under which for the next 5 years Amtrak would become self-sufficient. Part of that deal was that Congress, the Federal Government, would supply adequate resources to deal with the capital requirements for Amtrak, not unlike what happens in other industries where the United States, for instance, provides the infrastructure for aviation. There are now some in the administration and sadly some in Congress who are arguing, Shut it down. It is not self-supporting. They did not keep the deal. Well, Congress provided less than half of the money that was authorized. In no year did we provide the full capital allocation. Yet despite that, despite that, we have seen ridership increases that is not just passengers with train nostalgia. In the Pacific Northwest, we have seen almost three-quarters of a million people ride the Cascades rail corridor last year. Ridership has increased sixfold over the last 8 years. We have heard about the situation that is taking place with ridership increases here in the eastern corridor. And all of us in Congress are well aware that if it were not for Amtrak, that sad week of September 11, without Amtrak, if people were relying on their SUVs and waiting for the grounded planes to travel, that there would have been one traffic jam from the Alexandria suburbs to New Haven, Connecticut. But we had Amtrak, and we did not have that desperate situation. We have also had people take to the floor and talk about what is happening in the Midwest and with the Texas Eagle down through the South. Mr. Speaker, we find that every administration since President Nixon was in office have underestimated Amtrak's customers who continue to ride, often not just the underfunded system and often-uncertain service, but in some cases the equipment has been deplorable. These same passengers deserve better treatment from us. They include people who ride in rural communities. They are people increasingly in the tourism and resort activities where people are traveling the rails for pleasure. There are thousands of businesspeople who are involved with these critical corridors. In fact, we are finding that each and every day in the New York City area, Amtrak controls the flow of 1,100 trains and more than 300,000 passengers in and out of that city. Despite a lack of clarity, the administration, and we have called them time and again when they have appeared before us on rail-related activities, our rail subcommittee in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has asked the administration repeatedly, they have been in office now a year and a half, what is their position? What is their plan? How can we work together? We have received no response. Mr. Speaker, we have developed a bipartisan alternative under the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the Chair, and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), the ranking member. It has been supported by over 162 Members in this body, a broad bipartisan coalition. It has a majority of the Senate ready to move forward with ongoing programs that will get us through this year, not with a Band- Aid but in a way that actually enhances operation and security and puts us in a good position for the next Congress for full reauthorization. We should not be held ransom for a $205 million loan guarantee conditioned upon meeting some vague principles that, to the extent to which you can determine them, would be destructive. I strongly urge, Mr. Speaker, that we move forward, that we deal with the funding this year and be in a situation in the next Congress when we can reauthorize surface, reauthorize aviation, reauthorize rail. Give it the package that the American public deserves.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this Self-Executing Rule governing the house conferees on trade promotion authority, because it sets a terrible precedent. It could well be the worst abuse of the legislative process since the Republican party took control of the House in 1994. Newt Gingrich would have howled in outrage if the previous Democratic majority has attempted such a maneuver; and it would have been appropriate outrage. It is shameful to treat this body in such a fashion--tying the hands of House conferees, adding new provisions without any opportunity of fairly debate their merits. This behavior abuses the American people as well as this House. It will come back to haunt the Republican majority. I support free trade because it strengthens the economy of my city and state and the country as a whole. I have been unable to support the Administration and House leadership position because they have ignored legimate environmental and labor concerns. Now this rule would further damage the cause of trade by committing this House to reject improvements in Trade Adjustment Assistance that were made by the Senate. There are dislocations that occur as our economy changes in response to new markets and new imports. Some workers are hurt in that process, and Trade Adjustment Assistance is critical to ensuring that we move as quickly and painlessly as possible to extend the benefits of trade to all American families. The provisions of this rule reject in advance important improvements in TAA that the Senate made and that must be part our trade agenda: Health Care for workers unemployed due to trade dislocations. This Substitute unilaterally rolls back the health care benefits contained in the Senate bill--and puts in their place a reduced level of support that is harder to obtain because of a means-testing requirement. Job training and relocation assistance: The Senate bill doubles this funding (to $300 million), reflecting the fact that TAA chronically runs out of money early in the year. So far this year, 12 states-- including Oregon--have already ran out of TAA money. This proposed rule would strip this money, forcing continued funding shortfalls for TAA. This is a critical issue for my State. Currently, more than 600 Oregon workers have been certified by the Department of Labor as being eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) or NAFTA benefits but are not receiving those benefits due to a lack of resources. Trade assistance petitions are pending for 35 companies, and additional layoffs are expected from several companies that have previously been certified as eligible for assistance. However, the state of Oregon received only 25 percent of the amount it requested under the trade program. As a result, the state exhausted its funds at the end of April, and has been unable to grant any more requests for assistance. Already 200 laid-off Oregonians are on the waiting list for job training and relocation assistance, with hundreds more expected to apply in the fall. Were we to approve this motion we would send exactly the wrong message to the people of my state and the rest of America: that trade is about creating winners and losers, and the losers are on their own.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman taking us back into the global scope of things. I would just conclude by turning our attention back to where we began this evening in terms of the public lands and the President's promise when he was candidate Governor Bush to deal with improving the stewardship. Not only are they rolling back protections for motorized vehicles, dealing with just the nuts and bolts that the gentleman from New York is going to have to deal with on the Interior committee in terms of the budget where we are going to eliminate a $5 billion budget cap. This year I note that the gentleman has been given a Presidential appropriation request, $2 million above last year's enactment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I come from a background, Mr. Speaker, in a State where there are nominally partisan politics; but when I got started in the political process, the issues of protecting the environmental heritage of the State of Oregon was something that Republicans and Democrats could often come together on. There was a great Republican environmental leader, Tom McCall, that actually gave me my very first governmental assignment when I was still a college student to be on Oregon's livable community, it was a livable community commission. I worked with some key Republicans when we were doing legislative protections of the environment when I was a State legislator in the 1970s. The protection of our environmental heritage should not be partisan, and I am sorry that it has reached that point today. It is interesting, however, that the men and women who run for national office and increasingly, even on the State level, embrace the rhetoric of environmental protection, hence some of the quotations that I gave earlier this evening from candidate Governor Bush when he was running and how he was going to respect and honor the environment. It is interesting that through the manipulation of the political process that there are acts that are undertaken, criticism of the last administration, for example, for using the antiquities act to protect some great national monuments in this country. But now, all of the smoke and fury has subsided. There is a Republican in the White House, there is a Republican leadership, but are they introducing leadership to repeal President Clinton's monument designations? No. There is not a single bill that is coming forward to repeal them. Instead, what we see is that there is actually legislation that some of our Republican colleagues are proposing that would tie the hands of President Bush and future Presidents to designate monuments as sort of I guess a signal to some of their antienvironmental supporters, but not stepping forth to try and roll anything back because we know the American public will not stand for it. Mr. Speaker, I think our challenge here is to make sure that the American public understands what is happening with the rollback that we talked about earlier in terms of the rule that would have phased out the use of snowmobiles, that we are having the Padre Island National Seashore, Gulf Shore Islands National Seashore, Cape Lookout National Seashore where there was a national park superintendent of those areas had proposed that there be a ban on jet ski use in those waters. But now, these proposed bans which had broad public support and to deal with the massive environmental damage, it is not just the noise of the jet skis. Most of these, for 4 gallons of gasoline that is burned, one goes into the water. Well, now the administration and some of our Republican House Members are pressuring the National Park Service to override the superintendents. Now these parks must do a new environmental assessment and rulemaking to allow jet ski use to continue, despite the environmental damage, despite the public opposition. It is unfortunate that we are seeing example after example. The gentleman referenced the situation of the National Park Service and our illustrious President Teddy Roosevelt. It is frustrating to see the actual purpose, the Organic Act, under which the National Park Service was organized that called for the conservation of scenery, the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations, the enjoyment of future generations. Nothing, nothing could be further from obtaining, enforcing, celebrating the requirement of that original act and what we see is being infested upon the American public as we speak.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman joining us and rounding out the discussion to take on the dimensions of public health. He made an observation that I thought was important, and I would like to pursue one slight distinction. I, too, have been concerned that our Republican colleagues in the leadership have been pursuing an environmental agenda that I think is very much out of sync with what is practiced by most of the American public, the views and attitudes. But the irony is that their limited approach in cutting off debate and not allowing a full range of options to be discussed, actually, they have denied a majority of the House an opportunity to be heard and move important protective legislation forward. I think it is sad, because I know that there are some of our friends on the other side of the aisle who feel uncomfortable with these environmental initiatives. There is a majority of the House, when we get clean votes for air quality, when we get clean votes for clean water, more often than not the majority will of the House is such that it is in keeping with what the majority will of the American public is in terms of its environmental ethic. But, sadly, we are not permitted to have these straight up or down votes and this full and honest debate.