Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I too rise in strong support of this resolution. I would first like to commend the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), as well as our Chair and ranking member for allowing it to move expeditiously to the House floor. In June of last year, history was made on the Korean peninsula, 50 years after the outbreak of hostility as the leaders of North and South Korea, President Kim Dae Jung and North Korean Leader Kim Jung Il, had an unprecedented meeting in North Korea's capital. This historic meeting was the start of a series of official discussions between the North and the South designed to deal with the pressing political, economic, and humanitarian issues which separate them. Obviously, these discussions have proven difficult; and unfortunately there are no easy answers to permanently reducing North-South tensions. It may take years for the negotiations to resolve this range of issues separating North and South; but we are seeing tangible progress on one critical front, family reunification. As has been referenced, millions of Koreans were separated from family members at the cessation of the armed conflict in the Korean War with millions finding themselves on opposite sides of the DMZ. That surreal area of the world continues. I personally will never forget the stark landscape on my first visit. It might as well have been on the other side of the Moon in terms of the sort of eerie nature, the clearing of the grounds, the fortifications that take place. For over 50 years, the DMZ has served as a symbol of this barrier that has divided not just the governments, not just the leaders, but of the families. Now we have had three rounds of family visits. And while 600 does not seem like much, it truly represents a tremendous opportunity to produce a sea change between the two. But now my colleagues have brought forward a resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that the scope of these family reunification visits should be expanded to include Korean Americans. In my community, Korean Americans form a vital element of our civic fabric; and I know the energy, the compassion that they have displayed in our community and to one another could go a long way. And if they were able to deal with reunification of their own families, I think it would be an important step toward normalizing relations and depressing the pressures that have been built. A half million Korean Americans have been unable to see their families for half a century in an area that is the one that is most likely for American troops actually to see massive armed conflict, notwithstanding what is going on in the Middle East. The United States has many issues on the agenda with North Korea, including missile development and proliferation, human rights, terrorism. Indeed, in North Korea the specter of mass starvation continues to haunt them. While these issues remain at the core of our agenda with North Korea, I firmly believe that passage of this resolution can help advance family reunification and can help tip the balance in ways that put a human face on this tragic situation. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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 rise in strong support of the Airline Security Conference report. It represents a truly bipartisan compromise that provides genuine improvements to our nation's airline security. Today's bill provides a stronger federal role to ensure proper and much-needed training and baggage security measures, increased on-board safety upgrades, and a strengthened sky marshal program. The American public deserves no less from Congress. While I am delighted that we are voting on the conference report today, and will have a bill signed by the President before the start of Thanksgiving week, it deeply concerns me that it has taken Congress so long to reach an agreement on this critically important legislation. Rather than doing it right the first time, some in this body pushed instead a package that fit their narrow partisan and philosophical agenda. There will be some grandparents across the country denied the chance this year to spend the Thanksgiving holiday with their children and grandchildren because of widespread concern by the American public that our airline security falls short of the mark. Thankfully, however, Congress will approve today's bill resulting in increased public confidence to fly home to celebrate the upcoming Christmas and Hanukkah holidays with their families. I believe strongly that by providing the changes, oversight, and flexibility included in the Airline Security Conference Report, our economy and communities will benefit along with the American public.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, This week, Major League Baseball owners voted to eliminate two teams prior to the start of the 2002 season. If the owners have their way, two communities that have poured their hearts and money into their teams and stadiums will be feeling worse than the residents of Mudville after the mighty Casey struck out--at least the fans of the Mudville nine were able to look forward to next year. The Give Fans a Chance Act of 2001 gives communities a voice when sports team owners attempt to relocate or eliminate a team. This legislation recognizes the fact that professional sports teams are an integral part of the fabric that makes up our communities. Fans often have more than just an emotional attachment to their teams. Taxpayers frequently pay hundreds of millions of dollars to finance stadiums to keep teams in place. For example, in Houston, the public financed $180 million of the $250 million Enron Field. In Seattle, Safeco Field was constructed at a cost of over $500 million with $340 million publicly financed. Additionally, fans spend millions of dollars on tickets, merchandise, and other services surrounding the operation of franchises. There probably has never been a better example of the link between the spirit of a community and its sports teams than New York. The Yankees, Mets, Giants, Jets, Islanders, Rangers, and Knicks have all helped bring the community together and deal with the tragedy that struck the city on September 11, 2001. The memorable World Series just completed between the Arizona Diamondbacks and the New York Yankees has in fact helped the nation heal in the wake of the terrorist attacks. The Give Fans a Chance Act accomplishes three important objectives. The bill: (1) eliminates league rules that disallow public ownership of sports team franchises; (2) gives communities a voice in team relocation decisions; and (3) ties broadcast antitrust exemptions to the bill's requirements. This legislation makes professional sports leagues and their team owners appropriately consider the communities of which they are a part. Taxpayers and fans contribute soul and money to the teams of their communities and they deserve a voice when the threat of team relocation or elimination steps into the batter's box.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today we adopted H.R. 2998 authorizing the establishment of Radio Free Afghanistan to create a surrogate radio broadcasting service in Afghanistan. I am a cosponsor of this legislation and I look forward to its serving as a valuable complement to the important contribution already made by the Voice of America (VOA). We need to increase and improve our public diplomacy in the Arabic-speaking world. We can reach millions and provide fair, accurate information about America, its principles and policies by increasing our VOA broadcasting in this way. A constituent of mine who is an Arabic linguist has written to me regarding his thoughtful idea about how we can better utilize information we already receive and make it even more useful in our information-sharing efforts here and abroad. The Smith-Mundt Act (22 U.S.C. 1461) should be amended to allow the release of materials such as manuscripts upon request and further assist U.S. linguists to receive these materials. As we respond to the events of September 11, I believe this modification would expand the effectiveness of VOA and allow qualified private institutions greater access to information so vital for intercultural exchange. I urge my colleagues' consideration of allowing this greater use of the information we are already receiving, and will be working to accomplish this through my membership on the House International Relations Committee.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today we debated H.R. 3167 on the House floor, legislation to encourage further expansion of the Northern Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to include Eastern European countries such as Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria. I want to share with my colleagues an opinion piece that ran recently in the Washington Post which raises what I feel are some of the critical issues regarding continued expansion of the NATO alliance. Written by Jonathan Newhouse, a senior advisor at the Center for Defense Information, this article emphasizes that the key issue is not the future of NATO, but the importance of including Russia in future collective security arrangements in Europe. I found his thoughts helpful and I encourage my colleagues to review this. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 3, 2001] A New Alliance Could Nudge Aside the Old (By John Newhouse) The terrorist threat laid bare on Sept. 11 is transforming global security arrangements. Already, it is pushing Washington and other major capitals toward a historic makeover of the security system the United States and its European allies have relied upon for half a century. And much of the energy for that push is coming from an improbable source: Russia--or, more precisely, its president, Vladimir Putin. Putin's broad purpose--to link his ailing, self-absorbed country to the United States while moving it into the European mainstream--has been gathering force for some time. Even before Sept. 11, he was taking a more accommodating line on President Bush's foremost priorities--missile defense, modification of the ABM Treaty, and further enlargement of NATO, the Western security alliance. Since the attacks, the Russian's tone has become even more acquiescent, enough to raise concerns in Western capitals that he has maneuvered himself far in front of his national security apparatus and political base. When he meets with Bush in Washington and Crawford, Tex., later this month, the two men can be expected to start a process aimed at moving their countries into a shifting strategic environment. And that move could edge NATO, the centerpiece of America's security relationship with Europe, to the sidelines. Well, before Sept. 11, NATO was the object of some tough questions: Did it still have a purpose? Was there a role in it for Russia, and if so, how central a role? A few Western leaders, starting with Britian's Tony Blair, had in one degree or another concluded that Western and Russian strategic interests had converged, and that collective security arrangements that lacked Russian participation no longer made sense. But if anyone was shuffling the new deck after Sept. 11, it was Putin. He was the first to call Bush after the attacks. he agreed not to oppose the use of bases in Uzbekistan and elsewhere in Central attacks. He agreed not to oppose the use of bases in Uzbekistan and elsewhere in Central Asia for strikes against the Taliban. He visited German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and wowed the Bundestag with a speech delivered in fluent German, studded with quotations from Goethe and Schiller, that portrayed Russia as rooted in European values. On Oct. 3 Putin had a long private meeting in Brussels with NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson, with whom he enjoys discussing security issues. Soon thereafter, I was shown an official account of what the two men said. The conversation pointed up Putin's resolve to anchor Russia to the West, and the intensity of his hatred of the Taliban and radical Islam. In the meeting, Putin cited nuclear proliferation as the main threat confronting the world. He said there was a plot afoot to kill Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. If that happened, he wondered, who would control Pakistan's nuclear weapons? And he answered his own question in stark, if peculiar, terms: Osama bin Laden, he said, calling the terrorist leader ``the defense minister.'' As for the Taliban, he said it would be a great mistake to remove the leaders but leave the Taliban in power. The Taliban is Afghanistan, he declared, and proposed a conference to bring together all the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. But Topic A was the Russian link to NATO. Neither man saw any reason Russia shouldn't be a member. Noting that Robertson was the first to understand that Russia poses no threat to the alliance, Putin said his country should be a primary NATO ally. But he said that Russia would have to be consulted on common security issues, or it would be isolated on the periphery of security, which would be in no one's interest. He wasn't asking for membership as such, but rather a central political involvement. Putin declared that Russia would not stand in the queue to be admitted into the alliance, like countries on whose membership nothing depends. Robertson replied that he understood this, but he was no reason Moscow shouldn't apply. Both sides, he said, needed to stop the diplomatic sword dance over Russian membership. Putin restated his reluctance to wait in line, but said he did want a full-fledged, mature relationship with NATO. He wondered if Robertson and Russian experts could work jointly on the question. The Russian president tried to highlight the opportunity he was offering the West by telling Robertson that he expected to be in office only four years at most. All his values, he said, were Western. But he warned that his successors may have a different view of European security--thereby underlining up the developing gap between him and other key players in Moscow. Robertson noted that the two sides could focus on a few specific areas of cooperation--terrorism, air-sea rescue, Kosovo and Bosnia. He also raised the idea of a conference on military responses to terrorism jointly sponsored by NATO and Russia, an idea Putin liked. The conversation ended with Putin, perhaps revealingly, asking Robertson to pass on his regards to Bush, whose name had not arisen. We should hear loud echoes of this meeting in Texas. There, Putin can safely agree to enlarging NATO yet again. Before Sept. 11, he deplored this idea, especially the prospect of admitting the Baltic nations, because he and his advisers saw it as bringing NATO into space that Russians are accustomed to influencing, if not controlling. But this concern becomes moot as he moves to acquire a serious role in revised Western security arrangements and to segue into Europe on his own. Moreover, a bloated alliance operating by consensus will not be close to the center of political action. More and more, the center will lie wherever the key players, notably the United States and Russia, locate it. Today's security threats are not military, and NATO is not equipped to help much in the struggle against terrorism and weapons proliferation. Counterterrorism, for example, is much more of an intelligence and police function than a military one, and Washington will be increasingly reluctant to rely on NATO for other than peacekeeping tasks. NATO itself could become absorbed in solving problems between its members. Although Putin won't be deflected, he will have to show critics at home some return on his bold move toward the West. Embedding Russia in the world economy is probably his first priority. But accomplishing this will require Russian membership in the World Trade Organization, even though well- positioned Russians see the organization as a conspiracy of multinational companies to exploit Russian assets. Putin also wants and probably needs a trade agreement with the European Union. Members are sympathetic, but unlikely to grant one unless and until Putin has maneuvered WTO membership. They need to see Russia establishing itself as a serious player and fully capable of living up to commitments. The meeting with Bush could help anchor Russia to the West, politically and probably economically. Putin may expect Washington to advance his WTO prospects by asking EU governments to join in pushing to relax the standards for Russian membership. Putin may not object--at least not strongly--to the Bush plan for a national missile defense if he convinces himself that the project may eventually fall of its own weight. Agreeing to kill the ABM Treaty, as distinct from amending it, would be very tough for him. While the treaty is about arms control, it is also seen in Moscow as an agreement between great powers and, as such, of great political value. If he and Bush were to produce a new and verifiable bilateral agreement dealing with steep reductions of strategic weapons, it would play very well in Moscow. Prospects for an agreement of that kind are good, although just how binding it might be is unclear, and the importance Russians attach to locking the United States into a formal agreement cannot be overstated. The shell of the egg won't be filled overnight. Putin's romancing of major Western capitals will have to be accompanied by internal reforms, including democratic ones. And he will have to hold up the Russian end of any bargain, especially by helping to discourage the proliferation of truly frightful weapons and playing a full part in interconnected programs aimed at curbing organized crime, drug trafficking and money laundering, etc. Also, in most Western capitals, including London, there are senior bureaucrats who resist major change, especially change that benefits Russia and appears to weaken NATO. France, for one, may have mixed feelings about NATO, but it will see stronger Russian involvement as accelerating movement of the center of political gravity eastward, a shift that has been underway since German unification. Change is nonetheless underway, as Secretary of State Colin Powell made clear in Shanghai last month, when he ventured the lapidary phrase: ``Not only is the Cold War over, the post-Cold War period is also over.'' (John Newhouse is a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information.)

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his courtesy in allowing me to speak on this measure. I have some real concerns about the legislation before us today. It certainly is not a lack of respect for the spokespeople on both sides of the aisle, two of the most respected Members of Congress in this arena, for whom I am deeply gratified for being able to learn about international affairs; and it certainly is not any reservations about NATO itself. As has been pointed out, NATO, for 52 years, has performed an invaluable service for providing peace and stability on the European continent. It has been especially critical for the first 42 of those 52 years. But I think the real question is whether it is time for us to take a step back and look at some of the underlying assumptions, much like my friend from California mentioned a moment ago, in terms of framing the question about how we are going to deal with Russia. I think that is one of the most critical points that we need to focus on. I think it fascinating that the first call from a head of state that our President received after the disaster, the terrorist attacks on September 11, was from President Putin. It signaled, I think, a part of this new era that we are seeing. And before we deal with an expansion of NATO or something else, I think it is critical that we take a step back, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has said, and take a look at the role of NATO. In early October, Secretary General Lord George Robertson met with President Putin; and neither seemed to see any reason why Russia, at some point, should not be a member of NATO. Indeed, as we look at the list of countries that we are bringing forward as potential members, certainly Russia would appear to be at least as well qualified as these would-be member states in terms of its effort to develop its economy and its democracy. In this context, I think we should ask ourselves why we are moving ahead with our expansion plans that could look to those elements in the Soviet Union that it is not necessarily consistent with this emerging new agenda. It looks certainly like a continuation of Cold War encirclement, as we are expanding a military alliance that does, for the time being, exclude them, but will extend almost to their eastern border. Is there not a more constructive and effective way to show our support for democratization in Central and Eastern Europe than continuing to build an alliance that looks as though it is arrayed against them? I must also point out that the continued expansion of NATO is an exceedingly expensive endeavor. The weak economies of the new members and what appears to me to be lukewarm support for implementing and financing the expansion of the alliance by some of our European members is going to force the United States to assume more of the funding burden. A CBO study found that the cost of expansion simply to Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia would be in the neighborhood of $60 billion to $125 billion over a 15-year period ending in 2010. The United States' portion of this tab was expected to run between $5 billion and $19 billion. A study conducted concurrently by the RAND Corporation found that the total cost of this expansion could be in a similar range, up to $110 billion. These estimates, I fear, are misleading because they assume that both new member states and other NATO members will be willing and able to pay for their costs of expansion. I think at a time when we are facing severe economic crisis at home, it is highly improbable that they are going to assume their share of the burden, and we are going to have to make some very real trade-offs in terms of our domestic economy and other higher priorities that we have in this war against terrorism. Finally, I think we need to be asking ourselves whether the continued expansion of NATO is the most effective way to encourage the development of free markets and democracy in Eastern Europe. It is a military alliance that was critical for its time, it still plays an important role; but I am wondering if it needs to be supplemented. I strongly urge that this body deal with some of the questions that my colleague from California, the ranking member of the committee, dealt with, and that we not continue with more legislation dealing with the expansion of NATO until we come back and deal with the hard realities of the role of Russia and the costs that are associated to it. I think the American public deserves that.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the indulgence of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee earlier this year when we considered this appropriation on the House floor. We engaged then in a colloquy regarding the importance of funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development's Office of Environment and Urban Programs. I believe this is one of the important non-military components of the war on terrorism. When Secretary of State Powell appeared before our International Relations Committee late last month, he and I shared an exchange regarding the importance of investing in infrastructure, human capital, and entry-level industries in the urbanized regions of the developing world. As someone whose public service has focused on livable communities in the United States, I've been increasingly concerned about the urgent international implications. The cities of our world are already overwhelmed by human needs and economic instability. Today, 30 percent of urban residents throughout the world lack access to safe drinking water; waterborne disease kills 5-12 million people each year; 50 per cent do not have adequate sanitation facilities. These conditions are getting worse by the day. Within the next 25 years, 2.5 billion more people will move to cities throughout the world; 95 percent of this movement will occur in developing nations. Here, the poverty, malnutrition, and chronic diseases of rural areas will become focused in new ``mega-cities'' of 10-20 million people, creating an even greater strain on natural resources, human health, economic well-being--and the stability--of these nations and the entire world. This dangerous trend has not gone unnoticed. In its Outlook 2015 Report, the CIA ranked rapid urbanization as one of its top seven security concerns. ``The explosive growth of cities in the developing countries,'' the report concludes, ``will test the capacity of governments to stimulate the investment required to generate jobs, and provide the services, infrastructure, and social supports necessary to sustain livable and stable environments. Cities will be sources of crime and instability as ethnic and religious differences exacerbate the competition for ever scarcer jobs and resources.'' Foreign assistance programs are critically important if cities in developing nations are to meet the demands of their rapidly growing populations. We need to help them build the capacity to provide basic infrastructure needs, promote economic growth, reduce environmental degradation, and improve health services for their residents. Programs that focus on not only the symptoms but also the causes of growing poverty and social unrest are our best defense against increasing human misery and global instability. It is clear that we need additional resources to enable the U.S. Agency for International Development to address these challenges. Last year, its Office of Environment and Urban Programs operated on a budget of $4 million--the cost of four cruise missiles--down from an $8 million budget in 1993. This steady pattern of disinvestment, which continues into this fiscal year, is dangerously eroding our ability to address urban problems just as they are becoming more critical to our own national security. Increased funding for the Office of Environment and Urban Programs would permit AID to build on its past successes and would encourage and strengthen the involvement of our public and private sector partners in these critical activities. I have asked Secretary Powell to provide information from AID identifying the role cities will play in economic, security, and social development issues and its intended response to the growing urban crises, including a description of current funding and staffing levels as well as projected future needs. I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman Kolbe's Subcommittee, and with my own Committee, the House International Relations Committee to strengthen funding for this vital purpose. AID allocates resources internally to its Office of Environment and Urban Programs. I hope its funding will be considerably higher for FY02 than the $4 million it was given in FY01.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere in many cities today is one of apprehension and anxiety. We can witness this right outside the doors of this Capitol by the hundreds of jersey barriers and concrete blocks that surround these buildings and the street closures around the White House and our offices. Safety is of vital importance, but we must remain aware of the effect that hasty and poorly planned actions can have on the livability of our communities. In the wake of the events that have occurred since September 11, there has never been a more pressing need for the Federal Government and other partners in the private sector to link hands with neighbors, civic and business leaders to assure that our families are safe, healthy and economically secure. It is essential that we accomplish these objectives without unnecessarily burdening the normal everyday functions of our communities. Here in our Nation's capital, Congress and the Federal Government have the opportunity to lead by example and be a productive partner in working with the District of Columbia, local business leaders and concerned citizens to meet our needs. We need to work together to protect our national treasures up and down the Mall, our employees' offices and the transportation routes without suffocating the city's ability to operate. Security measures can have a devastating effect on communities. Look at the extended closure of National Airport that has resulted in the loss of hundreds of jobs, perhaps some permanently, and the displacement of thousands of others. The roads that have been closed around the Capitol and the White House have snarled traffic and frustrated commuters. We are well aware that we will never return in our lifetime to the pre-September 11 mindset. Therefore, it is critical that we take a long-term view to make sure that our safety concerns are planned in a manner that do not make things worse. We cannot allow terrorism to destroy our sense of community or the ability of those communities to serve us. With this in mind, the report of the Interagency Task Force of the National Planning Commission issued last week titled ``Designing for Security in the Nation's Capital'' deserves our special attention. The task force began meeting far before the recent attacks, working for months to develop a clear outline and plan for security measures that do not compromise livability. It has been apparent of the need for this action since the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after the Oklahoma City bombing. This sort of temporary action is still in place 6 years later. Security measures that may have made sense temporarily have led to a seemingly permanent closure that has created costly traffic problems and a blighted scene in front of the home of our President. The task force outlines several steps that can be taken to ensure the safety of Federal buildings and national monuments. The report calls for a master design that achieves the same security objectives of the items that we currently see littered all over the Capitol complex, concrete barriers, bollards and steel posts, without making it look like it would be a burial ground for chunks of concrete. The task force report also stresses transportation concerns that have developed as a result of road closings. It proposes a fascinating solution dealing with the circulator system of either buses or streetcars that would allow for safe and secure transport of people throughout the downtown, the Mall and the Capitol area. Such a circulator system could help reduce traffic congestion, allow for the removal of parking spaces in areas of security concern and improve traffic flow while all the time improving air quality, saving energy and making it a more appropriate, enjoyable experience for visitors to our Nation's capital. The task force will have a real dollar impact if its proposals are put in place; but to put in context, the expenditure of perhaps a hundred billion dollars in the context of billions of dollars already lost and billions more that are proposed for security measures, this amount is a small price to pay to protect the public and our national treasures in a manner that does not hold this local community hostage. I urge my colleagues to examine these proposals and the funding of this plan. I am not suggesting that it necessarily needs to be the final answer, but it is an important first step to keep our Nation's capital and its citizens safe, healthy and economically secure while we assure that Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden are not the dominant forces in American landscape architecture, public space and transportation for the next 50 years.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, yesterday may have been Halloween, but we are scaring the American public today. They know that we have a failed system of privatization. They know that hundreds of airports across the country deserve a unified system. They know that the FAA has powers that it has failed to put into effect. They know that time after time, private contractors have missed the mark. Putting costumes on private rent-a-cops, calling them Federal officials, naming the bill federalization does not give the level of confidence the public wants. It may be a treat for the private contractors but it is a sad trick on the public.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Hastings) courtesy in allowing me to speak on this rule and this issue. I take rare exception with my friend from California who just spoke. The notion somehow that we are going to establish a system that is going to deal with the problems of an already failed, decentralized, privatized system for hundreds of airports is not micromanagement. Being able to step forward with a Federal program similar to what we had with the Customs Service, what we have benefiting people here in the Capitol, as my good friend from Florida has pointed out, is not micromanagement. What we are doing is acknowledging that the American public deserves our best. The Senate has already ratified by a hundred votes a program that steps up. We are not Europe where we have one or two airports in a small country. We have more airports in a small portion of the United States than they have in the entire European Union. The only way we are going to get the training, the professionalism and the uniform protection around the country is to vote for the Oberstar proposal. I strongly urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for the Legislative Branch Conference Report. I commend the conferees for their work in preparing this report. The report includes important provisions that have a beneficial impact on the entire Washington, D.C. region and improve the quality of life for the thousands of men and women working on Capitol Hill. I came to Congress to promote more livable communities with the Federal Government being a better partner to make our families safe, healthy and economically secure. An important part of making those communities livable is ensuring that people have choices about where they live, work, and how they travel. During these troubled times that have fallen upon us since September 11, it is easy to lose sight of the essential daily items that improve quality of life. I commend my colleagues for moving forward on key provisions that will strengthen communities and give employees improved choices on how they live and work. These livability provisions include the full funding of an increase in the allowable amount to $65 for Legislative Branch employees participating in the transit benefit program. In addition to this important provision, language is also included to update bike facilities here on the Hill including providing new, more secure bike lockers for those Representatives and staff who bike to work, and to study alternatives for a staff fitness center. These types of provisions that improve quality of life for employees and the livability of the communities in which they live is an important step in making America stronger and more resilient no matter the disconcerting circumstances at hand.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleague from eastern Oregon in support of this legislation, and I am pleased to cosponsor it along with the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, we have a special obligation as Members of this assembly to be sensitive to the needs of Native Americans. Sadly, the history of the United States brings no great credit to the Government or this body, and there have been many lost opportunities. I rise in support of H.R. 483 because it is one way to seize an opportunity and do the right thing. H.R. 483 gives the Warm Springs Tribe the same control over their sovereign lands that other governments already enjoy. This act will allow the Warm Springs Tribal Government to lease its own land in the same manner that the Cherokee Nation and State and local jurisdictions have for years. Certainly the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation in Oregon have shown that they have earned this right. They are located on the largest land holding in our State. They have a long history of excellent official relationships with State and Federal authorities in Oregon. They operate their own tribal courts, health system, educational facilities, and law enforcement agencies. They have been leaders in economic development initiatives of which this provision would enable another chapter to move forward. I have been pleased to work with the tribe in times past. I think it is high time for us to allow the tribe to express similar leadership that they have over their own land. The second provision approves the agreement by the tribes with General Electric to regulate projects on its land. As has been pointed out, this has been a long time in the making. It was approved a year and a half ago, and its time for Congress to add its seal of approval. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for passage of H.R. 483.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2585, the Chiloquin Dam Fish Passage Feasibility Study Act of 2001. This bill takes an important step into studying alternatives for the improvement of fish passage for endangered fish species. However, we must not lose sight of the big picture within the Klamath Basin. The Klamath Basin once held 350,000 acres of shallow lakes, freshwater marshes, wet meadows, and seasonally flooded basins in Southeastern Oregon and Northern California. Today, nearly 80 percent of the Basin's wetlands have been drained and converted to agriculture. Just as important, if not more important than the improvement of fish passage, is the restoration of wetlands to improve the spawning grounds of the fish that are vital to tribes in the area. While I fully endorse this bill, which will authorize a feasibility study to improve fish passage at the Chiloquin Dam, I urge my colleagues and the Department of Interior to remain aware of the interconnectedness of resources and user-needs throughout the Klamath Basin.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I am here to support H.R. 2585 introduced by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden). It is true that we have a great deal of tension and frustration in the Klamath Basin these days, and I commend the gentleman for taking specific steps to help relieve some of that pressure. This bill is an important step in studying alternatives for the improvement of fish passage for the endangered species. These endangered species have generated a great deal of controversy and attention. I for one feel that in some instances some of the frustration was misplaced in terms of trying to divert the blame for the problem in the Klamath Basin somehow to the fish themselves. I note with some interest that one of the Klamath Basin Native American leaders pointed out to me that blaming the fish for the water problem is a lot like blaming the gas gauge on your car if one runs out of gas. Having the gas gauge register empty, it is not the problem of the gas gauge, it is the fact that the car has run out of gas. What we are facing here is a condition that is the result of systematic action on the part of the Federal Government for over a century of making too many demands on scarce water in this arid basin. We must not lose sight of the big picture within the Klamath Basin. It once held 350,000 acres of shallow lakes, fresh water marshes, wet meadows, and seasonally flooded basins throughout southeastern Oregon and northern California. Today, nearly 80 percent of the basin's wetlands have been drained and converted to agriculture; in some cases, water-intensive agriculture. It is no mystery that we have run into problems. The Federal Government has not had appropriate policies to deal with the overcommitment of the water in this basin. Just as important, if not more important than the improvement of fish passage, is the restoration of wetlands to improve the spawning grounds of the fish that are vital to the tribes of this area and to the entire ecosystem. While I fully endorse this bill, which will authorize the feasibility study to improve the fish passage at Chiloquin Dam, I urge my colleagues and the Department of the Interior to remain aware of the interconnectedness of the resources and the user needs throughout the Klamath Basin. I hope that this Congress will yet come forward, when we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in disaster relief, when we have a whole host of pressing problems, that we do not turn our back on the needs of the environment of the Klamath Basin, of farmers who were encouraged to farm there as a result of government policies, and that we take steps to help reclaim some of that natural environment, reduce the stress on water in that basin. Madam Speaker, this is an important step; but I hope we continue to look at the big picture.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the President and our congressional leadership have suggested that we are in this effort for the long haul. They have pointed out that we are in the equivalent of war, that we were attacked on September 11, not unlike Pearl Harbor. We have been urged, I think, in our efforts to reach out to the American people. I am saddened that we are today turning our back on the bipartisanship, on working together, in terms of doing our best that these times demand. My colleague just pointed out the lunacy of the proposal that is brought before us, that is too big for the White House in economic stimulus. It has very little direct aid to those most in need. It has huge benefits for a few corporate giants, with no requirement that this be tied back to economic stimulus. But my concern is why are we settling in this time of urgency for a return to partisanship and divisiveness? This bill is not our best. I urge Congress to not give up so soon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the economic stimulus package brought to the House floor today is an embarrassment. It is 50 percent larger than the stimulus that the President and the Treasury Secretary asked for. It is a series of tax cuts and big refund checks to corporations that will be paid for with dollars from the Social Security Trust Fund. It is not paid for over time, but adds to the federal deficit for years to come. The Republican leadership has used the occasion of America's present economic emergency to lead a stampede toward the public trough. Every pet tax cut on lobbyists' wish lists found its way into this bill, which has nothing to do with economic stimulus but a great deal to do with unjust enrichment. A handful of America's largest corporations will receive refund checks totaling nearly $6 billion of business taxes paid since 1986. There is absolutely no assurance that those tax dollars will be invested in job creation or other economic growth. By contrast, the Democratic alternative provides the bulk of its tax relief to individuals and families that are likely to spend their tax savings on household needs, adding to economic activity and providing a true stimulus. It extends health care and other benefits to laid-off workers. It includes real investments in America's communities and security. Most importantly, it maintains fiscal responsibility by paying for itself over time--simply by delaying the Bush Administration tax cut for households earning over $350,000 per year.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 3162 because there are still problems regarding freedom of speech; 4 years is too long a period before mandatory Congressional review, and because there was no opportunity for the House to offer reasonable amendments to further refine the legislation. When we are dealing with the fundamental freedoms of every American there is no excuse not to take the appropriate time to do the best we can. This bill is better than when it first passed the House, not as good as the bipartisan bill that passed out of Judiciary Committee (36-0), and is certainly not our best.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, at a time when people are justifiably concerned about the spread of toxic agents in our mail system here on Capitol Hill, I personally have a greater fear that we are going to fall prey to an agent that I think, in its own way, is every bit as toxic. The bipartisanship and cooperative problem-solving that the President and our legislative leadership have talked about and that the American public needs, not just symbolically, but in a practical, hardheaded way, is in danger of being shattered. Everybody here on Capitol Hill knows that, to date, the reality is not quite as bright as the rhetoric and the promise. Our desperate desire for unity and cooperation has temporarily obscured some deep divisions. There were rocky times on several items in the aftermath of the tragedy on September 11, although it appeared as though the President's challenge was being met by the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the Democrats, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). A series of three events has the potential to deal a body blow to our fragile accord. The first, unfortunately, has already occurred, with an unnecessary decision by the President and the Republican leadership to abandon a carefully crafted, bipartisan antiterrorist bill from the Committee on the Judiciary. They replaced it at the last minute, without consultation and without even the opportunity for amendment, and without Members on this Chamber floor knowing fully the implications of what they were voting on, and locked it into statute for years to come. The second threat is brewing as we speak. The economic stimulus package which, without the President's steady hand and the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), is going to turn into a grab bag of tax cuts that are to be charitable, wildly controversial, and extremely problematic in terms of affecting our economic recovery. Here again, this is legislation that does not need to happen immediately. We can take our time and do it right in a cooperative and thoughtful fashion. Last, and it is important and perhaps most frustrating, there is legislation that may be advanced that is designed to accentuate our differences on international trade, instead of enhancing bipartisan cooperation that is possible. There is a little contest that is brewing between the legislation of the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and that of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), differences that are significant but not insurmountable. If the decision is made to force this through and draw bright lines on trade issues instead of bringing us together, more than just an opportunity will be lost on the divisive and potentially explosive issue of trade. We could also slow the bipartisan momentum that is needed to deal appropriately with the threats of terrorism and the dangers to our economy. The American public deserves better. This is a unique opportunity to do our best. The President and the Republican leadership should join with the Democratic leadership rising to this occasion. The President can start today by insisting that any bill for trade promotion authority needs to have at least 250 votes on this floor, and we can do it. It should make serious advances in promoting trade while protecting the environment, worker rights, and having legislation that does not put foreign investor interests ahead of those that are of legitimate American and private citizen interests. He should exercise the unique leadership opportunity that he has to bring Congress and the American public together. As our President and the legislative leadership have all united in communicating to the American public, we are in a long-term struggle. We are going to need the executive to do its job, we need Congress to function, we need to be able to trust each other, and we need our committees to operate the way that they are designed to do. We all need to do our best. We can start with the contentious issue of international trade and make it into a bipartisan victory for us all.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I appreciate his courtesy and leadership, as with our chair of the full committee, and my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we take a step back and look at this legislation today because as we have heard, there is a crying need for this type of protection. Coral reefs are indeed among the most diverse and productive communities on our world. They are home to nearly a quarter of all marine plants and animals. We have heard a lot of numbers here on the floor today, but there are nearly 1 million species of fish, crab, eel, sponges, worms, grasses, all of these organisms that live on the reefs or depend directly on them. We find that the coral provides a natural filtration system for seawater. It, as we have heard, protects coastal landscapes, maintaining coastal quality of water. There are millions of people on the coastal areas who receive important protections from storms, wave damage, and erosion, to say nothing of economic opportunities dealing with fishing and tourism. Madam Speaker, we have heard each speaker use slightly different statistics to talk about the alarming rate of destruction. Sadly, all of the information we have received is true. There may be different statistics, but they are all bad. We have more than 10 percent of the inventory of coral reefs already destroyed; and if we take the big view, because what we are doing today in the United States and around the world, we are taking steps that are going to have a profound impact over the next generation, and 70 percent of the coral reefs at risk could be gone in the next 40 years. Madam Speaker, the legislation before us is an important extension of the protections that we have had for the rain forests. It will provide the administration to be able to actively pursue debt swaps and buy- backs. It is going to help give those developing countries the tools that they need and would otherwise not be available. But we on this floor ought to be clear that this is just the beginning, because we are in a situation now where we are in the United States only investing $1 in oceanographic research for every $13 that we put in outer space, when the world's fishery industry are now costing $1.33 to harvest each $1 of fish, producing dramatic overharvest, and we are going to have to step up and put serious money on the table, negotiate serious trade agreements, to provide for the protection of these important resources. Madam Speaker, I think this legislation is important. It is a step in the right direction. It is relatively painless. But I do hope we in this Congress will be willing to do our part, because the stakes are high. We are going to have to do more, and we are going to have to do it soon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, my goal in Congress has been the promotion of livable communities. A community that is safe, healthy and economically secure must make the education of our children a priority. The well-being of our families depends on the federal government adequately funding health, education and worker protection programs. Today's Labor-HHS Appropriations bill is a step in the right direction. It triples the President's proposed rate of new educational investment and significantly increases funding for health care and worker protection programs. The bill increases education funding by $7.0 billion over last year's level, and $4.7 billion over the President's request. Over the last 5 years, the average annual rate of new educational investment has been 13%. The Bush budget proposed to cut this rate in half to only 5.5%, but the bill passed today increases this to almost 17%--the highest in a decade. Today's bill increases Title 1 funding, special education funding and teacher training and class size reduction funding by over $1 billion. These vital funds will help schools to hire up to 20,000 teachers to reduce class sizes and provide intensive, high quality and sustained professional development to as many as 825,000 teachers. I applaud the Appropriations committee for approving a bill that does so much for health care in America. The bill increases health programs in the Department of Health and Human Services by $3.4 billion, which is a 10% increase above last year's level. We can all celebrate the increase in funding for Head Start and bioterrorism preparedness. The bill restores proposed enrollment cuts in Head Start with an increase of $276 million over FY01 levels, preventing potential cuts of as many as 2,500 children from current Head Start enrollment levels. We must not neglect our children at this very important stage in their development. Our communities will also feel the security of an increased investment in the prevention of bioterrorism, a renewed threat to our nation. It is important, now more than ever, that we are prepared with the vaccines and drugs necessary to prevent exorbitant injury and loss of life in the event of a bioterrorist attack. I am particularly pleased that the bill will increased our commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS, and helping the victims of this terrible disease. The FY02 bill will increase Center for Disease Control AIDS prevention and tracking funds by $53 million, and provide $112 million more than the FY01 level for Ryan White grants. I am also encouraged by several of the labor provisions included in the bill. Funding for the Department of Labor is increased by 5%, rather than cut by 3% as was proposed by the Administration, providing growth in the major employment, training, and worker protection programs. Some of those improvements include the bill's restoration of the 180 employees that the White House budget proposed to cut from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The bill increases Jobs Corps funding $75 million over last year, reversing the President's proposal to flat fund the program. It also restores funding to FY01 levels for the International Labor Organization, reversing the President's proposal to cut $76 million our of this program that works to prevent child and slave labor. I am pleased that the committee provides $365 million in advance funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We all are aware of the value of public broadcasting and that value is even more apparent during our quest for information and news in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Of critical importance to Public Broadcasters is the Federal mandate that all public TV stations expand from traditional analog to modern digital transmission by May 2003. I appreciate the language in this bill providing an additional $25 million for digitalization. Without federal assistance for digital conversion, one-third of the 347 member stations the Public Broadcasting System are considered at risk of possibly losing their public television signal once the transition period ends and analog transmission is no longer possible. These are all important programs for advancing quality of life goals, and supporting all of our citizens. I urge support for this bill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me to speak in support of this bill. I join my colleagues in saluting the committee for the progress for education and health, especially for the IDEA special education grants. I understand why it was difficult to deal with issues of school modernization; but I am hopeful that before this Congress adjourns that we are able to assess that critical need. But I would like to address my particular attention to the issue of public broadcasting. The committee has found a way to provide $365 million in advanced funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I think we have all been made aware, just in the course of this last month in our quest for information and news in the wake of September 11, what a critical role public broadcasting plays. A number of the Members of this Chamber looked last week again at some of the critical research videos that have been advanced that really provide broad public understanding of the events in the Middle East. But of critical importance to public broadcasting is the Federal mandate that all TV stations expand from traditional analogue to modern digital transmission by May 2003. This is a powerful new tool for public broadcasting, but without Federal assistance for digital conversion, many areas of the country could lose their public broadcast signals. One-third of the 347 member stations in the system are considered at risk. I appreciate the language in this bill providing for an additional $25 million for digitalization; however, this appropriation must be specifically authorized in subsequent legislation. I urge my colleagues to remain aware of this issue and authorize the appropriation in the future. We cannot afford to lose the connection that public broadcast provides between its groundbreaking educational, entertainment, and cultural productions in our communities everywhere. The committee has done its job, and I hope that Congress will follow through.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Farm Bill is an opportunity to help American farmers meet the challenges of a new century. We are the strongest farming nation in the world, with abundant food at reasonable prices and we export far more than we import. However, this comes at a very high price. Our environment, despite some impressive improvements, still suffers. The structure of our current farming industry uses too much water, generates too much pollution, and too much of our best agricultural land is lost due to sprawl, erosion, and misuse. Smaller farmers continue to be forced to sell while entry into the business is prohibitively expensive and difficult. Perverse programs mean more farmers are dependent on ever-increasing subsidies. The complex web of loans, credits, quotas, and direct payments is expensive for Americans both as taxpayers and consumers. The support system tends to obscure financial impacts while it distorts decisions farmers make regarding type and quantity of crops, often to the detriment of the long-term productivity of the land and the health of the environment. At a time when we seek to open foreign markets to more American production, we are still sheltering ours in ways that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of our own trade agreements. The United States has been able to survive and some farmers thrive under this system because we had seemingly inexhaustible supplies of fertile land, abundant water, tolerance for cutting environmental corners, and generous financial support. That world is changing. Our environmental standards are getting stronger. Due to the threats of sprawl, water pollution, pesticides, fertilizer, and the excesses of factory farms, the public will never tolerate backsliding. Environmental standards will only get stronger still. Past practices and government policies have too often stressed our water supplies and the ecosystems that depend upon them. Water systems are depleted far beyond their ability to replenish supply. The inevitable result is more controversy and conflict between competing users. The sad plight of the Klamath Basin in the Pacific Northwest is one example of an emerging pattern all over the West, which will only get worse over time. American agriculture and our public that depends on it can do better. We must begin now to shift from subsidies that encourage production of some crops, regardless of need, to the protection of land and the people who farm. Paying the farmer to be able to do the right thing is the most cost-effective solution. It is also the only solution that is sustainable for the environment and the taxpayer. Over the course of the next 10 years, we must implement this new vision of agriculture for the new century. In the meantime, we must protect the farms and farmers who choose to take advantage of this opportunity. Until we have a bill that makes this transition, I must withhold my support.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased a week ago to see an oped in my hometown newspaper, The Oregonian, written by the president of the American Foreign Service Association, John Naland. It highlights the work of the Foreign Service that we now know is even more important in the wake of the September 11 attack on our country. There is a serious problem facing the Foreign Service, and it can be rectified in the FY02 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, H.R. 2500, when it goes to the House/Senate Conference. Personnel shortages in the Foreign Service Corps seriously impede our ability to conduct our nation's foreign policy. Even before September 11, our Foreign Service personnel were stretched too thinly in the face of growing demands. Work that should have been done was not getting adequate attention because of competing demands of time and energy. Personnel shortages also leave us under-trained because in choosing between training or filling a position, the system fills the position. The Department of State calculates that the shortfall is about 1,100 people. The 2000 report on `State Department Reform' by the Task Force chaired by Frank Carlucci and cosponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated the workforce shortfall to be some 700 Foreign Service Officers or nearly 15 percent of Foreign Service requirements. As the Foreign Service continues to promote and protect our interests abroad in these difficult days, it is vital that we appropriate funding for the Diplomatic and Consular Account in the State Department portion of the FY02 C-J-S appropriations bill that is at or above the $3,646 million level provided by the House of Representatives. I encourage conferees to adopt this funding level. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the views of the American Foreign Service Association as presented here. [From the Oregonian, Sept. 28, 2001] Don't Forget the Vital Role of Diplomacy (By John K. Naland) President Bush has vowed to use every resource at his command to defeat terrorism. In his address to the nation last week, he included four that are familiar to most Americans: military might, intelligence collection, law enforcement and financial pressure. But many citizens might be hard-pressed to explain the practical value of the anti-terrorism tool that Bush put at the very top of his list: Diplomacy. Diplomacy is the art of influencing foreign governments and peoples to support our nation's vital interests. Never has skilled U.S. diplomacy been more needed than in the current crisis. The president has made it clear that destroying the network of international terrorists will require the combined efforts of many nations. Thus, the task of forming that international coalition against terrorism now rests on the shoulders of U.S. diplomacy. While Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell are clearly our chief diplomats in this effort, our career diplomats stationed around the globe are implementing the detailed work. As Powell said in a Sept. 13 ``all hands'' message sent to all U.S. diplomatic and consular posts, ``the men and women of American diplomacy will be at the forefront of this unprecedented effort . . . to break the back of international terrorism.'' U.S. diplomats are now rallying key governments to apply political pressure on those countries that harbor terrorists. They are seeking to enlist foreign police forces and intelligence services in the search for the attackers. U.S. diplomats are negotiating for the military overflight and basing rights that will be needed if we must, as the president put it, ``bring justice to our enemies.'' Unfortunately, even as Congress does its part to fight terrorism by augmenting the budgets of our military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, some in Congress do not acknowledge the parallel need to strengthen our diplomatic efforts. This despite the fact that diplomatic readiness is no less important to our national security than is military readiness. Lost in the flurry of congressional activity last week was the Senate passage of a State Department appropriations bill that fell far short of what Powell requested last spring. The deleted funding was to have addressed two of the State Department's most pressing deficiencies: inadequate staffing and dilapidated overseas infrastructure. Because the House version of the bill fully funded the administration's request, a House and Senate conference committee will soon meet to decide on the final funding level. The events of Sept. 11 underscore the urgent need for adequate resources for diplomacy, which Powell has aptly termed ``America's first line of offense.'' As our diplomats go about forging an international coalition against terrorism, it is vital for the Congress to give them the tools they need to succeed. John K. Naland, a career Foreign Service Officer and former U.S. Army officer, is president of the American Foreign Service Association.