Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. One of the things that I wanted to spend a moment on deals with the environmental aspects. The gentleman has been speaking earlier, and I think very forcefully, and focusing on how bad a deal this is for the taxpayers, the costs that are associated with this. We are going to hear in the course of this discussion that this 10-year bill represents a quantum increase in conservation. Well, we are going to find that virtually all the major environmental groups are going to come out opposed to this legislation. Yes, it is true that there will be a dollar increase over the next 10 years, and it will be a significant increase over the next 10 years. But this, put in the context of how great the need is and how much money we are going to be throwing at all aspects of the agricultural program, this actually represents a retreat. We are going to find that as a result of this bill, it will represent a lower percentage of the total Federal commitment to agriculture than the farm bill of 1996. It has been stated, I think very well, by the Defenders of Wildlife: ``All the talk of the importance of conservation work has, in the end, amounted to a hollow shell of the conservation budget that came out of the Senate. The conference report will shrink conservation spending as a percent of total farm spending.'' I would like to talk for a moment, if I could, about some of the specifics. We have the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. This is very important. It is a way to help deal with the real environmental problems that are faced by agricultural producers. Under current law, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the EQIP, is limited to small- and medium-sized producers and restricts payments to $50,000 over multiple years. When the House and Senate opened this to corporate livestock producers, they argued that, well, these payment limits would restrict the large factory farms from receiving large payments to clean up their waste and from draining money out of the program. Well, it was not just the overall caps that the negotiators turned their backs on. They turned their backs on the small and medium producers when they multiplied the current limit nine times over to $450,000 for multiple years. The current program has a backlog of almost 200,000 applications for small and medium producers. The average payment last year was $9,000. Now we are opening the door to large factory farms. We are waving large checks in front of Smithfield and Tyson Foods, and we are going to have the small producers squeezed to the back of the line. It is going to put more and more pressure on them to have to either sell out or consolidate. It is an important step backwards.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2646. The form of the motion is as follows: I move that the House conferees on H.R. 2646, an act to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2011, be instructed to leave intact the House provisions of the House and Senate bills, specifically those which: amend section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act, (7 U.S.C. 2156), subsection (e), to strike ``$5,000'' and insert ``$15,000''; and to strike ``1 year penalty provision'' and insert ``2 years''; and it provide that the amendments to section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this act.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend a moment on the floor of the House this afternoon dealing with an issue that passed this House by voice vote overwhelmingly during the discussion on the agricultural bill earlier this session. We now have in conference the ag bill that seems to be moving forward. I have grave concerns in one particular area, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to be working over the course of the next few days to seek clarification because I want to make sure that the intent of the House and the Senate are preserved in the final form that comes out of conference. Mr. Speaker, there has been a practice of cockfighting, game hens, that has been tolerated by this Congress even though it is now illegal in 47 States. The public long ago has come to the point that this practice is inherently inhumane and barbaric. The handlers of these fighting birds drug the animals to heighten their aggression and to clot the blood. They affix knives or ice picks like gaffs to their legs and place them into a pit to fight until one of them is dead, all for amusement and illegal gambling. Mr. Speaker, this barbaric practice is slowly being made illegal around the country. It is currently legal in only three States. The problem is that under current law it is still legal to transport these birds from States where it is illegal to States that it is legal, and this loophole is exploited to allow people to maintain, to train, and it facilitates illegal game bird fighting. Last October, my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), and I offered two amendments to the farm bill that would close these loopholes and strengthen the penalty for violations of animal fighting laws. These two amendments were passed overwhelmingly by this body by voice vote, adopted in identical form in the Senate. This, in fact, should not even be a conference item. Identical language was adopted by both the House and the Senate. The intent of both Chambers was to close the loophole, ban foreign export of fighting animals, and increase the penalty. According to the House Agriculture Committee's Web site, a conference committee is permitted to deal only with matters in disagreement between the House and the Senate. It may not change language that both have previously approved. Unfortunately, it is pretty clear to me that people are, in fact, looking at watering down the penalty provisions in particular, and to deal with problems, some people are saying, I have been told by one high-ranking member of the conference committee that they are concerned that there is not a problem with 4-H clubs dealing with raising these chickens that the 4-H'ers produce. Well, first of all, to prosecute a cockfighting case, law enforcement officers must have evidence of the illegal activity. The birds intended to be used in these cock fights are identifiable by several indicators, including the special structures that they are kept in, the fighting paraphernalia, the specific drugs that are provided to them to heighten the aggression and to aid the blood clotting. The Animal Welfare Act already prohibits interstate transports for dogs for fighting purposes, and we have not had anybody come to this floor and say, well, we have these provisions in Federal law and we cannot have legitimate show-dog activities, that it is interfering with the buying, transport, and delivery of animals for purposes that do not impact animal fighting. Of course not. Reasonable people apply the laws reasonably, and this is absolutely specious. There is a problem, however, because people will run through this loophole to continue to exploit the illegal game fighting that is happening in these States where it is illegal but it is legal to grow them, legal to train them, legal to transport them. One of the problems is that the current penalties are 26 years old. They are not high enough to warrant prosecution of violations. What we hear from the U.S. Department of Justice and the USDA, that they have indicated that they would give more consideration if they were a felony and included higher fines and jail time. That is what the House passed. That is what the conference committee should protect, and if we are not able to do that, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to bring a motion to this floor to instruct the conferees to respect the rights and the will of the House and the Senate and to do what the American people want and end this cruel and barbaric practice.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that for decades, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has been beleaguered with complaints of mismanagement, ineffective border control and a growing backlog of immigrant applications and petitions. The events of September 11th underscored the need for an immigration overhaul. H.R. 3231 is a step in the right direction to improve this institution. However, unless Congress and the Administration make immigration a priority and are willing to adequately fund its mission, then this structural division of INS will not make a difference. In order for immigration to be successful, the Administration must support: The front end of the State Department. From Mexico City to Manila the consular corps are understaffed and overburdened. As people apply for entry in the U.S. abroad, we cannot strengthen INS without commensurate support for the State Dept. Adequate funding for services and law enforcement measures. Far too often, INS employees are being asked to do more and more without sufficient resources. The Federal Government must make it a priority to provide them with the tools they need to do their jobs effectively and efficiently. Only when the several agencies involved in immigration--from the State Dept. to INS--can cooperate and implement a clear, concise, and consistent mission will immigration control redeem itself from a history of mismanagement and ineffective border control. I support the passage of H.R. 3231.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3763, the Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act. This bill moves policy in the direction necessary to strengthen corporate and auditor oversight needed to prevent future debacles that we have seen recently at Enron and Global Crossing, and in the past with the Savings and Loan catastrophe. These oversight failures have led to the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars of savings by innocent investors and employees. These losses have shattered the lives of families, including those in my district who are employed at Portland General Electric, which was purchased by Enron in 1997. Congress owes it to the American public to put in place measures that will eliminate conflicts of interest, lack of independence, and special protections given to accountants and lawyers, which have all been critical factors leading to corporate and industry failures. Due to the severe impact that these corporate failures create, I urge the House to implement more significant reforms by passing the Democratic Substitute amendment, which: Creates an independent regulatory board that can set strict standards for auditor independence, with sweeping investigative and disciplinary powers over audit firms. Holds corporate CEOs accountable by requiring them to certify the accuracy of their financial statements and empowers the SEC to bar those guilty of wrongdoing from serving as corporate officers or directors at other companies. Prohibits auditors from doing consulting work for the same clients they are in charge of auditing, thereby insuring that auditors remain independent and are not subject to conflicts of interests. Bans analysts from owning stocks in the companies on which they report and prohibits their pay from being based on their investment firm's banking revenue. The Democratic approach ensures that our corporate leaders, financial statement auditors, and stock analysts have adequate independent oversight and regulations to fulfill their professional duties. However, I also support the underlying bill, H.R. 3763, which begins the process of putting in place the reforms needed to prevent future tragedies that are so devastating to the savings and lives of American workers and investors.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as we deal with global issues that at times threaten to overwhelm us, there are issues here at home that we can get our arms around that deal with the quality of life, one being the consequence of unplanned growth and development right here in our neighborhood. Some call it sprawl; others call it dumb growth. The facts are that many Americans are increasingly frustrated by the consequences of haphazard development and a failure to balance the needs of individuals, businesses, and the natural environment and the activities that impact on people's lives now. I have worked with the American Planning Association and a bipartisan group of Members of Congress in both Chambers to produce the Community Character Act, legislation which would provide incentives and resources to assist communities, cities, and States to develop appropriate responses. Recently, this legislation came under attack by the administration. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Mel Martinez, stated that the proposed legislation would ``infringe on the rights of local and State governments to manage their growth.'' He went on to say that it ``sets a dangerous precedent to make the Secretary of HUD, Commerce or Agriculture the land use arbiter with the power to usurp the local government's authority.'' It is clear that the Secretary and his staff have not analyzed this bill. Indeed, they have appeared not to have read it at all. A key reason for the Community Character Act and a primary obstacle to State comprehensive planning stems from the outdated statutes in place at the State level. Roughly half the States rely on a model of land use planning legislation that was created by the Department of Commerce over 70 years ago. The transformation of America's landscape and settlement patterns since the 1920s has changed drastically. Updating State plans are necessary to create the framework that will allow the States to address the modern world and adequately plan for the future. The Community Character Act directly responds to the widespread concerns of citizens and local governments on this issue. In 1999, approximately 1,000 land-use reform bills were introduced in legislatures across the country. On Election Day 2000, there were over 550 State and local ballot measures related to land use planning and development issues. Over 70 percent of them passed. A recent survey indicated that 78 percent of the voters believe that it is important for this Congress to help communities solve problems associated with urban growth. More than 75 percent of the voters think Congress should provide incentives, funding, and other resources to help with livability. Our bill provides grants for the States to help do their work. It does not dictate a one-size-fits-all approach, but rather, recognizes that each State is unique and wants its own approach. What is important is that the States take an approach. The bill would reward them for moving forward. It is true that one size does not fit all, and that is precisely why this legislation does not mandate any particular action by the State or local level. It instead provides an incentive for States to address the issues that most directly affect their prosperity and well-being, such as promoting sustainable development in economic and social equity; coordinating transportation, housing, education, and other infrastructure development; and conserving historic resources and the environment. We all have a stake in this effort, and the Federal Government has a critical role to play. Our Federal Government has been involved in land use issues since the beginning of the Republic, when we took land away from the Native Americans and gave it to Europeans to farm, and in building our Nation's transportation infrastructure of ports, roads, railroads, canals, the air system, the Internet highway system. Those were all Federal initiatives. It sets the rules, like for wetlands development; and then there is the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, that all have a profound effect on Americans and on how we use our land. But most important, the Federal Government is the largest landlord, landowner, and employer in this great country. Instead of creating conflicts that do not exist, the Federal Government needs to do three simple things: It needs to be a better steward of our own lands; it needs to follow the same rules that we ask the rest of America to follow in dealing with their land; and finally, it needs to be a better partner with State and local governments across the country. Together with the Federal Government as a partner with the private sector, State and local governments, and individual communities, we can make our communities more livable, where our families are safer, healthier, and more economically secure. I strongly urge the administration and my colleagues to support the Community Character Act to help get us there.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of the most disturbing trends for governance in America is the tendency to have short-term political expediency regarding budget, tax, and fiscal affairs trump responsible long-term policy. State and federal statutes and initiatives have been passed, which allow politicians and the public to feel good in the short term, give the illusion of solving problems, but setting up in the long term a fiscal train wreck. We have seen in state after state where tax cuts in the 1990s were joined by formulas for education and corrections that basically put the services in a form of autopilot. Money went automatically to certain forms of education expenditure while corrections systems were mandated to incarcerate more people for longer periods of time. These ``focus group'' driven policy initiatives, many ratified by voters without a careful analysis of the consequences, effectively painted states and the federal government into a corner. Everybody appears or at least acts like they are powerless. In the short term, given a conflicting set of legislative and voter approved initiatives, a good argument can be made that they are. While policies and politics are sorted out, basic services suffer and public frustration grows. On the federal level, we are in the midst of unraveling solid progress of the last decade to reign in federal spending and to impose some degree of fiscal discipline. While I didn't agree with all of the initiatives, and in fact voted against some as a Member of Congress, we were headed along a path that gave us choices to either restore draconian cuts or make other adjustments to help meet legitimate needs of our citizens. One year ago, the projected 10-year budget surplus was $5.6 trillion and elimination of the public debt was projected by 2010. Now, with record increases in Defense spending and the impacts of last year's recession well analyzed, the Republican leadership is attempting to make permanent tax cuts that will destroy any semblance of fiscal sanity. To fund a tax cut that delivers 44 percent of the benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent, the Republican budget invades the Social Security Trust Fund for a total of $1.5 trillion over the next ten years and $4.0 trillion in the following decade. The absurdity of the Republican leadership's fiscal policy would have a devastating effect on the federal government's ability to fulfill its commitments, such as Social Security and Medicare, and respond to unexpected events, like war and recession, for decades to come. The raid on Social Security and Medicare surpluses is not the only problem. The education of our children, the traffic congestion in our cities, and concerns about our drinking water and air quality are a few of the greatest challenges facing our communities. To put the size of the Republican leadership's tax cut and domestic priorities in perspective, when fully effective the tax cut will be--four times the budget for the entire Department of Education--more than three times as large as the Department of Transportation; and--twenty-four times the size of the Environmental Protection Agency. This week's series of votes marks a culmination of the worst instincts of the political process on the federal level and the abrogation of our federal responsibilities. A year ago I voted against a tax cut that was based on faulty logic at a time when our economy was softening and when we had not kept commitments we said had priority. Our Medicare system is sadly out of date with modern medical realities and faces three serious threats: (1) It doesn't meet the needs of seniors today who rely on ever increasing amounts of expensive drug therapy; (2) It artificially reduces costs by squeezing providers with a reimbursement rate for doctors and hospitals that are dramatically below the actual cost of service; (3) The long term stability of the Medicare program is jeopardized, while costs of this jerry-rigged system are going to explode at precisely the time there will be more pressures for Social Security funding. The consensus of people I meet in Oregon and around the country is that these policies are irresponsible. We ought to allow the majority in the House and Senate--both Republicans and Democrats--to work together to solve these problems. We ought not to have empty partisan maneuvering that is a calculated to further erode political trust and public confidence. This charade has only destructive results. It will further inflame partisan tensions, polarize people, and make it harder to do what responsible members of Congress and most of the public know needs to happen--put our fiscal house in order. Were it to actually be enacted into law it would further tighten our fiscal straightjacket, making it harder to fulfill responsibilities and promises, while creating artificial crises that will haunt us for years to come. This isn't just shameless political posturing before an election. It is evidence of a political process that is rapidly losing its capacity to respond in a thoughtful, dignified, and public-spirited fashion.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me to speak on this motion. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine anyplace outside of the Beltway where having a subsidy of $275,000 limit is starving people to death. Yes, it is possible that people in this current system are involved with slowly spiraling down into greater and greater debt. Overproduction, my colleague from Michigan talked about that, where we are encouraging people to plant crops, overproduce, driving down the cost and leaving the problem either for the individual to bear the burden or for the taxpayer. There is a better way. There is the opportunity here with this motion to instruct for us to be able to deal with how we spend the money more wisely. There is no reason that we cannot help producers around the country do things that will make a difference to help them stay in business. It is expensive to be able to comply with water quality, to be able to change some agricultural practices. There are people that are being driven around the country into subdividing farms because of market pressures. We can have money for conservation payments, for purchase of development rights, to be able to help them stay in business. The current system, with its lavish spending, is not stopping the loss of farms. We just heard in Nebraska, a thousand farms went out of the hands of family farmers. We are having a system now without the limitation that it drives the incentives toward larger and larger activities, more and more overproduction for a few commodities, and then in my State where there are row crops, where there are specialty crops that do not get the help, there are people that are literally bulldozing orchards because they cannot afford to maintain it. This is goofy. We should go along with this motion to instruct to be able to have the support for the Senate efforts for conservation. Remember, on this floor earlier, my colleague from Wisconsin, there was a broad cross- section, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and others, had a strong showing, there is a strong basis of support for increasing conservation payments, limiting commodity. It narrowly was defeated here. It was passed in the Senate. That is no justification for the conferees to dramatically cut back on conservation payments. What we are going to face here as we continue to have celebrity farmers from Beverly Hills to Houston to Denver in the last 5 years got over a half billion dollars, we can crank down on that. We have the wherewithal to be able to limit payments to families. We do not have to be discriminating against one sex or the other. We can make sure that we are going to be able to have the help to the people who need it the most. But $17.1 billion for conservation programs means that people are going to be lining up, they are not going to get the money that they want, we are still going to lose family farms, and the taxpayer will pay the bill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that today we will vote on H.R. 476, the so-called ``Child Custody Protection Act.'' This anti-choice bill would dangerously criminalize help from relatives and close friends who assist young women struggling with the most difficult personal challenges. I wish that every child was in a loving family that they could turn to first. The facts are, however, that many young women do not have that type of relationship with their parents and in too many cases we have seen the actual problem caused by abusive close family members. People who would deny women reproductive choice have altered their tactics to chip away at women's reproductive freedoms; this is one of the most insidious examples. This bill would limit the choices for the most desperate women and is part of an overall anti-choice strategy that I reject. Draconian measures like H.R. 476 often have unintended consequences that can lead to desperate actions with dire consequences for the mental health and physical well-being of our nation's young women.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy of yielding me this time. I have been listening in disbelief to the testimony here before us today. I represent as many Enron survivors as probably almost anybody in the House, and I have heard people ask, Could we find some workers that would be willing to serve on the board? I will tell my colleagues, they are lining up in Portland, Oregon. They would love to serve. I have heard people who are concerned about the trial lawyers being involved. Well, the trial lawyers did not create the problem in Portland; but I will tell my colleagues, there are lots of Republicans lining up to hire them to try and salvage a little bit of their dream. Today's Republican pension bill I think falls far short in an obviously flawed pension system. I support the substitute. The chairman of the committee referenced the act that we passed last fall before we knew about some of these abuses dealing with conflicted investment advice. Well, I will tell my colleagues, it was wrong last fall; and if the Members on this floor knew of the abuses and the problems, I do not think it would have passed then. It is critical that we provide true security for retirement savings, that we hold corporate executives accountable for their actions, that we give employees some mode of control over their own retirement dollars, that we give them a voice. God forbid that there be as many employee representatives as employer representatives. I am not afraid of that; and I will tell my colleagues, the people in Portland who have been brutalized by this system, I think they would find it to be a great, great proposal to put into effect. I will tell my colleagues the pain that I have witnessed firsthand with people who have had to delay their retirement, who have had their family's dreams shattered; and being disillusioned as a result of this is impossible to be able to give voice to. But thankfully, some of these witnesses have come to Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that it happened in Portland, Oregon; and it can happen anywhere. That is why we need to support this substitute.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3762, the Republican leadership's missed opportunity to address concerns for the security of working Americans' pension plans. I fully support the Democratic substitute amendment, which makes an honest attempt to correct the problems apparent in the wake of the Enron debacle. I represent as many Enron survivors as anyone outside of Houston. Portland, Oregon is the home of Portland General Electric (PGE), a stable utility company founded in 1889 that has provided steady employment to 2,700 employees. Enron purchased PGE in 1997. PGE line employees did not volunteer for this takeover. They were working for a profitable and respected company, earning a fair salary and saving for retirement in a stable pension plan. After Enron's purchase of PGE, it was only a few years before the stability of Enron. PGE and their employee's retirement savings began to unravel. Enron executives continued to encourage employee investment in Enron stock and spoke of the integrity of the comapny's financial position, while they sold their personal holdings of Enron stock and drove the company into bankruptcy proceedings. I have seen the pain and disbelief of PGE employees firsthand. Dozens of people I know personally have had dreams shattered, been forced to postpone life decisions and delay retirement. Those involved in the Enron debacle have failed and abused honest hardworking employees in my district and across the country. Sadly, it may yet be determined that past Congressional and governmental actions contributed to the betrayal of these honest employees. Today, we have the opportunity to pass legislation that can help to prevent the destruction of working families' lives and retirement savings in the future. It would be tragic if Congress fails American workers again, which will surely happen under the Republican leadership's proposal. The Republican pension bill not only falls short of improving an obviously flawed pension system, but actually weakens current law by providing employees with biased and conflicted investment advice without access to an independent alternative. To provide true security for retirement savings, pension reform must: hold corporate executives accountable for their actions, give employees control over their own retirement dollars. ensure workers a voice on management pension boards, and provide independent advice for workers. I strongly support the Democratic substitute amendment, which will provide these needed reforms and help protect workers' retirement savings from the misdeeds of executives and corporations. The pain I have witnessed firsthand among the PGE employees in my district demands that Congress provide true pension security.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I come to the House floor today to support the goals of H.R. 3925 and the amendment offered by Representative Waxman. The underlying bill creates an innovative technology expert exchange between the private sector and Federal agencies. This will help the agencies increase their capacity to manage their information technology efforts through training and recruitment. I support this effort to assist the agencies in addressing their information technology management challenges through a creative new program. While the basic principles of this bill are sound, I have concerns about language in this bill that blurs the line between the public sector and creates unnecessary conflicts of interest. As the bill is written, a private-sector employee, while working in the Federal Government, will still have access to trade secrets of competitors and other sensitive commercial information. In fact, the bill expressly allows the private-sector employee to disclose those trade secrets after just 3 years. Representative Waxman's amendment resolves this problem by prohibiting private-sector employees assigned to an agency from having access to trade secrets or other sensitive nonpublic information that affects their private-sector employer. Additionally, the bill does not have any requirements that the assignment accomplish any specific training objective or that the Federal worker do any work that would benefit the Federal Government. Instead, H.R. 3925 sends Federal workers, at taxpayer expense, to serve the private sector for free and with little accountability. Again, Representative Waxman's amendment corrects this problem by establishing a comprehensive training program for information technology workers, run by the Office of Personnel Management, which can assure that the exchange programs work within the context of the overall training needs of the Federal Government's IT workforce. I support the premise of the underlying bill and encourage my colleagues to vote for the correcting amendment offered by Representative Waxman.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the success of the 2002 Olympic games in Sale Lake City reflects well the hard work and extraordinary efforts of its host city and of the thousands of athletes who participated in the games. In particular, I would like to congratulate the people who work at the Utah Transit Authority and Utah Department of Transportation for their role in making these Games the most mobility-friendly in history. Transit provided a safe, effective and efficient transportation alternative for tens of thousands of visitors from around the world, while also serving local residents who rode transit and helped reduce congestion. The efforts of Utah's transportation professionals helped to ensure that the transportation system worked seamlessly during the Olympics. Salt Lake City developed TRAX, its light rail system, in anticipation of the 2002 Olympics to reduce growing congestion levels in the region. Since service began on the TRAX system in 1999, which opened a year ahead of schedule and under budget, residents in Utah have flocked to use it. Ridership has greatly exceeded projections, and remains high on the system even following the Olympic Games. In addition to the amazing effort of Utah's transit employees, transit systems from around the nation helped support the Olympic games. Buses and light rail cars borrowed from across the country, in addition to 1,100 transit operators from other cities who came to Salt Lake City to assist the UTA, made the difference in the quality of transit service provided to the approximately 1.7 million spectators, athletes, trainers, officials, journalists, sponsors and staff attending the 2002 Olympics. The Amalgamated Transit Union also played a key role in encouraging drivers and maintenance personnel to participate in the Olympics by helping the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. The willingness of transit agencies from throughout the United States to support Salt Lake City during the 2002 Olympics demonstrates yet another winning team for our country.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to support H.R. 3924, the Freedom to Telecommute Act. This bill does the right thing by permitting federal agencies to allow contractors to telecommute. Telecommuting is an integral part of building livable communities because it gives people more choices in their work, for their families and for our environment. Not everyone can live next-door to his or her workplace, but with telecommuting, more people can work from home when appropriate and we can reduce the troublesome peak-hour demand on our transportation systems. In 2001, one in five American workers, or 28 million Americans were telecommuters and the growth of telecommuting is impressive. The number of U.S. telecommuters grew from roughly 19 million in 2000 to 32 million in 2001 and experts predicts that more than 137 million workers will be involved in some sort of remote work by next year. Increasingly, private and public organizations are adopting telecommuting as a successful workforce strategy because telecommuting helps recruit new employees, expand the labor pool and provide staffing flexibility. It also reduces sick leave, increases productivity, reduces stress and protects the environment. In fact, if 10 percent of the nation's workforce were able to telecommute only one day a week, we would cut 24.4 million driving miles, eliminate 12,963 tons of air pollution and conserve more than 1.2 million gallons of fuel each week. I urge my colleagues to support this bill that helps build more livable communities by promoting telecommuting.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, last year, when the Republican leadership brought their budget resolution to the floor I commented that they were ``leading us down a fiscally dangerous path.'' Now that we are debating the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution, it is clear that the Republican leadership has no intention of exiting that treacherous route. This 2003 budget resolution, like its 2002 predecessor proposed by the same Republican majority, is fiscally irresponsible and puts at risk Congress's ability to live up to our commitments to public welfare, the environment, and important infrastructure projects. The Social Security trust fund is being invaded for more than $1 trillion over the five-year budget window. In addition the entire Medicare surplus will be sacrificed. At the same time, the purchasing power of our domestic programs is being reduced by more than $20 billion in fiscal 2003 alone. Instead of providing necessary funding for critical domestic needs, the Republican leadership is taking Social Security and Medicare funds paid from the wages of working people and returning it through tax cuts to the corporations and individuals who are least in need. The public deserves an honest, long-term budget, but Congress is not able to provide one when there is such a broad disconnect between what the Republican leadership promises and what they deliver. The opportunity for an honest debate with alternatives and amendments has been stifled by the closed rule the Republicans have put into place for the debate of this resolution. In addition to funding the war on terrorism and ensuring homeland security, my constituents in Oregon want the federal government to fulfill its commitment to domestic priorities, which includes Social Security, the environment, education, and necessary infrastructure projects. This budget resolution fails our domestic priorities and, therefore, I oppose its passage.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2341, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2001. This legislation would make it more difficult for injured consumers to seek relief from corporate abuses. This is not the type of legislation that we in Congress should be supporting in the wake of the Enron debacle. I would also like to state my position on some of the amendments being offered on H.R. 2341. Several of the amendments are directly attributable to many of the alleged disgraceful, if not illegal, acts performed by a few major corporations in the past couple of years. These acts include records being sealed, even though public health and safety were at stake, and document shredding. Despite the outrage that some corporate behavior has created for me and the American public, some proposed amendments were not well-defined to deal with this illegal conduct. My ``nay'' votes on certain amendments reflect this concern, however I condemn the corporate behavior that prompted these proposals.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2146, the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act. One reason I support this legislation is because, it is estimated that child molesters are four times more likely than other violent criminals to recommit their crime. Despite my support, I am concerned that this legislation, since it only applies in Federal jurisdiction, will have a disproportionate racial impact on Native Americans. I am pleased that my colleague Bobby Scott offered an amendment to add a new section including special provisions for lands occupied by Native Americans. However, the amendment failed by voice vote. It is my hope that as this bill is forwarded to the Senate, attempts to address this imbalance will occur.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's vote in the other Chamber marked another sad chapter in America's inability to have an energy policy. Congress has failed again, as we unsuccessfully attempted to raise efficiency standards for the first time since 1975. This means that this Congress has failed again to protect the environment, as we continue to consume 10 percent of the world's petroleum supply, just to get to and from work and the mall. Even if they invade the Arctic, relying on the most volatile region of the world for most of our energy is not going to change. We have also failed the auto workers. Now people who want energy- efficient vehicles will have three choices in the next model year, all from Japan. The next time there is an energy shortfall, it will be foreign manufacturers in a prime position to satisfy consumer demand. Most importantly, we failed the American public, the young people whose energy future we are squandering and the citizens that are more than willing to step up and meet this challenge of protecting the environment and conserving valuable petroleum resources. I hope the public loses no opportunity to tell Congress about its misjudgment and lack of courage.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in a civilized society we oppose the mistreatment of animals. When that cruelty takes place in a public forum, as the worst example of ``entertainment,'' we should be outraged. This is exactly what's happening in Puerto Rico. That is why I introduced the Polar Bear Protection Act. This bill would simply make it illegal to have a polar bear in a traveling circus. This bill will end the suffering of seven polar bears in the Suarez Brothers' circus in Puerto Rico, where the bears are tortured every day by being dragged from one tropical city to another. They are consistently exposed to high temperatures, lack of sufficient water, as well as whipping and other abuses. Polar bears' natural habitat in Northern Alaska averages below 11 degrees Fahrenheit. They are Arctic marine mammals that spend a significant amount of time in the water. However, there are loopholes in federal animal protection laws that allowed the Suarez Brothers' circus to enter Puerto Rico with seven polar bears. The circus has exposed these bears to temperatures as high as 113 degrees Fahrenheit and denied them sufficient access to water. This is an outrage, Mr. Speaker. The circus has been under investigation by authorities in Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. Just last week the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confiscated one of the polar bears and placed it safely in the Baltimore zoo. But we need to make sure that the other six bears are not forgotten and that polar bears will not suffer like this in the future. Polar bears are beautiful, dignified animals that belong in their natural arctic environment or in accredited zoos that can guarantee cool containment areas and access to water. The bottom line is that the circus is just not an appropriate place for a polar bear. We in Congress have the power to stop this outrage and end the cruelty. I urge my colleagues to join with me to prohibit the use of polar bears in circuses.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. In extending unemployment benefits for 13 weeks, this legislation goes a long way toward providing critical economic assistance to workers and small businesses around the country. The current economic downturn has had a tremendous impact on the Pacific Northwest. The State of Oregon, in particular, has the highest unemployment rate in the country. Some of our most important market sectors, such as technology, agriculture, and forestry, have been hard hit in the last year. This legislation will help our state and our nation until people get back to work. The bill before us today strikes a balance between the need to assist our country's workers while recognizing the very real financial constraints our government is facing. The 13-week extension of unemployment benefits will help the many in my district who have had trouble regaining employment due to the events of September 11th and the economic downturn and have exhausted their regular benefits. In addition, I strongly support the provisions of the legislation on accelerated depreciation. Under current law, the recovery period for most personal property through the depreciation process is anywhere from three to 25 years. This legislation would allow a temporary additional first-year deduction of 30 percent for property that generally has a recovery period of 20 years or less, and was purchased on or after September 11, 2001. Small businesses and individuals around the country will be able to use this provision to recover more of their capital costs more quickly, in turn allowing them to use these funds to employ more workers and purchase more goods and services. Finally, this legislation extends a number of important tax provisions, such as welfare-to-work, the tax credit for electric vehicles, wind and bio mass and, perhaps most important, tax incentives to encourage reconstruction and redevelopment of the New York ``Liberty Zone'' surrounding the World Trade Center. These tax incentives will provide further stimulus to those sectors of the economy desperately in need of assistance, while improving the livability of our communities. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is absolutely necessary to ensure that workers in Oregon communities and across the country can provide for their families until they get back to work. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, at times it seems that so much that we deal with on this floor is beyond our control. Yet it seems that there are small steps that we can take to make a difference. One such step is a livable community promotes humane treatment of animals, whether in our community or the wild. Wild animals, such as polar bears, should be allowed to remain in their natural habitat and be contained only in spaces that directly replicate their natural environment, such as accredited zoos. Many have been appalled at the polar bears languishing in sweltering temperatures in the Suarez Brothers Circus in Puerto Rico. I am happy to report that yesterday U.S. marshals and agents with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rescued Alaska, one of the polar bears. It turns out that the origins and identity of this polar bear may have been false on the Suarez Brothers' import permit obtained when entering the United States. If true, the circus would be violating international and domestic wildlife protection laws. I applaud the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for taking this action. I understand that Alaska will be housed at the Baltimore Zoo, and I think we can look forward to welcoming her to a safe and healthy environment. We can only hope the other six will be spared a life of misery performing circus tricks in tropical climates.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today's bill contains language that eliminates important provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that were intended to open telecommunications markets to competition. The legislation allows Bell telephone companies to enter the long-distance Internet data market without first opening their local markets to competition. It also deregulates high-speed Internet services known as broadband and is opposed by consumer protection groups and 31 State Public Utility Commissions, including our own commission in Oregon. I am concerned that this deregulation could severely hurt consumers by limiting remedies for people with complaints about their telecommunications services, especially in situations where consumers have been provided poor service or unusually high rates. In Oregon, for example, citizens can currently take their DSL or broadband Internet complaints to the Oregon Public Utility Commission. However, the PUC lacks authority to do anything about these complaints. This legislation would exacerbate the problem by further undercutting the authority of the State to address DSL complaints or declining service quality issues and by removing existing protections for customer service. This bill will also increase rates for consumers because without the benefits of a truly competitive telecommunications sector, consumers and small businesses will have fewer choices and will pay higher prices for telecommunications service. Unregulated telephone monopolies, such as those created by this bill, cannot be expected to lower prices or innovate. In fact, as competitive DSL providers began to struggle financially last year, the Bell monopolies raised their DSL prices by 20 to 30 percent. There are also concerns that because this bill threatens state oversight of voice services that it could potentially raise local phone rates. The best way to promote lower prices and greater access is by ensuring a robustly competitive market. Furthermore, this bill will not bring broadband to rural areas, as the proponents of this bill have argued. While today's bill requires some broadband expansion, it contains substantial loopholes and lacks real meaning for rural and underserved areas. Rural homes would continue to be dependent upon cable, satellite or wireless broadband-- as they are now. Making matters worse, the Bells do not even serve many of the rural areas they ostensibly claim the bill will help. Additionally, contrary to some arguments, it appears the deployment of broadband has been severely hindered by the Bell companies themselves. The Bells failed to deploy high-speed technology such as DSL for nearly a decade and it was not until competition was injected into the marketplace after enactment of the 1996 law that the Bells offered DSL, and then just in limited markets at high prices. I urge my colleagues to promote competition, protect consumers and vote against this bill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time and for his leadership in trying to focus on the positive legacy of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act required that the Bell companies enter the long-distance Internet market by opening their local markets to competition, and this has simply not occurred. That is why today's legislation that would deregulate broadband services is opposed by consumer protection groups and 31 State public utility commissions, including the PUC in my State of Oregon. They are concerned in part that this deregulation could severely hurt consumer service. It would limit consumer revenues over complaints with telecommunication services, especially in those instances where consumers are unable to be provided relief for poor service or high rates. Talk to the people back home. I have got an earful. Additionally, as somebody who has been deeply, deeply impressed with the impact of the e-rate, I am concerned that it puts at risk those important investments for our schools and our libraries. But most ironic for me is the allegation somehow that we are going to be extending these services to the rural areas, bringing broadband to them. Well, point in fact that this legislation would in fact require all of the central offices to be upgraded within 5 years; it does not require that the DSL upgrades be extended from those offices. Homes that are located further away would still continue to be dependent on satellite, cable or wireless broadband. Making matters worse, most of the Baby Bells do not even serve the rural areas that ostensibly are going to be served under the enactment of this bill. I strongly urge rejection of the proposal.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my appreciation and admiration for the students of Lewis and Clark College, which is in my district and is my alma mater. Frustrated with the leadership of this country, these forward-looking students have decided to take the matter of climate change into their hands. In order to fight global warming, the students have voted to raise their annual student fees by $10 per student per year. In fact, in a voter turnout that's twice what we see for special elections for local governments, 83.3 percent of the students voted yes. The fee increase will raise enough money to make Lewis and Clark College compliant with the Kyoto treaty through the purchase of ``offsets'' from the Climate Trust, a non-profit organization. The offset projects that the new fee would support include a web-based commuter matching system that will reduce car traffic in Portland, investments in landfill gas recovery system, and helping to preserve forests on Native American lands in the Northwest. Studies at Lewis and Clark College have shown that increased parking fees, better transit, and a higher number of students living on campus have had a positive effect on the college's green house gas emissions. In this way, the college is far ahead of the rest of the country in realizing what we need to do to reduce our contribution to global warming. The United States is the single largest generator of greenhouse gases, contributing one quarter of the global total. Although the college's emissions are minimal, the students' actions are significant. Lewis and Clark is the first of what will be many colleges across the country developing a climate strategy. It is the collection of these individual actions that will make a difference and eventually shape our nation's policy. One can only hope that when President Bush presents the Administration's proposal on global warming tomorrow, it will include tough mandatory green house gas reductions.