Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, on this Valentine's Day the Republican leadership is presenting America's largest corporations and wealthiest individuals with another sweetheart deal, while people and families in Oregon and across the nation continue to wait for a meaningful economic stimulus package. The State of Oregon continues to lead the nation in unemployment, so it is frustrating to see Republican proposals that continue to focus on people who need the Federal Government's help the least. Even more exasperating is the fact that these corporate tax credits and tax cuts will be paid by Social Security and Medicare surpluses. A true economic stimulus package would directly put people back to work and not last longer than necessary. The bill before us today is not an economic stimulus package, is not temporary, and does not target relief to businesses hurt by the recession. The most significant and appropriate response to help the American people would be accomplished by increasing funding for ready-to-go public works projects that will reduce unemployment, while benefiting communities across the country. Every state in the nation has transportation, water, environmental clean-up, and other infrastructure projects that could immediately employ people to make our communities safer and healthier. This bill is the third attempt by the Republican leadership to use a weakened economy as an excuse for permanent tax breaks for their favored few. Until a fair and sensible economic stimulus package is presented to the House, I must withhold my support.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this evening's legislation is near and dear to my heart. I began my political career in college working on election reform. Two years later, I was the author of Oregon's legislation establishing campaign spending limits. It was my proposal that prohibited the insidious practice of holding legislation hostage until individuals and interest groups in effect paid ``ransom'' to legislative barons. So, in recent years, I have been saddened that narrow and, I think inappropriate, readings of the Oregon and U.S. Constitution have restricted the ability of the political process to police itself. Our current campaign financing system is doubly troubling for me because it symbolizes not only what is wrong with campaigns but also what is wrong with the decision-making process in Congress. It is appalling the lengths to which the political process has been twisted and the huge sums of money that are spent opposing reasonable legislation and moderate candidates. The extreme, hard-edged and too- often hidden opponents of the public interest which are financed by soft money and anonymous contributions create a situation where the sheer volume of expenditure drowns out rational discourse. A campaign finance system where large contributors and special interest groups have the loudest voice threatens the foundation of our democracy. It calls into question the integrity of our elections and of our government. We have a responsibility to strengthen our democracy by eliminating the influence of soft money. Large soft-money donations and anonymous political attack ads have a corrosive influence on the political process. Soft money is bad for the people who give it, bad for the people who receive it and bad for the American people. I have supported the Shays-Meehan legislation since I came to Congress. We need to reduce the amount of time that is taken away from legislative business in order to pursue the mad chase for campaign dollars. The legislation before us is the best way to start. Keeping an open and accountable campaign finance system in this country is an ongoing struggle which too seldom commands the attention of either the Congress or the public in ways that it should. Today we've broken through that barrier.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, part of the legacy of President Teddy Roosevelt was an effort to get rid of corporate contributions to Federal elections, and they have been illegal for almost a century. But what we have seen over time, the evolution of a system that has permitted corporate contributions to move into the political process, be the process of soft money, something that is corrupting on those who have to contribute it, who have to receive it. It is not good for the American public. Mr. Chairman, what we have here today in this amendment is a ploy to attempt to allow the current system to continue. There is no objective here in terms of reforming campaign finance. We have heard it from some of our friends in the opposition, they want to simply get it to a conference committee where it will die a lingering, quiet death, and people can continue to manipulate the current system. My hats are off to our colleagues, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), for their work throughout the last 6 years to get us to this point where we can actually get something passed that will make a difference. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and approve Shays- Meehan.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, On May 4-6, 2002, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. This is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am proud to announce that a class from Grant High School in my congressional district will represent the state of Oregon in this national event. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe the depth of their understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People . . . program provides students with a working knowledge of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles of democratic government. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government in the aftermath of the tragedy on September 11. There are the ideals that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for our next generation to understand these values and principles that we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. The class from Grant High School is currently preparing for their upcoming participation in the national competition in Washington, D.C. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People . . . national finals. They represent the future leaders of our nation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last year, President Bush presented and Congress passed his tax cut predicted on Americans paying down the deficit in the next ten years. There were unrealistic assumptions about Federal spending, claiming to protect Social Security and Medicare, with a trillion dollars left over for contingencies. Today, $4 trillion of those assumptions have disappeared. The White House has sent a budget to Congress that will never be presented for a vote because even the Republican leadership knows it would fail. It is time for the Bush administration and Congress to step back and deal with our critical budget needs in a reasonable fashion. The tax changes that were all scheduled to expire in less than 10 years should be reassessed in light of our stated priorities. We should not dramatically increase our debt, borrow against Social Security and Medicare, and abandon priorities for senior citizens and veterans that were clear and important commitments to American voters. There should be a careful reexamination of the proposed military budget to eliminate unnecessary weapons system that will not help us in our war on terrorism and that will not even be helpful fighting conventional wars. We should commit to reforming agricultural spending so it does not waste huge sums of taxpayers money while hurting the environment and consumers, not even benefiting most states and taxpayers. Last year I made it clear that the budget resolution did not have a pretense of reality and that the tax cut was based on seriously flawed premises. The events of this last year have revealed with a vengeance the accuracy of these predictions. Oregonians expect their political leaders to keep their commitments to reduce our multi-trillion dollar national debt, protect Social Security and Medicare, avoid reckless and irresponsible spending, and reform existing programs to give more value while saving money. Today's vote is a political charade that does not advance any of these objectives. The fact that it is brought forward as a suspension bill with no meaningful debate underscore the fact that even the Republican leadership is not serious about it. I hope that we can stop these meaningless political exercises and get on with the hard and serious work of budgeting for this year and America's future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues, and the fact that so many remain here this evening to laud our newly elected whip, Nancy Pelosi, is testimony to the fact that she will be a strong and forceful voice for our party. She is good news for my special passion in Congress, for she understands better than anybody I have met here that the Federal Government can be a better partner to make our communities more livable, to make our families safe, healthy and more economically secure. But the best news, Mr. Speaker, is for the American people and for this Chamber. It seems that at times we have forgotten how to work together to solve problems here in this House. But the gentlewoman from California's special skills not only as the only Westerner in leadership, not only as the first and only woman in either party to reach this exalted level but as somebody who embodies what it means to be a legislator, her insight, intelligence, grace and tenacity will help us do our job better for the American public. We all welcome this gift from California and the Pelosi family, and I hope we are equal to the challenge. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the Defense Appropriations bill for 2002 (H.R. 3338) includes important language to solve a critical problem with funding deficiencies in a technical assistance program under the Multifamily Assisted Housing and Assistance Restructuring Act (MAHRA). The Office of Multifamily Housing and Assistance Restructuring (OHMAR) was charged with the administration of this program, which offers grants to non-profit groups for outreach and rehabilitation of housing. OMHAR mistakenly exceeded an annual $10 million restriction in two of the last four fiscal years. HUD has subsequently frozen all funds for the program. Over 100 non-profit and tenant organizations with written, signed contracts have incurred expenses on the assumption that the contracts would be honored. Even though these organizations have completed work according to the terms of their contracts, they are now forced to lay off staff because invoices for reimbursement have not been paid. The solution included in the defense appropriations bill does not require the appropriation of new money. Rather, it includes a technical correction to appropriate money that already exists within the HUD budget. While I strongly support this technical correction as a necessary and critical step to ensure that 100's of non-profit organizations around the country are properly compensated, there remains one area of concern. The language embodies requirements for additional audits and reviews of the office responsible as well as other elements of the program. While a full and ongoing investigation of the reasons for OMHAR's financial errors is absolutely necessary, these steps can and should be taken without further delaying the reimbursement of non- profit organizations associated with the program. Any additional requirements for financial reviews and audits should balance the need for continued accountability with the need to meet our current and future obligations to these important non-profit organizations. I urge my colleagues to work with their local non-profit housing organizations to ensure that any additional requirements posed by this legislation do not serve to stymie their efforts to provide quality housing in our nation's communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I will support this conference report with the express hope that we can do better next year. Foreign affairs is one of the most important investments we make as a nation, and that fact was underscored by the catastrophic events of September 11. In his first public appearance after that tragic day, former President Jimmy Carter said on November 15 at the Carter Center that the chasm between rich and poor nations is ``by far the most important single problem in the world.'' If more were done for the poor, he said, ``there would be a lot less animosity and a lot less inclination to commit suicide to kill an American.'' I congratulate my colleagues Doug Bereuter and Howard Berman for leading a letter to President Bush last month urging increased funding for the fiscal year 2003 function 150 International Affairs budget as part of our Nation's comprehensive response to the September 11 attack on America. Foreign assistance makes a difference. Since 1960, life expectancy in poor countries has risen from 45 to 64. Since 1970, the illiteracy rate has fallen from 47 percent to 25 percent. And, since 1980, the number of poor people has fallen by about 200 million--this at a time when world population increased by 1.6 billion. These are impressive gains, but the U.S. is not doing as much as we should. Through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Group of Seven, the world's richest economies have committed themselves to halving world poverty by 2015, and devoting .7 percent of their individual gross national products to overseas development assistance. As a percentage of national income, U.S. foreign aid has dropped steadily since the early 1990s, leaving the U.S. at the very bottom among the 22 OECD members, with barely .1 percent of GNP going to development assistance. I commend to my colleagues the excellent Op-Ed I am submitting for the Record that was written by the CEO of Mercy Corps, headquartered in Portland, Oregon. In it, Neal Keny-Guyer states that ``we have to speak plainly and forcibly about the resources required to confront the real battle. . . . As Congress ponders a blank check for military defenses, national and homeland security and increased intelligence capabilities, we have to significantly increase programs that attack the roots of terrorism.'' I agree with Mr. Keny-Guyer's conclusion that, ``We need to declare that it is a moral outrage to have the resources to reduce global poverty, but not the will to carry out change.'' I pledge to do what I can to work that will to strengthen U.S. foreign assistance along with my colleagues on the House International Relations Committee and through the FY03 budget process. [From the Oregonian, Nov. 26, 2001] Help Injured World Heal With a Sustained Effort (By Neal Keny-Guyer) All the military might that America can muster will not end terrorism. Not by itself. It requires a sustained assault against those conditions on which terrorism breeds and feeds: abject poverty and social inequality, mass ignorance and disease, despair and intolerance, violence and conflict. The frontline battalions and brigades in this war are the humanitarian organizations such as Oxfam, CARE, Save the Children and Mercy Corps. Never has their role been more important. And never have these organizations been more challenged to think and act differently. It is no longer enough to attack the physical conditions of poverty--income levels, adequate housing, health care, infant mortality rates. Pure acts of mercy and relief may help alleviate individual suffering and make the actors of charity feel better, but they do not redress or affect root causes and conditions. Even if we were to lower global infant mortality rates by 25 percent tomorrow (and, of course, we should pursue this noble goal) it is not clear at all that the world would be a more stable, less violent place. It is not self-evident that the forces of terror would be in retreat. So what is it that we aid agencies should really be doing to make a difference? First, we have to speak plainly and forcibly about the resources required to confront the real battle. Americans are generous people, but the U.S. government's global aid budget needs to increase significantly beyond the paltry level of less than 1 percent of our federal budget that we give today. Most industrialized nations devote far greater percentages of their budgets to international relief and development. As Congress ponders a blank check for military defenses, national and homeland security and increased intelligence capabilities, we have to significantly increase programs that attack the roots of terrorism. But let's make sure that we are not just throwing money at good causes or buying political and military cooperation through aid. Second, international aid agencies and nongovernmental organizations have to replace traditional programs that meet basic human needs and promote development with more innovative initiatives. We need programs that both feed the hungry and teach agriculture skills and, at the same time, promote land reform and democratic participation. Health programs must provide not only basic maternal and child medical care, but also promote basic rights for women and children. We need micro-credit programs that do not simply provide credit for the poor but that also link, for example, Serbian producers with Albanian suppliers in Kosovo. We need humanitarian assistance programs that consciously promote, if not require, active cooperation among various religious factions in so many down trodden countries. In Afghanistan today, the role of aid agencies is not simply to feed starving people or to rebuild war-torn buildings and infrastructure. Our real job is to provide aid in a way that truly builds a foundation for a peaceful, pluralistic future. Our multi-ethnic, multi-tribal teams need to represent a working model of cooperation and tolerance. We need to witness against human rights abuses and reprisals while we help create Afghan models for a healthy civil society. Humanitarian and development assistance, always and everywhere, has to promote political participation among marginalized groups, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Aid agencies, always and everywhere, have to deliver assistance in the ways that build bridges of understanding and cooperation among religious, ethnic and cultural communities affected by conflict. It is no longer enough to be simple angels of mercy. Aid agencies today have to be ambassadors of peace, reconciliation and hope-- hope for more secure, just and meaningful future. Finally aid agencies today need to find creative, compelling ways to connect their supporters with a deeper understanding of the world. We need to declare that it is a moral outrage to have the resources to reduce global poverty, but not the will to carry out change. We cannot stand on the sidelines of history while 50 million people are refugees from war and persecution, while 25 million children are killed, maimed or made homeless in a decade's time, while 35,000 children die each day from hunger and disease. A seamless web of compassion connects homeless child in Poland with a hungry, desperate child in Afghanistan. And when one child is helped anywhere, all of God's children can rejoice. In this understanding, terrorism cannot win. In this discovery, in this conviction, a better America and a better world will emerge.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week we reauthorized funding of education programs with a solid balanced approach for the future. Today's Labor, Health, Human Services and Education bill provides the first year of funding on that vision. Nothing is more important for the future livability of our communities than a sound education system; schools are the building blocks of stable neighborhoods and healthy children. I am pleased with the progress that has been made on education in this Congress. While there are pressing needs for security and defense, and the state of the economy is on everybody's minds, nothing will make more difference for the long term livability of Oregon and communities around the country than having a solid education system. Especially in these difficult economic times, assistance from the federal government plays a critical role. I enthusiastically support this bill, which provides a 16% increase over last year, an increase three times larger than the administration had requested. For special education, a critical need, the rate of increase is even higher at 19%. I am also pleased with the improvements in health and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) funding. This conference report includes extra support for National Institutes of Health research, a vital 11% increase for the Centers for Disease Control. These important organizations are even more vital to our preparedness and security in light of the threats that face our nation. We have also maintained LIHEAP funding from FY01, $300 million over the President's request, to help low-income Oregonians and other Americans access heating assistance during a time of cold weather and skyrocketing energy costs. Finally, Congress will send the President a bill without the proposed cuts in Head Start funding, maintaining a program that is vital to the development of young children. My hope is that we can build on this progress in the next session of congress to be able to assure that our children have stable education funding and that our communities have more resource to modernize schools and provide a full range of services that our children deserve and that citizens demand. The federal government needs to be a full partner; this bill goes a long way towards fulfilling that promise.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in allowing me to speak on this legislation. I am not going to join in the parade in acknowledging all the leaders who have stepped forward to make this possible. I will, however, say that I salute the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for being the conscience of the House on this issue. I think this would be a better institution if we had more nurses who were Members of this body. But frankly, we cannot afford them because they are needed in the field, and we really probably need the three that are here now out there caring for people. Yes, it is true that nursing is a great profession, with caring, rewarding work that makes people really light up, which they really enjoy. It takes a special person, and they get special rewards. But we ought to acknowledge that it is also difficult work. It is demanding work, while it is more important than ever before, more critical, we have seen with actions that have taken place in recent months. We are learning some hard lessons at home in my community with an unpleasant labor dispute that is taking place between a teaching hospital and a nurses' association. It is not just the demographics that are working against us today. Frankly, I hear from friends of mine in the nursing profession and other health care professionals that the management of the health care system today is increasingly a negative factor. We are going to have to fight harder to keep these professionals, and we are going to have to work to make sure that the system works for them. I think this legislation is a small step in the right direction. It is not quite the legislation that some of us signed onto. Frankly, I hope before it wends its way through the legislative process, as it comes back from the Senate, that we will have stronger legislation, because frankly, I like the provisions that expand the nurse education loan repayment program. That is great. But it is also going to take more than public service announcements and more studies. We know how important it is. We know that there is a need. We know that there needs to be a greater Federal commitment if we are going to have the nursing professionals we need when we need them. I commend the members of the committee for bringing this legislation forward. I hope that it starts the momentum towards the Federal commitment that the public and the nursing profession demand.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress dedicated to making the Federal Government a better partner with our communities, our business leaders, and our individual corporations to make sure that our communities are more livable, where our families are safe, healthy and more economically secure. For over a century now, organized labor has been a champion of these same goals for families by defending the right to organize and represent themselves by being very active in public policy discussions and the enactment of protective legislation. Last week, in Las Vegas, the national AFL-CIO added their strong voice to achieving their goals for America's working families by promoting the principles of livable communities. It noted that the problems of both society and their members are compounded when our communities are abandoned. Cities are hollowed out by sprawl and the consequences of unmanaged growth. It is harder to travel, find decent affordable housing, it is harder for children to breathe, and even workers to organize. Their important resolution was advanced by progressive unions like the United Food and Commercial Workers, the Amalgamated Transit Union, the good work of Jobs First, with their staff member, Greg LeRoy. I would note three important provisions in that resolution where they point out; whereas sprawling development on urban fringes creates new jobs beyond public transit grids, leaving consumers with no choice about how to get to work and undermines transit ridership; and whereas many other central labor bodies and State federations have long advocated for policies now collectively called ``smart growth,'' such as affordable housing, better public transit, school rehabilitation, and the reclamation of brownfields; now, therefore be it resolved, that the AFL-CIO authorize and directs its leadership to actively engage in the emerging public and political debates surrounding urban sprawl and smart growth, asserting labor's rightful role in the national debate about the future of America's cities for the benefit of all working families. Powerful words from a powerful organization dedicated to promoting America's families. I would note the special leadership of the regional labor leaders, people like Don Turner, the President of the Chicago Federation of Labor, that has been active with the Metropolitan Metropolis 2020, an organization in Metropolitan Chicago that brings together the community organizing for their future; John Dalrymple, the executive secretary- treasurer of the Contra Costa County Central Labor Council, where organized labor has been a vital force in Silicon Valley's efforts to come to grips with the livability of that fast growing area; and John Ryan, the executive secretary of the Cleveland Federation of Labor, where in Cleveland they have been part of a coalition with the Catholic Archdiocese of Cleveland, reaching out to communities around Ohio. Mr. Speaker, these are leaders of vision, people who know that smart growth is not the same as no growth; leaders who know that dumb growth can be too expensive and choke long-term prosperity; and that in working together business, citizens, and organized labor, we can truly make our communities more livable where our families are safe, healthy, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote in favor of H.R. 1, the Leave No Child Behind Act. Since coming to Congress my goal has been to ensure that the Federal Government is a better partner in building more livable communities. Access to quality public education is a key component of a community that is safe, healthy and economically secure. While not perfect, the final version of H.R. 1 represents a bipartisan agreement that will move us in the right direction by providing more support and investment for public education. This bill establishes clear goals and a timeline for narrowing the achievement gap and targets federal dollars toward the neediest children. It sets a four-year goal for ensuring that all teachers are qualified to teach in their subject matter and provides resources for mentoring, training and salary enhancements to help us meet this critical four-year goal. It helps bilingual education and eliminates the highly punitive elements of the President's original plan. Also important is what is not in the bill, efforts to repeal after-school program funding or divert money away from our public schools were rejected. I applaud the addition of a section dealing with school construction. I support the overall framework that the bill provides, but I have concerns about imposing new multi-year mandates without matching multi- year funding, failing to help local communities deal with their growing education budget shortfalls in the wake of September's events and the lack of full funding for special education. The federal government should lead by example in offering the best possible public education to our nation's children. H.R. 1 is a good start and it will certainly help return our school systems to the original goals of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act and ensure that all students have an opportunity to grow academically.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy. For the second day in a row, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the House move forward with important items for America's future. Yesterday, it was election reform. Today, education is our priority. We are moving in the right direction, not necessarily allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. There is something in this legislation for everyone to support. I personally am deeply appreciative for the work of the committee dealing with areas of special education and school modernization. But I would, Mr. Speaker, just like to say a word about leadership. I have been somewhat critical of some things that our President has done in the domestic area. This showed what our President can do when he focuses and works with the congressional leadership, and I think the product has been worth his efforts and I commend him. I think it is important also to acknowledge the chairmanship of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who much has been said about already, much more will be said on the floor, and I think it is all deserved. But I would, if I may, Mr. Speaker, say a word about the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), our friend from California. He is a man of great passion about a whole range of issues, but he has dedicated years of his life to advancing the interests of America's children. Nobody in this Chamber has worked longer or harder than the gentleman from California, not just publicly in this arena but doing private things. I know that for months he would teach children in an alternative high school before getting on a plane and flying back here to Washington, D.C. Fighting on behalf of America's children and their future is something that has been worth doing. This legislation would not have happened without him. I hope the hard work of the gentleman from California, Chairman Boehner, and the President will set the tone for the progress of this Congress in the last year of this session. I think America needs it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this conference report makes tremendous progress in strengthening our nations's policies in dealing with unexploded ordnance, the bombs and shells that did not go off as intended. I very much appreciate the efforts Chairman Bob Stump and Ranking Member Ike Skelton in raising the profile of this important issue, and including several meaningful reforms to address the problems these discarded military munitions cause communities throughout our country. Our colleagues in the Senate also made valuable contributions and I appreciate their wisdom and hard work. The sections addressing unexploded ordnance are 311, 312, and 312 in the conference report. I hope that the activity on this issue during consideration of this year's defense authorization signals potential for additional steps forward in the future. Two of the four major provisions of the bill I have introduced, the Ordnance and Explosives Risk Management Act (H.R. 2605) have been legislated in this report. Congress has finally stepped up to the plate in the campaign to make former military sites safe. In fact, by requiring this inventory and prioritization scheme and establishing a separate account, we've rounded first, and we're on our way to second base. In the near future, I hope Congress will reinforce efforts within the Pentagon to put someone in charge of munitions response and to fund that response at a level that will address the problem over the next two decades, rather than the next two centuries. We also need to ensure that the Department of Defense, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the states are following the same regulatory framework. It is important that another round of base closures is authorized in this conference report. However, delaying that effort until after the next two Congressional elections and the next presidential election is problematic at best. Maintaining the infrastructure of military bases left over from earlier eras when needs were different is a tremendous unnecessary cost that prevents us from making the investments needed to address today's changed security environment. Our annual defense authorization and appropriations bills provide opporutnity to respond to changing global security conditions. This bill authorizes spending $343 billion in fiscal year 2002 on our military. In addition, there is $21 billion defense spending in the $40 billion post-September 11 supplemental and its it highly likely that we will consider at least one other supplemental in 2002. That means that throughout this fiscal year, our military spending will be at least a billion dollars a day. It has been over three months since the tragedy of September 11. We had the chance to make adjustments in this authorization based on the new security environment. Instead, this conference report increases spending on national missile defense nearly 50 percent over last year. It also continues to fund cold war weapons systems such as the Crusader mobile howitzer designed for a war from an age long past. The Army has said it needs lightweight force that can go anywhere in under 100 hours, yet the Crusader is too heavy to carry on even our largest plane. We need a new beginning now more than ever. Despite improvements in a few areas, I must continue my reservations about the fiscal year 2002 overall defense authorization and the direction it takes us in. I will oppose this conference report.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the December 6 House vote on Presidential Trade Promotion Authority continued a sad string of hard- edge partisan votes since September 11 and the loss of an historic opportunity to move to a new era of trade. The pattern was established when the leadership took the legitimate need for stabilizing the airline industry and rushed through a program to lavishly reward airlines, but with no consideration of the needs of American workers. The antiterrorism legislation, produced unanimously by the Committee on the Judiciary in the House, was rejected in favor of a narrow, more partisan alternative that did not even have a hearing. The economic stimulus bill was shoe-horned through by a single vote. Its package of corporate tax breaks, with no connection to investment or economic growth, has been roundly criticized by liberals and conservatives alike. Even legislation to stabilize the insurance industry was hijacked by other ideological and political agendas. The trade promotion legislation fell victim to this same treatment when the House Republican leadership prevented any effort to resolve other legitimate concerns, with the active support, sadly, of the Bush administration, instead focusing on advancing partisan political objectives. The President could have openly repudiated the partisan ideological posturing here in Congress. He could have demanded and would have been given a bipartisan bill with broad support that would have helped place trade promotion above the political fray. That would have placed, in a stressful time for the country and our economy, a majority of the House of Representatives, like the majority of Americans, in a position to give benefit of the doubt to the President, as they have done repeatedly since September 11. The President could have achieved this objective by making modest adjustments to the trade legislation. The concern about disadvantage to American workers, with the extension of NAFTA to the entire western hemisphere, could have been answered by making a principal trade objective adherence to, and enforcement of, the International Labor Organization's core labor standards, which all of these countries say they support. To the fear that chapter XI investor protections under NAFTA put foreign investors in a superior position to undermine American environmental protections, a simple answer would have been to mandate that no foreign investor be given a superior position to American companies, and the House would have gone along. Finally, we could have made provisions for the continued enforceability of environmental treaties. When both parties to trade disputes are signatories, we can insist that these agreements' provisions being enforced is not an unfair trade barrier. These three simple changes, together with meaningful assistance to the financially distressed and unemployment, that were promised months ago and have yet to be meaningfully delivered, would have produced a comfortable margin of votes from Democrats and Republicans alike. Instead, the administration chose to wheel and deal in ways that will only become clear from careful observation and good journalism. It is bad enough that the price of passing poor trade legislation might be funding for unnecessary public works projects. What is worse is that the administration and the Republican leadership abandoned their commitment to free trade in the poorest of countries by gutting the Caribbean Basin Initiative. This hard-fought trademark legislation was a proud bipartisan achievement that would have helped some of the poorest and most distressed countries. We are now jettisoning our principles, denying hundreds of millions of the world's poorest citizens the power of trade benefits. Of course, we await to learn the concessions, not just to citrus growers but to the whole tired American agricultural regime. Our current policy works to the detriment of most American farmers and the taxpayers and undercuts our ability at the bargaining table to open up foreign markets to American agriculture. It is not too late for the President to restore integrity to our trade negotiations by abandoning these narrow, ideological partisan approaches. The Senate can easily make this a better bill by jettisoning the trade-corrupting provisions, letting the legislative process work, and listening to the critics who have legitimate concerns. We are not going to end the debates on the role of globalization and trade policy; but by addressing these legitimate concerns, we can narrow the debate and enable the administration to pursue the policies that United States Trade Representative Zoellick sincerely wants to achieve, I believe. Given the right bill, we will not be held hostage to narrow special interests at home while we make the poorest of countries pay the price for our lack of political leadership and policy clarity.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, One of my priorities in Congress is the support of trade policies that require environmental protections, support human rights and fair labor conditions while strengthening the economies of my community and of nations around the world. Trade has tremendous potential for achieving these objectives, but only if our trade policy is carefully crafted. We must ensure that we are using our maximum leverage to achieve the above goals. We need to appreciate how the world is chaning--in regards to the positive transformative powers trade can have for societies around the world as well as the potential negative impact trade can have here at home. International trade provisions can now undermine other U.S. provisions of law ranging from immigration to anti-trust. One example is the provisions in NAFTA that appear to place foreign investors in a position superior to their American counterparts, potentially enabling them to evade our environmental protections. I believe these problems are not insurmountable or even all that difficult to tackle. The provisions of HR 3019, authored by Ranking Member Rangel, would establish core labor standards as the point of departure for any new free trade agreement in the Americas. In HR 3019 foreign investors would not be given greater rights than domestic investors, and the United States would be empowered to enforce multilateral environmental agreements where both parties have accepted their obligations. With a determined expression of outreach and commitment on the part of the President and the Speaker of the House, we can and should have a trade bill that garners at least 250 votes, helping lift trade above today's fiercely ideological partisan contention. Instead, if this bill passes, it will win a narrow majority over bitter opposition from many people who are actually leaders for international trade. Bringing this legislation to the House floor in this form, under these conditions, borders on the irresponsible. There is no reason to play ``Russian roulette'' with our national trade policy in order to accentuate partisan differences. Securing votes with incremental concessions on items like citrus and steel, and backing away form agricultural reform is a poor way to pass legislation and is no way to form an enduring coalition in support of trade promotion. I have implored the President to defuse the situation. I fear it will come back to haunt him and his Administration and make progress in the trade arena needlessly difficult for years to come. The decision to attempt a narrow partisan victory continues a troubling trend in the House of Representatives. Legislation dealing with terrorism, airline security, insurance protection and economic stimulus did not need to be partisan and indeed there were strong bipartisan bills available. The decision by the House Republican leadership to push for narrow partisan victories at the expense of sound bipartisan policy, with the acquiescence or in some cases the outright support of the Administration, is not just bad policy, it's the wrong thing to do, when the country desperately wants to be united solving our problems. I sadly but resolutely vote against this legislation. I will continue to speak out in support of the importance of Trade Promotion Authority. I will work with people on both sides of the aisle and our talented Trade Representative Robert Zoellick to secure a true bipartisan solution to other trade related issues.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am someone who has never voted against trade legislation on this floor. But unfortunately, the President and the Republican leadership have missed an opportunity to move beyond the partisan and narrow ideological divide. The provisions of the bill of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) which dealt with labor standards, multilateral environmental agreements and the elimination of the chapter 11 imbalance could have produced a bill which would have provided 250 ``yes'' votes on this floor. But, instead, we are not even allowed to vote on it. We are only given 30 minutes to debate it. It is a travesty. Instead, the majority will be created by horse trading on citrus, on textiles, and on whatever else we will find out when we read the paper over the next 1 or 2 weeks. It is a terrible way to create trade policy. At a time when our Nation expects the best, we are falling short. It is shameful, it is unnecessary. I urge a ``no'' vote. Come back, do it right. There will be an opportunity.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress with the notion that the Federal Government ought to be a better partner with American communities, local governments, business and citizens to help promote the livability of these communities, to make our families safe, healthy and economically secure. One of the examples of where we could in fact make a difference was found upon my arrival here in Washington, D.C. Despite the fact that the District of Columbia was reputed to have the second worst traffic congestion of any metropolitan region in the country, despite concerns about congestion, pollution, a lack of parking here on Capitol Hill, the House of Representatives provided unlimited free parking for our employees, but would not do anything to help those who wanted to use mass transit and perhaps be part of the solution, despite the fact that we were arguing that the private sector and other governments ought to step up and try and help their employees with transit. Mr. Speaker, it took an effort of almost 2 years and working with the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) we were able to implement a transit benefit program for the House employees. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have moved into a new era of that. We have more than tripled the benefit. Starting this month, employees will be able to have a $65 transportation benefit for those who do not avail themselves of free parking on Capitol Hill; and starting January 1, they will be able to deduct pretax an additional $35 for a $100 transit benefit. I am extremely grateful, Mr. Speaker, to the leadership of the Committee on Administration under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member, where they stepped up, worked with the committee and put in place a program that is going to allow us to provide an extensive benefit for our employees; but it also, in a time when we are concerned about the energy security of this country, when we are deeply concerned about the quality of life in and around our Nation's capital, and when we are watching the problems associated with increased security every day stack up cars as they are waiting to be inspected coming into our House parking lots, this transportation benefit is a win for the environment, it is a win for the morale and efficiency of employees on the House. It is a win for those who want to make sure that Congress leads by example. I strongly urge that each office look anew at this enhanced benefit program to make sure that each eligible employee takes advantage of it, and in fact, that each Member of Congress and their chief of staff encourage others to take advantage of it, because it is going to be good for them in the long run. We want the program to be a success. It is an important step to save money, to save the environment, and make Capitol Hill a little more livable.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I commend the Financial Services Committee on their hard work to reach a compromise on this important issue. To maintain stability within the insurance industry and the economy as a whole, it is essential that the Federal Government provide a backstop for losses due to potential acts of terrorism. It is too bad the Republican leadership and their Rules Committee are undercutting this work. I will not vote for a bill in which the democratic process has once again been subverted in favor of a partisan maneuver. It risks needlessly delaying important relief that we could approve and have on the President's desk in a matter of hours. In fact, this is a continuation of a pattern that's moving beyond partisanship to a point where it is reckless. These bills have been twisted beyond recognition of any solution reached by the original bill. First it was the Airline Bailout, then the PATRIOT Act which passed out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously only to be substituted with a Republican alternative. The pattern continued with the Economic Stimulus package and the Airline Security bill. It is unconscionable that the Republican leadership continue to act in such a partisan manner to delay this legislation when it is critical that Congress act quickly and in a united fashion to stabilize our insurance industry and assure help to those in dire need. H.R. 3210, as amended in the Rules Committee, attempts to force adoption of extraordinarily controversial changes in legal procedures that have nothing to do with preserving a market for terrorism insurance coverage. The end result is that the rights of victims and their families to recover fair compensation would be greatly limited in any future terrorist related incidents. For instance, the bill seeks to ban punitive damages, which would shield all defendants, not just insurers, even those who had been criminally negligent. As an example, this bill would protect a building owner from paying punitive damages who, despite numerous citations and warnings, refused to install emergency lighting and escape routes in his building. Residents and families of residents injured or killed during a terrorist attack as a result of the owner's disregard for State or local safety codes should be allowed to pursue their claims to the full extent of the law. The bill also limits the ability of victims to receive awards for noneconomic damages. These issues have no place in this urgent terrorism insurance bill. Because the Republican leadership will not allow a vote on a clean bill, I have no choice but to vote no. I will not support the continued actions of the Republican leadership to undercut the committee process that is essential to effective solutions.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, our annual defense authorization and appropriations bills provide opportunity to respond to changing global security conditions. Our military is the best-equipped and best-trained by far in the world, spending more than the next 15 countries combined (and 12 of those are our close allies). We need a new beginning now more than ever. Today, we need to begin anew to guarantee our security from the threats of today and tomorrow as well as to protect the wellbeing of fighting forces and their families. Ever since I have been in Congress, we have been making noises about restructuring our forces to meet tomorrow's threat. Making compromises leaves us vulnerable. We are not making the hard choices on a number of crucial issues such as dealing with excess base infrastructure, facing environmental cleanup costs, and rendering decisions about weapons systems that do not fit today's world. I cannot support a bill that does not make those hard choices. I do appreciate the hard work of the committee and the importance of the task. Yet, this is not the time for us to continue with a patchwork approach to our defense needs that looks to our past and not to the real threat for the future. The most perplexing expenditure in this bill is for national missile defense. September 11 demonstrated that we have more immediate security threats to the United States than a missile from a rogue state ten years from now. The anthrax attack which paralyzed Washington, DC, together with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, demonstrated that we have threats here and now that demand attention and demand resources. Spending perhaps a hundred billion dollars or more on unproven technology for the vague future threat of intercontinental ballistic missiles when we have more immediate concerns is not an appropriate response. The fact that it would have a potential destabilizing effect on other countries at precisely the time when we want them to coalesce around our leadership is even more reason to reject this approach. Increasing spending on missile defense by almost 50 percent over last year is not reasonable. There are other examples of current weapons systems which are just as bad if not so expensive. The Army plans to spend over $10 billion to field its lightweight force of the future that can go anywhere in the world in under 100 hours. At the same time, it is moving full speed ahead with the $13 billion Crusader mobile howitzer that is too heavy for even the largest planes in our arsenal to lift. My concern was best expressed by a Bush policy adviser quoted in U.S. News and World Report this summer. ``Why would you buy the same artillery pieces that Napoleon would understand? It's all Industrial Age equipment.'' There are at least eight big-ticket weapons systems in this bill for which spending far exceeds levels requested by the White House--by almost a billion dollars. When Vice-President Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense, he tried but failed to kill the V-22 Osprey aircraft program. It has been involved with 30 fatalities in four crashes; nonetheless appropriators earmarked $1.8 billion to buy 11 more of these questionable aircraft. The most obvious yet controversial example where we spend money fighting wars of the previous generation is the number of military bases that, in some cases, are left over from World War I and World War II. To right-size the U.S. military by undertaking another round of the base closing process will help us to adequately prepare ourselves to face the challenges of today. Our budget process needs to follow through on some of the stated intentions of Secretary Rumsfeld. The Quadrennial Defense Review was released in early October, yet a general who had worked on it for six months said it was rendered irrelevant by the September 11 attack. No major weapons systems were cut nor were there any force structure changes. The 2-Major Regional Contingency (MRC) strategy (to fight two major wars simultaneously) remains in place with only minor tweaking. We have yet to implement the prior QDR call to reduce force structure and equipment, for example reducing the number of F-22s purchased. The 1997 QDR made more substantive changes than this one, even though the world was more stable. John Isaacs, president of the arms control organization Council for a Livable World, was right when he said, ``Review after review has been completed without taking a hard look at new weapons systems. It's full steam ahead with the status quo. Congress is only encouraging this behavior by approving huge increases in military spending. We could easily approach $400 billion in military spending and rival the peak cold-war budgets of the Reagan administration.'' It is important to bear in mind that for FY02, so far we have allocated a total of $363 billion for the Department of Defense. That includes the $318 billion in this defense appropriations bill, as well as the military spending in the military construction and energy and water appropriations bills, and the $21 billion for the defense portion of the $40 billion post-September 11 supplemental. This is a 15 percent increase over the $316 billion spent in FY01. For reference, the consumer price index rose 2.6 percent last year. In addition, it is highly likely that we will consider at least one other supplemental in 2002. We all should be concerned that the management of these large sums of money may not receive the priority it deserves. According to an audit by the DOD inspector general dated September 19: ``Of the $4.4 trillion in department-level accounting entries . . . $1.1 trillion were unsupported or improper.'' In FY98, 2,993 parts requisitioned by the military services had a price growth of 1,000 percent or more, according to the General Accounting Office. In one case, the unit price for a ball bearing jumped from 4 cents in 1997 to $11.25 in 1998. In another case, the price of an aircraft filter went from $41.96 to $972.71 during the same period. One critical function that is seriously underfunded is cleaning up our military's toxic legacy. This bill includes a line item for the very first time for research and development on unexploded ordnance, the 10-15 percent of the bombs and shells that did not detonate as intended. However, we are not addressing it seriously. We are spending only $17.3 million (a small increase of $2-5 million) when we are spending a total of a billion dollars a day on our military. This is a glimmer of a better future, but this bill overall is basically an environmental retreat. It contains an 18 percent reduction from last year's level for all environmental restoration at formerly used defense sites for a total of $190 million. In the critical area of cleaning up unexploded ordnance and other environmental restoration at formerly used defense sites, this budget falls far short. Even if, as we hope, the Senate Appropriations Committee restores the funding to last year's level, that is insufficient. A General Accounting Office report earlier this year states that DOD's own estimates put the cost of cleaning up UXO alone at these sites at over $100 billion, but experts expect the bill to be much greater. We have as much as 50 million acres that is potentially contaminated with UXO. Our failure to fund cleanup of these formerly used defense sites is unacceptable. There are other ways that this bill fails to meet the critical need for environmental cleanup. It has only been in recent decades that our military has had to face the enormous expense and political challenge of becoming ``greener.'' Local communities are asking why military units should be exempt from Federal laws like the Clean Water Act. The Maine-based Military Toxics Project recently reported that military exemptions from laws and lax enforcement by regulatory agencies have produced over 27,000 toxic hot spots on 8,500 military properties. Minority and Native American groups, which often live closest to military facilities, see the issue as one of environmental justice. The Legacy Program assists the Department of Defense (DOD) in maintaining biological diversity, and the sustainable use of land and water resources for military mission and other uses. As part of DOD's efforts to maintain biodiversity, the Legacy Program has directly supported natural resource projects around the country. The natural resource funding levels in this bill before us today were reduced from previous funding levels and will restrict the Legacy Program's ability to continue protecting our nation's natural resources. What is particularly disappointing is that our commitment to be a good neighbor is absolutely essential in order to be able to have the public support and confidence to do what the military needs to do. Our military needs to have areas where it can train and in some cases, use live ammunition. The extent to which the public can't rely on safe cleanup and disposal will cause it to be less interested in having these practices continue where they are or to be located elsewhere. DOD is faced with cleaning up the contamination from decaying ordnance, mothballed warships, fuels, solvents, and other pollutants left over from the wars of the 20th century and before. This costs money and must be a priority. There is a recognition that the United States continues to have more military base infrastructure than it needs but faces political and community resistance regarding base closures. The problem goes beyond just the economic loss suffered from base realignment and closure. Those areas that are abandoned by the military often cannot be easily converted to other productive uses. Witness the continuing saga of facilities around the country like Fort Ord ten years after it was closed. The failure of the United States Department of Defense to be able to respond meaningfully and to quickly clean up former bases, restore them to a safe condition, and then turn them over to the community without a cloud of uncertainty means yet another reason for communities to resist base closure. They don't trust us. The evidence suggests they have good reason to be suspicious. Adequate funding for remediation and cleanup of toxic and dangerous wastes will not only hasten this land's restoration to productive use; it will also raise confidence so that we'll have positive examples that base closure does not need to be devastating to communities, and that, in fact, it can be a positive development. The failure of this budget of a billion dollars a day to make additional progress, whether for environmental protection or capacity to fight terrorist activity, is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that we have an 18 percent decrease in funding to pay for cleanup of places like the area around American University where residents are still at risk caused by hazards left over from World War I, while at the same time we are increasing overall spending for our military by 15 percent and increasing missile defense spending by 50 percent. Those are misplaced priorities, in my view. We must begin now to finally shift from cold-war spending and World War II bases. It is time for a new era to meet our needs for future defense. Until we have a bill that makes this transition, I must withhold my support.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3189. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) has indicated the history here in terms of its expiration. I personally believe that this time will also give us an opportunity to review the legislation. I think it is important for us to balance national security concerns with the impact that this has on American commerce and on our own national security posture. While the President reestablished the general authority to control exports using his emergency economic powers, without a full EAA in force, the Department of Commerce lacks the full enforcement powers which may be necessary to safeguard United States national security. I think some Members were rather sanguine about this before September 11. I do think in the aftermath of September 11 and our coordinated effort and a global alliance against terrorism Members are concerned that we have the full range of support necessary to protect American interests. But we do need to take advantage of this time to look at the underlying act. It needs to be brought up to date with current technologies in several ways. For instance, it is no secret that today people can routinely purchase off the shelf more computing power than was used to create the hydrogen bomb. We are all familiar with stories, not just apocryphal, where the technology in children's games, the Game Boys, commonly used by junior high students, could have been potentially subjected to this legislation in the past. We also have to be very, very careful that we do not have unintended consequences by clamping down in an unrealistic fashion on American industry. We might well have the effect of diverting business to other countries that do not enjoy the same range of protections that we have got, and it would not just be a case of hamstringing American industry, although I think all of us are concerned about the impact it may have on the technology-based industries that are the cornerstone of so many economies around the country and is part of our dominant position in the future. It could have the effect of encouraging further business for foreign sources of competition that would leapfrog past us in terms of technology so we would lose our advantage, we would encourage other states, some that may not be friendly to the United States or others that might be a little looser in terms of how they sell the technology, so that at the end of the day, by being unrealistic and too bureaucratic in our structure of this act, we will have not just lost business for the United States companies but we will have seen this technology shift to other parts of the world so that we will actually be less safe. But I do think that the extension that my colleague has talked about that is embodied in this legislation is a good window. We have had, with the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), other members of the committee, we have had productive discussions. We have laid the foundation to be able to do this properly in the future. I hope we would be fair to American industry, be fair to American security interests, and move forward with the extension and come back in an expeditious fashion that will meet our needs now and in the future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me time to speak on this issue. I appreciate the hard work of this committee, but I rise in opposition to the bill. First and foremost, it has no business on the suspension calendar. It is not a simple, noncontroversial bill, and members of this assembly should be given an opportunity to fully express their concerns and fully debate the reauthorization. Madam Speaker, it is not about changing rules for existing plans, although many argue that the Price-Anderson Act has long been an unwarranted subsidy enjoyed by the nuclear industry. The question is, where are we going to go from here? The gentlewoman from New Mexico was correct, there is a little bit of coverage. Two hundred million dollars sounds like a lot, and $88 million in addition to the pool, but look at what happened in the World Trade Center: just the collapse of an office tower, and we see tens of billions of dollars that are being brought forward, rocking the potential for the insurance industry. There is big money that is going to be involved if we have a serious nuclear accident; and I think it is very easy to document by any impartial group that it will go far beyond $200 million, far beyond $288 million, and will stretch, in a realistic form, to something that deals with $9.5 billion, as she talks about. I live in the Pacific Northwest. We are going to spend maybe $100 billion and not do an adequate job cleaning up the Hanford Nuclear Plant, and that is something that has not been subjected to a meltdown. If smaller, safer plants make sense, so be it. Allow the smaller, safer plants to go forward like any other industry would, and be able to cover their own liability. If they make sense, the private sector will provide coverage. I would strongly suggest that if we have to continue subsidizing the production of energy, that this body can find far more productive, safer, economically viable alternatives in terms of renewable energy. If we are going to throw hundreds of billions of dollars, let us do something that is going to stabilize our energy future, something that has been long ignored, rather than taking a path for an industry that, after 50 years, should be mature enough to stand on its own legs with this new generation. I strongly urge a no vote. We need to deal with Price-Anderson in a broader context. It ought not to be on the suspension calendar. This assembly needs to look at alternative ways of subsidizing energy production. I would suggest continuing a subsidy for the nuclear power energy is not the alternative to follow.