Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time. One of the most inspirational moments that I enjoyed as a Member of this body was meeting with now-President Gusmao when he was in prison in Jakarta in Indonesia, having an opportunity to join with some of my congressional colleagues to give, hopefully, in a small way, testimony of support and interest in this struggle of a gentleman who is one of great courage, great dignity, and insight, and to see what has transpired in the course of the last couple of years. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) outlined the focus of the people around the world who have been engaged in this. I was struck by the dozens of people in Oregon, this little State on the West Coast, where there were people that invested personally in this, who traveled, who ministered to the people, who helped with humanitarian efforts, and helped to put the world spotlight on the atrocities that were occurring there; to be able to reflect on the dozens of people who sacrificed their lives simply to vote on behalf of independence. I am having an Election Day in my State today, Mr. Speaker. Oregon is a State where we send out the ballots to people, they get it in their home, they can vote at their leisure, drop it into mailbox. No risk, no harm. Luckily, maybe we will have 25 percent, 30 percent of the people dealing with issues that are so critical to the future of our community. In contrast, I think about what happened in East Timor where people literally gave their lives to be able to cast a vote to move that country towards democracy. I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that we will move forward. This resolution today is a symbol of our efforts to be focused on making sure that we finish the job on behalf of the people in East Timor; that we continue to be a strong friend, a supporter; that we help provide with the rest of the international community some modicum of resources to help them rebuild this shattered country and, last but not least, that this is a signal that we will continue to engage the country of Indonesia. Sadly, Indonesia at times appears to be defined by basically the concept of whatever the Dutch ruled 50 years ago is an appropriate nation state. Well, there are issues that are going on in Irian Jaya, in Atjeh, that will test whether that vast country is going to be able to adopt a system to deal with those individual differences. What we have seen in East Timor is that one can make a modest adjustment and not have the whole country spun apart, but it also means that the United States is going to have to continue to be engaged. It was my privilege to journey to Indonesia with my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), whom I see on the floor, who helped lead this effort, along with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and it underscored the need for us to be vigilant for these needs in Southeast Asia, in Indonesia, helping the transition. It is not just East Timor, but it is really the stability of this vast stretch of the world that is a source of problems with terrorism, problems of threats to the environment, and governmental instability, and I hope this is a chapter of how we can do it right.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word for purposes of entering into a colloquy. Madam Chairman, once again I appreciate the efforts of our diligent colleagues, the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) in their work with me on an important issue for assistance for the unintended victims of the war in Afghanistan. The current military operations in the United States Armed Forces and other allied forces in Afghanistan are directed against the members of Taliban and other terrorist organizations, not against the people of Afghanistan. Although the United States and our allies have demonstrated enormous good will towards the people of Afghanistan who have suffered under the former Taliban regime, there have been numerous unintended victims of the current military operations by us and other allied countries. In the past the United States has provided aid to civilian casualties of military operations. Assistance should be provided to individuals who are unintended victims of the current military operation as well. The men and women of our armed forces are well trained and there is no question that they do their job very, very well. Nonetheless, even in the most justified of wars, civilians will suffer and some will be killed. In the aftermath of the Afghanistan campaign, we feel it is important for the United States to assist these people and particularly to help unintended victims who have suffered directly due to our munitions. There are children that have been injured or left to fend for themselves because adult members of their families have been mistakenly killed; widows who have been left to care for children without means to provide for food, health and clothing. Other victims have suffered property loss or personal injury. Despite humanitarian efforts, women and children remain victims of this war and desperately, desperately need our help. I believe that providing this assistance speaks to the highest values of our Nation and of our people. It would be an important good will gesture for us to help these unintended victims of the war against terrorism that was appropriately and ably spearheaded by our country in Afghanistan. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to respond.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I deeply appreciate the strong words of comfort and support and wisdom from my three colleagues. I know this will make a huge difference, not just to people in Afghanistan, but from what we have been hearing, of an outpouring of concern by Americans who are concerned about unintended victims, and this is an important step forward. Amendment Offered by Mr. Hoeffel

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) to seek his comments on the subject of this colloquy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and his words of direction. At this point I would yield to the ranking member of the committee, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Madam Chairman, I deeply appreciate the work that has been done on behalf of the majority and minority, the Chair, the ranking member, and their staffs. Part of the reason we are in Afghanistan today is because the world turned its back on Afghanistan after the collapse of the former Soviet Union. The Taliban and other thugs and warlords and misfits filled the power vacuum left after the country was devastated. The lesson from past efforts is that you cannot leave a shattered country to its own devices and the tender mercies of the most corrupt and violent. We have a good start before us today, and it is made better by the elements of the manager's amendment. The Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 will provide $1.05 billion of reconstruction aid to Afghanistan over 4 years. The bill focuses on creating a stable environment for Afghanistan, addressing a wide variety of issues we have already heard related to on the floor. It is, however, only a start. The United Nations and the World Bank estimate that reconstruction of Afghanistan will require at least $1.7 billion in the first year, $10 billion over the next 5 years, and $15 billion in the next decade. Given that the world is still reeling, and, indeed, shots are still being fired, others argue that these numbers are far too low and put the overall cost at closer to $30 billion over the next decade. But whatever the amount, we must be sensitive to a critical issue in the long-term political and social economic stability of Afghanistan, and that is the viability of its urban areas. This is something, Madam Chairman, that really does not get the attention of people in this Chamber, in fact by the Federal Government, as we deal with issues of international security; but the CIA has ranked the problems of urbanization in the developing world as one of the seven top security concerns, suggesting that cities will be sources of crime and instability as ethnic and religious differences exacerbate the competition over scarcer jobs and resources. The problems of poverty, unsafe drinking water, inadequate access to medical care and sanitation, too often we ignore these as we look at what happens in the rural areas of these developing countries. While we all recognize the importance that agriculture plays in Afghanistan's redevelopment, the role of its cities are critical. It is an important component of rebuilding this war-torn country. It is necessary that the appropriate balance be reached between urban and rural development. Through many years of civil war and the war on terrorism, the cities of Afghanistan have been devastated. With the real possibility of an influx of people into cities looking for work, especially if the drought continues to damage the agricultural sector, extraordinary challenges will be facing the cities, and these will only be compounded. Yes, Afghanistan is largely rural. Only 22 percent of the country is urbanized. But with an annual growth rate of 5.3 percent projected over the next 12 years, this problem is going to compound. I had offered up an amendment, which I deeply appreciate having been made a part of the manager's amendment, that seeks an appropriate level of foreign aid to be targeted to restoring the urban infrastructure. Any attempt to provide assistance to help foster political stabilization and economic development must recognize the critical role that these cities are going to play. This is the area that is the cultural center, of governmental interests, where the politics are going to be played out and where things that in the countryside are difficult, when you are talking about disease, sanitation, lack of potable water, in a city, these become devastating. In addition, Afghanistan faces a series of challenges that are unique to its history of conflict and war that has devastated the country, the relocation of refugees and the environmental challenges linked to 2 decades of war-like land mines. It is important to recognize the capital city of Kabul is going to be critical to foster the support for the newly restored political regime and help build its new economy. Today's bill is an important step, and I applaud the work of our committee leadership, the chairman and ranking member, in ensuring Afghanistan's urban areas are included in our aid to this country. It is vital to our long-term political interest and to the economic success of the people of Afghanistan to rebuild their war-torn country and to become an important ally of the United States in years to come. When we are approaching a period in the next year or two when half of the world's population is going to move to cities, this is a model for the rest of our aid as well.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am from a State that made great progress 5 years before we enacted welfare reform, and it is doubly sad for me to see us poised to turn our back on the principles that helped make my State successful. The House has proposed new mandates which are unfunded. We are going to impose a new approach for work requirements that most successful States have rejected. But most embarrassing for the Republican leadership and the Bush administration is that this Chamber is not even going to be allowed to discuss a real amendment to provide the need for child care that is so essential to successful welfare reform. Unfortunately, the House is again going to engage in an empty legislative process. The American public deserves better treatment for the critical major issues of our time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I am from one of the States that was involved with welfare reform 5 years before the Federal action, and we made real progress. We made real progress, not with unfunded mandates from the Federal Government, which the bill would be, not with goofy work requirements that are rejected by virtually all the Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, and not by underfunding child care. That is why there is no enthusiasm for the Republican alternative from our Nation's Governors, whether they are Republican or Democrat. I strongly urge support for the Democratic substitute which speaks to continuing the strong parts, strengthening the opportunities for child care, rejects the notion of more unfunded Federal mandates, and does not play fiscal roulette with the program at a time when States are slipping into fiscal disarray across the country. That is not a prudent step. I strongly urge support for the Democratic alternative.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there's no small amount of irony that just one week after Congress reinstated welfare for some of the largest agricultural interests in this country in the farm bill, the Bush Administration and Republican leadership in the House are imposing new burdens on the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens. This Welfare Bill denies states the ability to use their own approaches, field-tested and improved by real-world experience, to meet their own citizens' needs. That's why the majority of governors, both Republicans and Democrats, have opposed the approach in the Republican Welfare Bill. As the national unemployment rate has increased, Oregon has had the highest rate in the country. Welfare reform is no longer propped up by a full-employment economy, and moving from welfare to work has become much more difficult. The Administration and Republican leadership bill offers a rigid, designed-in-Washington, one size fits all approach. Instead, we should focus on supporting what works: flexibility for the states, and total support for families through a combination of work experience, training, education and child care. I support the substitute offered by my colleague, Ben Cardin, because it meets our goals, and supports efforts in the State of Oregon. Instead of unfunded mandates, the substitute increases flexibility and encourages real work. It also provides increased funding to make a down payment towards the needs of the 15 million unserved children eligible for childcare. Most importantly, it provides guarantees that our poorest and most vulnerable citizens who have the least political power will get real help moving into the workforce, not just more rules and requirements.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I note some degree of irony here. Just a few days ago on the floor of this Chamber, the House approved a massive repudiation of one of the Contract with America, the Gingrich Revolution, in terms of the Freedom to Farm Act. It was a massive welfare program for a few of the Nation's farmers in a few States. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are coming forward here today considering additions and changes to the welfare program that ironically are opposed by the majority of the Nation's Governors, Republican and Democrat alike. I am hopeful that there will be strong support for the efforts that have been offered by the Democrats, my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), to be able to maintain flexibility, maintain approaches that work on the State level; and hopefully we will not continue the hypocrisy where we provide welfare for those who need it the least and have mean-spirited Federal intervention from the Federal level for those who actually need our help.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I am eager for this Chamber to deal with the subject at hand with the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act. We are leading an effort as a country in a global struggle against terrorism, and this legislation can be critical for that effort. We all know that the world changed since the September 11 attacks, and a number of those changes actually have been positive. I am pleased that the United States is more engaged in the Middle East, working to try and stop the violence in Israel. We have toppled a brutal, repressive regime in Afghanistan. And now we are finding that the term ``nation building'' which some were dismissive of during the last presidential campaign, is no longer a term of derision. It is something that people understand the United States has a responsibility in which to be engaged. I am thankful that we are turning our attention to the struggle for the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of people, particularly in this troubled region, people who do not get the full story about the role that the United States plays and wants to play in the future. There are some who obviously have their grievances against us, but there are millions more who are born to poverty and despair. Now more than ever before the United States needs to have the full range of tools available to deal with these multiple challenges. Part of it is military, and we have approved one of the most generous bills in the history of this country to give tools to our Armed Forces who have already proven that they are the finest in the world. We have in the person of Secretary Powell somebody leading the diplomatic efforts and I think someone who commands the respect and confidence of Congress and the American people. We need to craft an aid package that will help us build up and repair. Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have with this piece of legislation is that while it speaks to issues, for example, of reconstructing the damaged infrastructure in the countryside, in agriculture, while it speaks to the buildup of commerce, it does not speak to the reconstruction of the cities in Afghanistan damaged beyond repair in some requests unless we step forward. And it is silent, I am afraid, to the hundreds of innocent victims, innocent villagers in Afghanistan who were mistakenly attacked, killed, injured children who were traumatized. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that these innocent citizens in Afghanistan are every bit as innocent victims like we lost in the World Trade Center and here in the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. I have been visited by people who lost loved ones in this country who urge Congress to reach out to the innocent victims in Afghanistan. And I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this House will use the flexibility under the rule to make adjustments to this bill to make sure that we are rebuilding the damaged cities in Afghanistan and that we have the flexibility to reach out, to aid the innocent victims of our activities in that country. There will be no more powerful signal to people around the world about how the United States is different, how we are trying to live our values than if we reach out to help these innocent people.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Federal investment in transportation is critical to moving our nation's people, goods, and economy. Maintaining and meeting our federal commitment to transportation spending is an important first step. I was proud to serve on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that authored the 1998 Federal surface transportation- spending bill entitled TEA-21 (the Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty-first Century). This legislation provided record levels of guaranteed funding for highways, bridges, transit, and enhancement programs. In addition to funding, it also created a policy framework that emphasizes good planning, with a focus on public participation and environmental goals. All of these factors are critical tools to building more livable communites--where families have choices about how they travel and where they live. I was greatly concerned when earlier this year, the Bush Administration proposed in its fiscal year 2003 Budget a significant decrease in transportation spending from what Congress approved last year. This cut of $8.6 billion, or a 27 percent reduction in highway funding, is based on the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) provision of TEA-21. The need for infrastructure management, improvement, and new capacity has only increased and this funding is critical to the transportation plans in many communities. In Oregon alone, the impact is a loss of almost $51 million. As an original co-sponsor of H.R. 3694, I was proud to join with other members of Congress in sending a strong signal that our federal commitment to transportation infrastructure must be met. This bill would increase fiscal year 2003 highway funding by at least $4.4 billion above the level requested in the President's Budget. Some have argued that since highway programs benefited from RABA in previous years, that they must now suffer the negative consequences, too. While this seems a logical argument, there are some important variables that come into play. Perhaps the most glaring is the impact that such a large cut would have on state transportation departments. Many state DOTs are already facing funding constraints while they are also struggling to maintain existing roads and provide solutions to reducing the growing levels of traffic congestion. Second, transportation spending keeps people employed building infrastructure critical to economic growth. Cutting highway spending by 27 percent would lead to significant job loss and threaten our economic recovery. Finally, there is already a cash balance in the Highway Trust Fund of roughly $20 billion that could be used to help restore the $4.4 billion proposed in this bill. In the upcoming year Congress will begin reauthorizing TEA-21. This will be an important opportunity to re-examine federal transportation policies and funding levels, including the RABA provision. I encourage my colleagues today to pass this bill and help restore the much-needed highway funding that will help states meet their transportation needs, help keep the economy growing, and help to build more livable communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me time and for his courtesy. Mr. Speaker, I stood on the floor earlier this morning and heard our distinguished Republican leader extol the institution of this House to the former Members. Then our first order of business following that ceremony is a rule on defense authorization that continues the march of marginalization of this Chamber. There is, Mr. Speaker, a national debate raging about defense policy in this country. It is healthy, it is appropriate, and we all have strong feelings about it, their concern about the nature, extent and direction of national defense, but not on the floor of this Chamber. I have offered an amendment, for instance, to strike funding for the Crusader. Along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the Secretary of Defense, we have deep concerns about this. I would hope that we spend this money cleaning up the thousands of sites across the country that are polluted with military toxics and unexploded ordinance which killed two of our servicemen in this country a few weeks ago. But, no, due to this rule and the management of this piece of legislation, we are going to remain silent. I think that is sad, Mr. Speaker. I expect better from this Chamber.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I support the pro-choice Amendment offered by Representative Sanchez to the Defense Authorization bill. This amendment restores the right of female service members and dependents who are stationed overseas to use their personal funds to obtain abortions. Current law prohibits United States military service members and their dependents stationed overseas from obtaining an abortion in military hospitals, even if they pay for the procedure with their own funds. The defense authorization bill that we are considering today leaves this prohibition in place, while the Sanchez amendment removes this restriction. This ban threatens women's health and privacy. Women stationed overseas rely on their base hospitals for medical care and are often in areas where local health care facilities are inadequate or unavailable. This ban may compel a woman to postpone the procedure while she looks for a provider, or may force a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy to seek an illegal, unsafe abortion. Alternatively, she may have to inform her superiors about her need for an abortion and wait until there is space available on a military flight back to the United States, sacrificing her privacy and increasing her health risk with potentially risky delays. The ban is especially unjust because the government is not determining how and where American tax dollars are spent; it is dictating to women what they can and cannot do with their own money. Women serving overseas, defending Americans' liberties, should not be denied the very rights they are charged with protecting simply because they are serving abroad. I urge my colleagues to reject this anti- choice strategy and vote for the Sanchez amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, there is no function of our national government more fundamental than defense of the Nation. Today, our national defense is more important than ever, and with this authorization bill, we are spending more on national defense than ever. In fact, the $393 billion this bill authorizes means the United States will be spending more on our military than do the next 25 nations combined. There is no question this bill spends enough to do the job. The question is whether the money is being spent in ways that will do the right job. There is a great debate abroad in the land about the nature of the threats our Nation faces, and the best approaches to dealing with those threats. There is a robust discussion about honoring our responsibilities to those who have served this country; about the responsibility of the military, like the rest of the Federal Government, to play by the rules this Congress has established; and about the military's duty to clean up after itself by returning the lands it no longer needs to productive use for America. However, that discussion and debate is not occurring in this House. The leadership has so tightly managed the rule for debate on this measure that the House will authorize the largest increase in defense spending since 1966. We have failed our duty to the people to ask and answer the most fundamental questions: what unnecessary, wasteful systems and programs should be eliminated from this bill because they do nothing to enhance the security of the United States? What should be added in their place, to ensure that we uphold our duty to those who have served and ensure that we strengthen America with our defense investments? On the first question, the answer is clear. We need to right-size the military for the security needs of the United States today. Unfortunately, in this $393 billion, there is too much money being spent on the wrong stuff. Three examples, of many, should suffice to make the point. First, we should not be continuing to fund three tactical aircraft programs concurrently at a time when we have the pre-eminent fighter jet in the world--the F-15. Second, the bill contains $7.8 billion for missile defense, including funding for initial deployment of a national missile defense system based in Alaska. We should be alarmed that we are not taking the time as a nation to have a thoughtful dialogue on all the potential ramifications of a national missile defense system before rushing ahead with deployment. Since President Ronald Reagan's famous 1983 ``Star Wars'' speech, the United States has spent roughly $100 billion on ballistic missile defenses. We should not be throwing good money after bad. September 11 showed us that there are many threats that are more realistic than that of a ballistic missile streaking across the ocean to land on our shores. The third is perhaps the most outrageous example. Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld informed members of Congress of his decision to cancel the $11 billion Crusader program. This is a weapons system that Napolean would have loved that was designed for a war from an age long past. The Army plans to create a mobile force capable of being deployed anywhere in the world in 96 hours, but the Crusader Mobile Howitzer is still too heavy to be lifted by any transport aircraft in our fleet. Neither of the two largest military cargo transports in operation--the C-5 and the C-17--is capable of carrying a complete Crusader. The weapon's designers say they have reduced the total weight of the system from 90 tons to ``only'' 73, but that was accomplished by removing the fuel and ammunition. The Congressional Budget Office recommends killing the Crusader and purchasing a suitable alternative. The General Accounting Office has identified a German-made howitzer as a viable alternative to the Crusader. According to CBO, acquiring this off-the-shelf weapon would save $6.7 billion over 10 years. The Crusader is more suitable for fighting Adolf Hitler than meeting the challenges of today. As one Bush adviser remarked, ``Why would you buy the same artillery pieces that Napoleon would understand? It's all Industrial Age equipment.'' I submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to transfer funds from the Crusader to the cleanup of unexploded ordnance (UXO). These amendments would have supported Secretary Rumsfeld's decision on the Crusader and addressed a serious problem for the military, UXO, which is both a long-term liability and a short-term operational and public relations nightmare. In addition to these examples of unwise and wasteful expenditure, this bill authorizes unnecessary and destructive waivers of important environmental protections essential to Americans' health and the health of America's land and water. During my time in Congress, I have worked to compel the Federal Government to lead by example. This bill goes against everything I have been working toward. If we exempt the largest landowner in the country from environmental regulations, how can we expect anyone else to follow our laws? The Department of Defense wants to exempt itself from many environmental laws. This is an important decision, and should involve debate and consideration by all stakeholders. Unfortunately, the Department and their congressional supporters have circumvented the committee process to give us the provisions in this bill. This bill contains sweeping new exemptions for activities under the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Wilderness Act, important environmental protections that took years and much debate to put in place. This action should at least warrant a debate in the relevant committees. I am also disappointed that the rule on this bill does not even allow for discussion of these significant environmental exemptions. No one will argue that the U.S. military does not provide an important service, and that its ability to operate is imperative. However, in preparing itself to protect this country, the Department of Defense should not be allowed to destroy the environment that American public cherishes and the clean and healthy communities that it demands. The second question we should have more productively discussed in this House is what we could better have done with the enormous resources committed by this legislation. One answer is to better provide for the needs of those who have served our country. Our priorities should include funding concurrent receipts, which enable retirees who were injured in the line of duty to receive both their deserved retirement pay and disability payments. That is the number one issue I hear about from military retirees in my district. I am pleased that this bill starts that process by compensating retirees who are 60 percent or greater disabled, but I firmly believe we could have done more. A second example, a special area of interest to me and one that has been neglected by all of us for too long, is unexploded ordance. For 2 years now, I have been pursuing remedies to the problem of unexploded ordnance--the bombs and other munitions that didn't go off as intended and are subsequently buried or litter the landscape. There are some 2,000 former military properties in every state and nearly every congressional district where these hidden dangers lurk. This is a prime example of the need for the Federal Government to be a better partner and clean up after itself. Last year, we succeeded in requiring a prioritized nationwide inventory of UXO-contaminated sites. This year's directs the Department of Defense to designate a single point of contact for UXO. That authority may be delegated no further than the Under Secretary of one of the military departments. In addition, this bill contains language calling for an independent advisory and review panel for UXO matters. All of these provisions are part of the legislation Representative Riley and I introduced last year, the Ordnance and Explosive Risk Management Act (H.R. 2605). The Defense Department has put forward a preliminary estimated cost- to-complete of $15 billion for munitions response at Formerly Used Defense Sites. Neutral observers say this cost could in fact run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. At the FY03 proposed funding level of $70 million, it will take 200 years to complete the job, even accepting the low DOD cost estimate. It is more realistic to assume costs over a hundred billion dollars and more than a thousand years to finish the job. The delay is absolutely unacceptable for the environment and the American people. Those 2,000 sites are at locations nationwide, including Spring Valley right here in the District of Columbia which has munitions remnants left over from World War I weapons testing, and Five Points Outlying Field in Arlington, TX, where people in a new housing development are finding live ordnance in their gardens. These sites are a legacy of past military activities; it is our nation's responsibility to clean them up. They not only constitute an environmental hazard; documentation has been found detailing at least 65 deaths in this country by accidents with UXO. We are all profoundly aware of the broader implications of UXO across the globe. As we address the problem at home, we have the potential of sharing our technology and helping to solve UXO problems around the world. Placing greater emphasis on the problem of UXO and focusing a small portion of federal defense spending on it can truly have a transformational effect on the cleanup of tens of millions of acres in the United States. Such action can also impact the development and deployment of new technologies that will save millions of innocent civilians from death and dismemberment in some of the most distressed areas of the world. There is much that we could do to strengthen and better protect America with the enormous resources authorized in this bill. There are many things authorized in this bill that threaten Americans' health and safety or waste tax dollars with no benefit to our country. We must do better in shaping our Nation's defense policy. I vote ``no.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this debate has become far more political than technical. The bottom line is that the Federal Government made yet another commitment it cannot keep. Following decades of rosy predictions and assurances to the public, we explicitly promised to properly dispose of the nation's nuclear waste. Twenty years and $8 billion dollars later, we are still not prepared to do so. This is not acceptable. We need to keep our promise to communities across the country that are temporarily storing waste in sites that are vulnerable to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. We are not ready to open the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. There are too many unresolved questions, even as the Administration agrees that the current storage system can reasonably remain for many years. The low standards and inadequate science that the Department of Energy has shown at Hanford in the Pacific Northwest for decades are apparent at Yucca Mountain as well. Even if we do go forward with this proposal, by the time that the Yucca Mountain site is ready to actually accept waste underground, we will have already exceeded its capacity. By the year 2035, the waste from just commercial power plants currently in operation is expected to be at least 90,000 tons. Yucca Mountain can only hold 77,000 tons. By law, in order to expand the capacity at Yucca, a second site must be named. Since Hanford, Washington was examined as one of the potential sites up until 1987, we have every reason to believe that the Department of Energy will look to Hanford as a second site once Yucca is full. The approval of Yucca Mountain will set a dangerous precedent for other potential sites such as Hanford. When Yucca Mountain failed to meet repository guidelines, the Department of Energy rewrote those guidelines to avoid disqualifying the site. I don't want this same low standard to be applied to Hanford or any of the other potential sites. The Bush Administration is pushing approval of Yucca Mountain now because nuclear energy is a large part of its national energy policy. Yucca is not now a viable long-term solution. It may never be. It makes no sense to rely on an energy source that produces a deadly waste for which we have no safe or long-term solution for clean up or storage. As long as we continue to produce at least a fifth of our energy from nuclear power plants, we are going to have a nuclear waste problem. Yucca will not solve that. I don't pretend to know the answers to our nuclear waste problem. I'm convinced that transporting the waste across the country in casks that have not been properly tested and burying it under a mountain whose geological features are not what we once thought they were is not the answer. While some may sound confident, I'm not sure anyone has a good roadmap in hand. This is precisely why we should not implement a policy that is going to make the situation worse. Approving Yucca Mountain as a repository site will be giving the nuclear industry a green light to produce more waste, despite the industry's inability to clean up after itself or even pay for its own insurance. Until we find a real solution to the nuclear waste problem, we should not encourage more of it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this Farm Bill Conference Report represents a missed opportunity on many levels to finally redirect agricultural policy to reflect today's realities and respond to tomorrow's challenges. It represents a lost opportunity for taking care of the environment. It is a lost opportunity to provide meaningful assistance to the family farmer. It is a lost opportunity for farmers in Oregon. Since the Farm Bill has so many direct and indirect impacts on urban and rural economies, it also contains other opportunities too numerous to list. We could have easily done much more. Instead, the Conferees repeatedly ignored the wishes of a majority of Senators and Representatives. They have cloaked their actions in language of concern about family farms and the environment. Yet they repeatedly struck provisions that would have made a meaningful difference to both. A few of the more egregious examples include ignoring Senate and House votes to set reasonable limits on subsidies and provisions agreed to by both the House and Senate to protect and enhance environmental clean up payments to family farms by limiting payments to corporate livestock producers. They dropped the Senate provision to limit overproduction on sensitive lands. The 80 percent ``increase'' in conservation funding claimed by supporters is misleading. Critical conservation programs are cut by almost $3 billion from the Senate bill and national conservation priorities are not addressed. The percentage of the farm bill devoted to conservation is actually less than the 1996 Farm Bill. This farm bill does not help the majority of farmers. Because subsidies increase with the amount of crops produced, this bill benefits primarily the largest agribusinesses. It has been estimated that up to 73 percent of farm subsidies go to just 10 percent of farms, most with annual incomes over $250,000. The conference report provides little support to the majority of farm families, directing only 12 percent of the funding to the bottom 80 percent of farmers. This Farm Bill is not good for Oregon. The imbalance of payments maintained in this bill disadvantages states like Oregon, where we don't grow as many commodity program-supported crops as other states. Negotiators dropped key language to address one of the state's most pressing environmental crises in the Klamath Basin. This was a lost opportunity to redirect our farm policy and restore the natural hydrology of the basin and to ensure that all federal agencies were implementing their federal trust responsibility with Native Americans. An overwhelming majority of the public supports redirecting our agricultural funding to protecting the environment. In the end, despite all the talk of the importance of conservation this Conference Report will shrink conservation spending as a percentage of total farm spending. As stated by the League of Conservation Voters, ``The version of the Farm Bill . . . is a missed opportunity to support meaningful conservation of America's farm lands.'' The Conference Report requires taxpayers to foot the bill for helping corporate livestock producers clean up their waste, even though they are already required to do so under the Clean Water Act. Currently, the average payment for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program is only $9,000 and almost 200,000 applications are left without funding. Instead of directing more funding to clean-up this backlog, the conferees have opened the flood gates for mega producers to expand and divert badly needed money away from small and average size family farms. While farmers in some states receive over 20 cents for each dollar of product they generate, farmers in significant agricultural states like Oregon, Florida, Pennsylvania, and California receive 3 cents or less. Even though the number of farmland acres lost to sprawl doubled over the last six years, negotiators cut $1.25 billion out of the only federal program to help farmers curb sprawl. They also failed to adopt Senate language that would have ensured conservation programs work in every state and don't discriminate against farmers and ranchers in areas with high land values, an important provision for my state. It is a lost opportunity for improving animal welfare. Both the House and the Senate passed important animal rights provisions. Unfortunately, one by one, these provisions have been stripped in conference, against the will of the majority of Members in the House and the Senate. We had the chance to close loopholes that would have limited the barbaric practice of cockfighting already illegal in 47 states and to stop the potential export of these birds across state lines. Instead, the conferees ignored identical language in both the House and Senate bills to impose stiffer penalties on those engaged in illegal transport of these animals across state lines. They also extended the effective date from 30 days to one year giving illegal cockfighters an extra eleven months to continue their practice. The final bill strikes provisions dealing with downed animals at slaughter facilities. This issue bears on human health as well as animal welfare. It is not healthy to have sick and traumatized animals in the food chain. This conference report represents a lost opportunity for improving food safety and protecting consumers. This Farm Bill is not good for the taxpayers. Because of how it is structured we won't know for years how expensive this bill will ultimately be. Ironically, much of this cost goes into paying subsidies that create surpluses and further depress crop prices. Stung by the embarrassing revelation about who really benefits from farm payments, House conferees attempted to amend the Freedom of Information Act to hide part of the payment information instead of adopting reasonable limits. Luckily, the Senate language prevailed and the information on all subsidies, which will be more disturbing in the future, will be available to the public. The conferees turned a blind eye to the recent House vote which passed 265-158 in favor of the Senate's $275,000 payment limit and instead today's bill imposes a $360,000 payment limit that is largely meaningless through its exemptions for large scale agribusiness such as those who participate in rice and cotton certificate programs. This Farm Bill is not good for tribal governments because the federal government does not fulfill its trust responsibility in regards to Native Americans. Language that passed in the Senate but was dropped by the Conferees that would have authorized a Forest Service assistance program for tribes seeking grants and provided informed and uniform guidance in the Agency's widespread relations with tribes. This was a missed opportunity to promote greater cooperation between the U.S. Forest Service and forest conservation by tribal governments. Finally, this farm Bill is not good for international trade. U.S. farm subsidies send the wrong message to other regions such as Europe and Japan that have more protectionist policies than we do. We cannot freely compete in those markets and we don't have the moral authority to object when we are subsidizing our farmers. Several provisions of this Farm Bill will qualify as ``price-distorting'' practices and the World Trade Organization can be expected to impose trade sanctions on American farm products, and this would have a devastating effective on U.S. exports. Even though we were unsuccessful in the effort to change the Farm Bill and capture many lost opportunities it is now clear that it is past time to modernize our farm policies. I am hopeful that this flawed bill and process nonetheless will help usher in a new era of agricultural support and protection for this new century.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I do identify with the comments of my colleague from Michigan, a family farmer who is focusing on the priority needs of agriculture in this country. I look at this bill before us, and I argue against the bill; I argue against the rule. It is a lost opportunity for farmers, for people in my State, in Oregon, for conservation and water quality, and, most definitely, a lost opportunity for American taxpayers and consumers. We are going to hear a lot of talk about conservation, and clearly conservation is a critical need for American agriculture. The rural- urban interface to protect farmland and their suburban neighbors is absolutely critical. Yet this bill struck important Senate provisions for conservation; and even though there is a huge increase in the dollar amount for agriculture, so large we do not know how much is going to be spent under this bill, at the end of the day, it devotes a smaller percentage for conservation than the 1996 bill. It stripped out or watered down animal welfare provisions. This House approved provisions dealing with animal fighting, cockfighting. It reduced those penalties and delayed its implementation for a year. Also dealing with downed animals. It is not a good bill in terms of animal welfare. There are those, sadly, who think the only way you are going to help agriculture is to be able to pile more benefits on the very largest producers. They ignore the fact that already there are almost 200,000 unmet applications for water conservation funding. These average only $9,000 per payment. What they have done is to expand these programs to the very largest producers, further subsidize these large feedlot operations, increase the benefits to $450,000 for years to come, and ignore being able to put more money to those who need it most. It does little or nothing to deal with the needs of 80 percent of agriculture in my State and around the country, and it focuses on the largest elements. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, we are presented with the next 10 years of agricultural policy that comes down to this: huge increases in dollars, no one knows how much, and a lost opportunity to forge a program for the needs of agriculture for the next century.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to elaborate on what the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) just mentioned. We talked earlier about the need for this legislation to prohibit the stark choice between moving activities overseas and being able to continue in this country. I had mentioned a specific example that is relevant to my district. Less than a mile from where I live, there is a unionized factory, Freight Liner, owned by Chrysler Daimler-Benz which has used this program to export heavy, high-value trucks to Chile, sales that would not have occurred otherwise. Now, Daimler-Benz is involved with not just owning a subsidiary that produces these huge, high-end, very expensive trucks, it also is involved with luxury automobiles. Now if we were to adopt the gentleman's amendment that requires that all activities be treated exactly the same, we could be in an ominous situation where there might be layoffs that were warranted because there has been a reduction in the luxury car business that might result in a rational business decision, but we would not necessarily want to be holding to the same standard a requirement that there be reductions in the heavy truck manufacturing. They are two entirely different product lines subjected to different market forces, and they are located in different parts of the world. Mr. Chairman, I think that attempts to micromanage this can have some very serious unintended consequences. I think it is not rational to assume that everybody is doing the same in these large enterprises today, and to subject on top of it rather extensive reporting and paperwork requirements. I would strongly urge that we set this amendment aside, reject it, support the underlying bill and allow the process to work.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, one of my priorities in Congress is strengthening the economies of my community and of nations around the world. By supporting HR 2897, I support an institution that provides assistance to businesses who often operate in riskier markets where financing is not available from private banks. The Bank has a strong record of supporting U.S. businesses. In FY2001, Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) supported over $12.5 billion in U.S. exports to markets worldwide. Some critics argue that these loans primarily benefited large multinational corporations, however, in reality the majority of the Bank's transactions--9 out of 10--benefited small businesses. The fact is that each year more than 2,000 American companies--large, medium, and small--in almost every state utilize Ex-Im Bank services. One of these small businesses in my district is Oxis International, Inc.--a manufacturer of medical diagnostic equipment used to test levels of therapeutic drugs in the blood. Oxis used Ex-Im Bank's multibuyer short-term insurance policy for almost five years, and the company's exports grew from one-third to approximately one-half of sales. According to Jon Pitcher, chief financial officer of Oxis International, Inc. ``As a result of using Ex-Im Bank's insurance policy, we have been able to increase our sales, and these exports are now the fastest-growing part of our business.'' In another instance, Pacific/Hoe Saw and Knife Company of Portland, a manufacturer of saw blades, industrial saws, and wholesale sawmill equipment, has used Ex-Im Bank's multibuyer short-term (up to 180 days) insurance policy for 10 years to increase sales to South America, Africa, Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. Following this successful trend, last September Portland's Calbag Metal Company recently paid off their $50 million loan to the Ex-Im bank on schedule. Finally Freightliner LLC--a heavy-duty truck manufacturer that employs 14,000 people--benefited from a guarantee that made it possible for Freightliner to transport ten trucks to Santiago, Chile where they were sold. The prices for these trucks would have likely been undercut, the trucks never shipped, and the jobs associated with building the trucks never allocated, if Ex-Im Bank did not assist Freightliner. Overall, the past five years Ex-Im Bank has supported $190 million in exports for companies like Freightliner, Oxis, Calbag Metals, Pacific/ Hoe Saw and Knife Company that are based in Oregon. A closure of the bank would feasibly reduce these companies' exports, jeopardize the jobs that are associated with those sales, and make them unable to counter export financing packages provided by foreign governments to their own exporters. I withhold my support of the Sanders Amendment. This provision naively assumes that firms produce only one product when in reality many corporations produce a variety of products that affect employment levels across product lines in different ways. Because Freightliner, for example, is a subsidiary of DaimlerChrysler, the amendment would make Freightliner ineligible for Bank funding if a greater percentage of their truck machinists are laid off in Portland than those who build Mercedes-Benz's in Brazil. Clearly the semi-truck market and the luxury automobile market are not related and should not be irrationally penalized. I urge my colleagues to support the overall bill. It helps strengthen American businesses, create jobs, and improve critical trade relations with foreign markets.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I take modest exception with my colleague from California. Over time the majority of the loans have gone to small business, but at issue for me is not small business, large business, it is whether or not we are going to be able to help American companies penetrate difficult markets around the world. I have had an example in my own community. We have a company, a freight liner, that is the largest manufacturer of heavy trucks in the country. It employs all union employees, primarily machinists. They are paid family wages in order to do their work. But they are undergoing tough times in Oregon. They have been involved with significant layoffs. They have benefitted from a loan from the Ex-Im Bank to be able to transact a shipment of 10 trucks to Chile, it would not have happened without that loan. It would have gone to somebody else. It kept people in my community working and it helped us penetrate the market. There are lots of subsidies that we know around the world. In fact, that is one of the problems that American companies face as they attempt to compete internationally, that other countries have subtle ways of subsidizing activities for other companies. This is a way for us to be able to give access to capital for American companies going into tough markets to be able to secure their place in the market place. I would rather, frankly, have the Chinese dealing with Boeing than Airbus. I understand that there is some difficult issues that are going on there. I listen to some of my friends from the other side of this issue, but it is pretty stark. We are going to be a lot worse off if we are not able to penetrate those markets around the world. I strongly urge that we reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank. I hope that each year as we come up with issues here that raise questions, there are areas of refinements. I think we ought to increase their sensitivity in terms of the application of those loans to the environment, to worker rights, to be able to make sure that we are targeting where we want it the most. But the Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, these are tools that have made a difference in my community. I have seen it for small and medium size businesses, I have seen it for large businesses that are struggling, when we are trying to compete around the world when we are facing some difficult economic times at home. This is not the time to turn our back on it. I strongly urge support for the legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and I appreciate his leadership in focusing America's attention on the tremendous lost opportunity that is represented by the agriculture bill that has been put before us for a vote tomorrow. The gentleman is right, there are issues large and small that illustrate the problems with the mindset that we have been greeted with the Committee on Agriculture in the House in terms of its treatment of the desires of these Members. I had one little tiny provision that I thought would not be particularly controversial that dealt with animal fighting, cockfighting, really a sort of barbaric practice, where people watch chickens that have been trained to maim each other, to fight to the death, where you just have a little pile of feathers and blood at the end. It is cruel and inhumane to the animals, but it is also part of, in many States, illegal gambling operations. It leads to illegal activities and violence. That is why we had all sorts of law enforcement authorities that wanted it to move forward. It is illegal in 47 States. Identical provisions passed in the House and Senate to make it illegal to at least transport these creatures across State lines, and maybe help law enforcement.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. As someone who comes from an agriculture State and somebody who is concerned about the relationship of prime agricultural land to our cities, this interface, the urban-rural interface, is critical to be able to maintain some of the most productive farmland in America. Right now, we do not have the tools to help preserve it; and sadly, what we have been given from the conference committee makes this situation worse. It cuts critical conservation programs by almost $3 billion from the Senate bill and left out national conservation priorities. Even though the number of farmland acres lost to sprawl doubled, doubled over the last 6 years, the negotiators, in their wisdom, cut $1.25 billion out of the only Federal program to help farmers curb sprawl. The tension between landowners and Federal agency and conservation interests over the endangered species issues have split communities all over the country. Yet the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program was cut in half, from the Senate level of almost $1.5 billion to $700 million. They dropped key language to address national environmental priorities, like reducing runoff to the Chesapeake Bay, and, in my region of the Pacific Northwest, missed an opportunity to reduce the water use in the Klamath Basin, which has been brought to national attention. These farmers were promised more by the Federal Government over the last century than nature can produce. This was an opportunity to help solve the problem and protect the farmers. They turned their back. It tilted the new grasslands easement program towards short-term contracts instead of permanent easements, even though the overwhelming demand for producers is for permanent easements. They also failed to adopt Senate language that would have ensured conservation programs work in every State and do not discriminate against farmers and ranchers in areas with high land values. I just find it tragic that our conferees turned their backs on a good product that came from the Senate that would have helped farmers in all of our communities. I would just conclude my portion, Mr. Speaker, to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dan Miller), with whom I look forward again to working on the sugar issue. But this legislation that we are going to have before us tomorrow represents a sad missed opportunity. It was a lost opportunity for the environment, as I have outlined. It was a lost opportunity in areas like animal welfare, the fighting birds that I mentioned, or being able to take downed animals out of the food chain. It is a food safety, as well as a humane, issue. This is a lost opportunity for those of us who practice agriculture in the West. This is not a good bill for Oregon, Washington, and California. It hurts, it hurts the majority of farmers who, as the gentleman pointed out, need our help. I am hopeful, I am hopeful that this House tomorrow will support that motion to recommit to reinstate those limits, to redirect the priorities so that we can make a little progress on this important bill for the future, not just of American agriculture, but for communities from coast to coast, border to border.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. We did. It passed on the floor to put felony provisions for people who would transport these fighting birds, and also to export fighting dogs. What happened in the agriculture conference committee is that the penalty provisions that would have closed the loophole were gutted. It went back to a misdemeanor, so it would not be enforced, even though identical provisions passed both the House and Senate. Even these watered-down provisions are not going to go into effect for another year. Now I use this just as one example, a little tiny example, that shows where the will of the House and the Senate, identical provisions, and something, frankly, that the American public would have even greater penalty provisions in, it would go farther, they read it in. They cut it back. They gutted it. It is nothing in terms of the damage that would be done as far as the American taxpayer is concerned. The gentleman is absolutely correct, and I appreciate it and was pleased to join with the gentleman on the floor in his efforts to put a cap on those payments here in the House. The gentleman is right, 265 Members voted to instruct, to have the Senate's $275,000 payment limit. Lo and behold, we get a bill back, it is the new $360,000 limit, and all sorts of problems and additional aspects to this that actually make that illusory. We see example after example where this agriculture bill is a missed opportunity. We missed an opportunity, and, if time permits, I would like to talk in a few minutes about some of the environmental provisions. It is a missed opportunity for the American taxpayer to rein in costs. It is a missed opportunity in States like mine where there are huge problems with specialty crops, where there are people that would exercise better conservation practices if they had a little help.