Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, in these times of extreme pressure on our national security team, we want to be assured that America is properly prepared. This defense authorization bill has much that I find commendable. It provides funding for providing the essential defense requirements that will assure that the United States continues to have the most powerful armed forces anywhere in the world, far and away superior to the next seven countries combined. There are many improvements that are made to quality of life for our fighting men and women including increased resources for their pay and for their housing which are critical and which I strongly support. It also recognizes work that I've been championing to have the military clean up after itself and deal with unexploded ordnance and other military pollution. Having an inventory of these contaminated sites is an important step forward and I appreciate the work that Committee leadership and staff have done in that regard. I reluctantly vote in opposition to this defense authorization because of the continued clear misallocation of resources it includes for national missile defense. In fact, I have grave reservations about several of our patterns in military technology and hardware. For example, we are still developing three new tactical aircraft systems simultaneously. It is critical that we deal with the meat and potatoes of our nation's defense and the support of our military retirees before launching forth with some of these troubling weapons systems. The most problematic of them all is missile defense. There is nearly $8 billion in this bill for a system that was demonstrated two weeks ago to not be our top priority. We were caught flat-footed with a severe act of domestic terrorism illustrating that we need to be doing more to protect against conventional threats: intelligence on the ground and improving civilian capacity to assist our citizens. It is ill-advised to continue to feed money into a system for remote risks that are far into the future which may not even work and may further destabilize the world balance of power. We need to focus our efforts now more than ever before on making sure that our armed forces are equipped to deal with today's threats and responsibilities, not what we wish they would be in the future or know they were in the past. Missile defense is the worst example of both these premises. I hope that we will be able, in the course of this Congress, to do a better job of effectively evaluating our threats and redeploying our resources to protect our citizens and support our fighting men and women.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, you were in the Chair and I had taken to the floor for this session. As we have seen the impacts of September 11 continue to unfold, it does, as you and I have remarked, seem like a lifetime ago. Yet, in these times of emergency, the American public deserves our very best efforts. They deserve to have Congress look after the interests of all our citizens, America's workers as well as its businesses, in a careful, cost-effective manner. In our rush to meet the growing demands created by the devastation in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania, Congress would do well to follow Mr. Greenspan's cautious advice, that it is more important to be right than to be quick. Last week, Congress approved $15 billion in Federal support for airline carriers. While no one doubts that the aviation industry has had enormous impacts on our communities, on American business and on our people's daily lives, our rush to provide relief created what I feel is a dangerous precedent. Within a week of receiving airlines' demands for help, Congress passed and the President signed a $15 billion package that appears to go well beyond the amount needed to provide the stabilization required for this vital part of the economy. Pushed aside for later consideration were many of the more difficult questions, providing assistance to over 100,000 airline employees laid off since the attacks, questioning what role the Federal Government should play to ensure greater airport security, or addressing the numerous collateral victims across the country directly related to air transport who have also been attacked and damaged, even though they live far away from ground zero. These ripple effects need to be heard and addressed. The question is not merely whether the industry got too much money. When huge sums of taxpayer dollars are involved, we need to establish clearly what will be the value that the public receives in return. Is it going to receive an equity interest in return for an extraordinary investment? Or perhaps we could have purchased the noisy, polluting, inefficient airplanes and retired them from service. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that in the upcoming weeks and months, we know Congress will be asked to provide assistance to other interests and industries and clearly to help bolster our troubled economy. We would do well to seize this as an opportunity to be thoughtful in our approach and to capitalize on this renewed bipartisan spirit on Capitol Hill to craft legislation that addresses the complexity of the problems that adds real value and makes sufficient use of tax dollars. This is not the time to throw money at problems without a sense of the trade-offs, without failing to include all impacted individuals and businesses or weakening labor, environmental or fiscal protections. Above all, it is not a time to use the sense of crisis to push through questionable legislation, whatever the motivation. The American public deserves our best at the time of crisis, and we in Congress would do well to heed the open letter from taxpayers for common sense that calls for these very best efforts for our taxpayers, our citizens to make sure that we are equal to the challenge.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule. The rushed process by which this airline relief legislation has been brought to the Floor does not allow for full consideration of the critical elements that the public deserves to have addressed. The rule does not allow Members to add provisions to this legislation that would provide a more fair and comprehensive relief package to protect and restore the entire aviation industry, including those who work for airlines and in other directly related industries. In this time of extreme tension and sense of urgency, we should be urgent about doing things right and not rushing to consider solutions that only address half of the problem. Federal assistance to stabilize the industry is warranted. I cannot, however, support a rule that fails to consider all of the ripple effects to those people and businesses across the country who are directly impacted by last week's tragic events.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time. As the Nation's eyes turn towards what we can do to protect our citizens from these horrible actions of terrorist violence, it would be sad, in an era of unprecedented increase in military spending, if we did not also do everything we could to save the lives and health of innocent Americans. Sadly, as the committee has recognized, the landscape across this country is still littered with the explosive residue from years of military testing, storage, unexploded ordnance and other toxins that have taken the lives of adults and children and threatened the health of Americans across the country, including right here in Washington, D.C. I wish to thank the chairman and ranking member for the committee's action to do something about this important problem of unexploded ordnance. I appreciate the committee's including the most important provision of this legislation, which the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) and I have introduced to deal with this problem that is not theoretical and touches every congressional district, and that is to inventory the sites and provide a program for their prioritization. We are going to have to address the problem of unexploded ordnance at some time. The current rate of cleanup will take hundreds, some have even estimated it may take as many as a thousand, years. That is unacceptable. Sooner is better for the environment, for our citizens, and for the taxpayers. I hope that this last week's tragic incident will strengthen our resolve to do everything we can to make our citizens safe in every way possible. Unexploded ordnance, also known as UXO, is the bombs and shells that did not go off as intended and are subsequently buried or litter the landscape. Our bill, the Ordnance and Explosives Risk Management Act (H.R. 2605), lays out policy guidelines to address this problem. Section 311 of the Committee bill calls for an inventory of explosive risk sites at former military ranges. It requires DOD to complete and annually update the inventory that is already begun and establishes criteria for site prioritization among UXO sites. I want to clarify the purpose of this prioritization requirement. It requires the Department of Defense to develop much more detailed information on the nature and extent of the unexploded ordnance problem that it has compiled to date. Recent GAO reports have concluded that the Department of Defense does not have a complete inventory of current and former training ranges, and that DOD may have overlooked as many as 200 former training ranges in compiling a survey of Formerly Used Defense Sites for the Senate Armed Services Committee. Thus, DOD has likely significantly underestimated the scope of the unexploded ordnance problem. In addition to woefully incomplete information on the scope of this problem. DOD has not been able to provide much information on the urgency of cleaning up the many sites that have been identified. Some have expressed concern to me that the prioritization requirements of the new section 2710 (which is added to Chapter 160 of title 10, United States code) may preempt states' regulatory authority. That certainly is not the case. I want to emphasize that these requirements are simply intended to generate information on the relative urgency of necessary response actions at and within different ranges. These provisions are not intended to impair or alter, or diminish any existing federal or state authorities to establish requirements for investigating and responding to ordnance contamination. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to note that the Senate is addressing similar issues to this inventory requirement regarding UXO in its version of the FY02 Defense Authorization. We in the House of Representatives look forward to combining and improving the language in conference in pursuit of what appear to be our common objectives. It is difficult to find a Congressional district that does not have a UXO problem: over 1,000 formerly-used defense sites (FUDS) are known or suspected to be contaminated with it. They are located from extremely remote areas in Alaska to dense urban environments such as the Spring Valley neighborhood in Washington, DC. Many of these sites are located in already heavily populated urban areas bordered by housing developments, schools, and parks. Much of this land is otherwise highly desirable, yet its use is restricted due to UXO contamination. At least 65 people have been killed in this country by accidents with UXO, most of them since World War II. This inventory requirement is going to enable us to begin to learn more about the scope of the UXO problem and provide what is needed for our families to be safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Last Tuesday, war was declared, not just on the United States but on civilized people everywhere. The American people were instantly united and resolved around this challenge. This resolution this evening is another step in the long struggle for the American people to see that their Nation's leadership is equal to this challenge. While I am one who believes that the American President has these powers and more, there is a chance here to jointly define the challenge. There is an opportunity for Congress and the administration, people in both parties, to be very clear about what our challenge is and what we are going to do. Our Nation has never quite undertaken this issue in quite the same way. We can avoid the problems of the past. We saw in the Spanish- American War we had the wrong cause for the wrong war. During World War II, we saw our government commit, sadly, acts against the civil liberties of Japanese-American citizens. I think we have learned from those experiences in the past. I am hopeful this resolution will be the first step for more direct actions that will be inclusive, inclusive here on Capitol Hill, inclusive of citizens around the country, inclusive with our friends and allies abroad, and, indeed, with some countries with whom we may not have the warmest of relations; but we are all united in this effort to protect the rights of many men and women in civilized countries everywhere. I hope this is a beginning of an effort to show that we Americans are equal to the challenge and that we are going to lead it in a way that is going to help spare other people around the world from the terror of these dark and sinister forces.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. In our shock and anger and sorrow over this cowardly attack, it is important for us to seize this moment. We Americans learn to draw strength from adversity. In this terrible time, we are demonstrating that Americans have their priorities straight. Our first attention is to provide aid and comfort for the victims and their families. Our next priority is for the safety of our fellow citizens, now and in the future. Finally, America demands justice. We will seek out and hold responsible the cowards who inflicted such carnage on thousands of innocent people. In meeting these priorities, there is a role for every American. Citizens around the country are already stepping forward, giving blood and providing assistance to families of victims. The President has urged that we not allow the terrorist cowards to score a victory by preventing Americans from living life to the fullest. This suggests another important role for Americans, not just going about our business supporting our families and helping others, but refusing to give up our public spaces or our personal liberty. America will not surrender its freedom to fear nor will we fall victim to the baser instincts to perpetuate a downward spiral of violence we have seen in other parts of the world. We will not allow anyone in America to be targeted because of race, religion, or ethnic heritage. Americans believe in the rule of law. There are already pressures in some quarters to lash out. Revenge may be temporarily satisfying, but we Americans have a higher value than revenge. We want justice. Now is the time for all Americans to show that we are different, to demonstrate our strength, our resolve, our courage to be equal to the terrible circumstances that faith has given us. We will not allow the tragic loss of thousands of our fellow citizens to be in vain. This memory will be forever etched in our consciousness, but America will emerge stronger. As Pearl Harbor signaled a turning of the tide against the forces of tyranny and oppression, so too this tragic horror must mark the beginning of the end for the forces of terror and cowardice all around the world, wherever we find them.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is taking action to help protect world health in the fight against HIV AIDS. In Colombia we are spending over a billion dollars to fight the grip of the deadly coca trade that includes eradication of the coca plant and aid to farmers to attempt to shift their production. I find it ironic in the midst of this action by Congress that there are some that would have us reverse a long-standing policy and start promoting the sale of American tobacco overseas. Tobacco is the only legal product which, if used properly, will kill or at least inflict serious bodily damage. The effects on Americans are clear to most policy-makers. Close to 360,000 Americans will die of lung disease this year. It is the third largest cause of death responsible for one in seven deaths. More than 25 million Americans are now living with chronic lung disease, and the use of tobacco is the leading cause in that condition. Sadly, the impacts of tobacco-related lung disease is not limited to the United States. Tobacco was estimated to account for just over 3 million annual deaths worldwide in 1990, and that is rising to over 4 million deaths currently. It is estimated that tobacco attributable deaths will rise to 8.5 million within the next 20 years and 10 million in about 2030. According to the World Health Organization, while tobacco use is actually declining in many developed countries, it is increasing rapidly in those that are developing. In China alone, 14.5 percent of the deaths are attributable to tobacco. What is dramatically different in China is that in other developed countries with a similar rate the number of smokers is growing rapidly, such that two-thirds of the men are smokers before the age of 25. Few quit and about half can be expected to be killed by tobacco. In practical terms, this means in China the number of male deaths alone from tobacco is expected to be roughly 3 million annually by the middle of the century. Mr. Speaker, it is sad to me that after decades of deception and death that we are starting to turn the corner in this country where we have hundreds of billions of dollars in tobacco settlement that is available only after litigation. It is something that this Congress was unwilling or unable to correct to try and help reduce the number of new addicts and victims. It has opportunity to help not just the people who are addicted to tobacco but to help change the patterns in this country, like we are doing in Colombia to help farmers be involved with productive crops that are not destructive crops. There are some states that have used tobacco settlement money to do that, like Maryland. I would hope that this Congress would not reverse course, that it would not start promoting the use of our tax dollars to promote the sale of tobacco overseas, but keep our eye on our priority, which is to reduce dependence on tobacco, help wean the American farmer away from dependence on tobacco, use our resources to stop the destruction of death and disease around the world. It would be ironic that a Congress that is working to stop these abusive practices in Colombia with addictive drugs, that is trying to fight the spread of HIV AIDS around the world, would take a tragic step backward. There was an attempt to insert in the agriculture bill an amendment that would reverse this 8 year prohibition on using U.S. resources to promote subsidization of tobacco sales overseas. Wisely, the Committee on International Relations, on a broad bipartisan vote, voted to remove those provisions from the agriculture bill. I hope my colleagues will stand firm. Keep the existing policies. Stop the export of death overseas with tobacco.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me to speak on this important legislation. I agree with one thing from the comments of my colleague from California, and that is that this is closing a chapter in American history. But I think, most important, it represents opening a new era in relationships between the United States and Vietnam. We have heard people talk on this floor about the painful experience. And I think there is no question why people feel so strongly and passionately about it. This was a chapter in our history where traditional measures simply do not apply. Traditional concepts are of winning or losing a war, for example. Certainly the American public has lost over the course of the last third of a century. Certainly we paid heavily in economic terms, costing billions of dollars and throwing our economy into chaos. Families lost. We all know people who lost loved ones. Over 56,000 Americans did not return. And there have been massive efforts on behalf of both the United States and the Vietnamese Governments to try to account for everyone, more than any other war in American history. Yet we are still striving to close that chapter. And, of course, we have to look no further than the streets of America now where we see troubled and, in some cases, homeless veterans who returned seared by the process. But those of us who have experienced a little bit of the situation in Vietnam recently, who have talked to our constituents who are here now and who are of Vietnamese heritage know that this chapter exacted a horrible price on Vietnam itself. There were hundreds of thousands of casualties, tens of thousands of missing and still unaccounted for, and it produced a flirtation with global communism as an ally that has delayed the modernization of that country, including not just its economy and human rights, but reintegration into the family of nations. Thankfully, soon after the formal fighting ended, there were courageous people who stepped forward to try to begin this new era. No discussion of this issue would be complete without noting the unique contributions by American heroes, like Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, and our own former colleague on the floor of this House and ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, who worked to engage our two countries. We have made tremendous progress in reconciling our past to the new future. It is still not going to be easy. This terrible tragedy in Vietnam continues to claim victims every day. And those who visited the country lately cannot help but be touched by the young children who continue to be maimed by land mines and other unexploded ordnance, by people struggling with war injuries, physical and psychological, children with birth defects. We have hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese who have fled to the United States, who are now citizens of our country, who are trying to reconcile it as well, struggling with the past, and who are hungry for reconciliation with divided families. This trade agreement is an opportunity to open up whole new avenues of commerce and contact between our two countries, but particularly for Vietnamese Americans. Vietnam today is an entirely different nation, unlike what some would lead us to believe. It is entirely different from what we saw 40 and 50 years ago. The architects of the Vietnam War on the side of the Vietnamese, like Ho Chi Minh and his contemporaries, are gone. It is an oft-cited statistic that 60 percent of the Vietnamese people have been born after the conclusion of that war and the vast majority have no memory of those efforts. I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) yielding me this time, and I apologize if I got carried away a little bit, but we see this new country that is emerging that can take advantage of this trade agreement to forge new links. Southeast Asia is a cauldron today of over 600 million people, of diverse countries rich in natural resources, economic energies and rich cultures, and Vietnam is right in the middle of it. It is a country that has a long history of being leery of the country of China, for instance, and a thousand years of experience to back it up. We have seen people labor mightily over this trade agreement. We are going to see a new era of economic prosperity in Vietnam. It is going to help us economically, but it will be transformational for them, and it is going to empower a new generation of leaders, of entrepreneurs, speed the healing, and give them the energy to slam the pages closed on this chapter and open a new one. I deeply appreciate the leadership of the Committee on Ways and Means, my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), in bringing this forward, the many people who have labored mightily for this agreement, and I strongly urge its passage.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) in allowing me an opportunity to address this issue. I am concerned that a key component of any plan is to chart a course for the future. The energy plan we are debating today and voting on falls terribly short in preparing the United States for the future on a number of issues: fiscal conservatism, environmental stewardship, and international relations. This bill costs $34 billion without any offsets to pay for it. Just like the general tax cut from President Bush which primarily benefits the people who need help the least and puts our economic future for the country in a precarious position, this energy bill puts Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds at further risk of being raided. We need to be focusing first and foremost on conservation and energy efficiency. With all due respect to the Vice President, energy conservation is more than a personal virtue. It should be the cornerstone of a long-term national energy policy. Nor does the bill that we are debating today provide adequate support for those families most in need to meet rising energy costs in the short term or provide incentives and funding for more long-term solutions such as investing in weatherization efforts, more energy-efficient appliances, and building design. For too many elderly and poor people, we are still asking them to choose between energy and food. With the hot spells we are looking at in the course of the summer, it could, in fact, be a life or death decision for some senior citizens. The energy bill is a direct assault on the environment by attempting to open up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge by drilling at a tremendous cost of 160 species of migratory birds, caribou, grizzlies, wolves and others that rely on the open space of the refuge. Finally, it is the slap in the face of our allies around the globe. Earlier this month in Bonn, the international community came to an agreement to address greenhouse gas emissions. I respect people who disagree, but this administration has been unable to formulate its own approach, leaving America out in the cold. America deserves a bill that balances economic and environmental considerations. I strongly urge a vote against this consideration.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, there is no longer a rational reason for us to distinguish between SUVs and light trucks and other vehicles. They are mostly used as passenger cars in the first place. The base bill simply does not provide enough conservation: approximately 6 days of oil consumption over the next 9 years. There is a big difference between the average car and a 13-mile-per gallon SUV. It is the equivalent of leaving a refrigerator door open for 6 years for the average year. I would suggest that the opponents of this amendment are selling American industry short. There is no reason the American auto industry cannot keep pace with foreign competition. We should not drive Americans into their hands.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I recently visited the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It is an area that I have not visited before in previous trips to Alaska and I wanted to see this controversial area for myself. I spent a several days hiking, camping, exploring the wilderness, flying over some of the vast stretches, talking to Alaskans and spending time in the Prudhoe Bay area with representatives of the petroleum industry. I saw caribou in vast numbers and witnessed the fragility of the tundra with small willows that are 20 and 30 years old that are only inches high. I thought a lot about what would happen if there were problems with drilling in this area. I came away with a profound sense that the American public is right. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is absolutely the last place we should be exploring for oil, not the first. A rational national energy policy must place conservation and efficiency at the forefront. Merely ending the fuel efficiency loophole for SUV and light trucks will save more oil that the Arctic Refuge will produce. With only 2 to 3 percent of the world's reserves--and an energy habit that accounts for 25 percent of the world's consumption--the United States simply cannot produce enough energy to meet its demand. We would do better to use the 10 years it would take to get the oil from the coastal plain to improve the energy efficiency of our transportation system, homes and factories, and develop a significant, meaningful, long-term national energy policy. The Arctic refuge should be left alone. Mr. Chairman, as Yogi Berra once said, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' Once before, this House held an important debate on whether to open up a portion of Alaska to oil and gas exploration. The arguments were about the same as what we've been hearing today. Supporters said it was critical for our national energy security. Opponents said it couldn't be done safely. The vote was close, but Congress authorized drilling in Prudhoe Bay. Imagine how much more dependent the United States would have been on oil from Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah if that courageous and far- sighted decision had not been made. Now, it's our time. I've been to Alaska, and I have seen how oil and gas exploration can be done, while preserving the natural beauty of the State. I have personally seen the tract in ANWR that we are talking about. It is an area with important new reserves where drilling was contemplated long ago. I left convinced that exploration and the environment can comfortably coexist. I just wish that more people could see first-hand the area that we're talking about. The higher energy prices we've experienced lately, really come down to the old law of supply and demand. Our economy has been growing, but we haven't been producing enough energy to keep up. Opening up a sliver of ANWR is a sensible way to increase our energy supplies, while at the same time making us less dependent on foreign oil.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in sharing a few of these scarce moments with me. I join, first of all, in expressing my appreciation to the leadership of our committee that has focused on the health and future of America's railroads. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), I think are doing an outstanding job; and I am looking forward to working in the future with them. One of the important parts of their job is to modernize this pension program. It is not Social Security. If they were part of Social Security and had been for years, this would be a much different situation. This is independently funded. These people are paying now 36.3 percent of total payroll into this. It is a significant tax on industry and these individuals. The proposal that has been worked out retains the individual contribution, and it is still is going to be 33 percent total investment. They are not pulling rabbits out of the hat. They are modernizing the system with a tier 2 benefits like you would any other modern pension program and diversifying the investment, moving beyond low-yield bonds. I think we are going to be able to hit the target and exceed the target. This is certainly more conservative than the assumptions that some people have used to justify voting for the Bush tax program, but that is a different issue. We have, I do think, an obligation to be honest; and I think we are doing a good job in terms of putting forward alternative sources of revenue, modernizing the rate of return, allowing industry to reinvest in badly needed infrastructure, being fair to almost 1 million participants, and bring this pension plan into the modern era. But, please, do not confuse this with Social Security. It took us up until a few minutes ago, and I do not know what the chair and ranking member did to convince OMB to understand that this is a separate program. They have done it. I am glad you could do it with OMB. I hope you will be as successful with some of the other programs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today's debate has much less to do with ``cloning'' human beings and everything about denying legitimate and important stem cell research. I am concerned that we are getting ahead of ourselves. The issue of stem cell research and its various clinical applications is incredibly complex and the technology very new. There is also the concern that other political issues, such as abortion, are really driving this debate. Until we can tame the rhetoric and focus on the underlying issues, we should not limit legitimate scientific research. I will vote for the Greenwood/Deutsch amendment because it was better than the underlying bill, not because it represents a good long-term policy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the hard work that he has been involved with throughout his career on Capitol Hill to deal with notions of improving the quality of life here in the metropolitan area. Mr. Chairman, I am an enthusiastic supporter of provisions in this bill that can have a beneficial impact on the entire Washington region; and most important, to improve the quality of life for the thousands of men and women working here on Capitol Hill all at a very small cost. My goal in Congress is for the Federal Government to be a better partner promoting livable communities, making families safe, healthy and more economically secure. An important part of a livable community is ensuring that people have choices about where they want to live, work and how they travel. A recent study highlighted Washington, D.C., as the third most congested region in the United States. Rush hour can be 6 hours or more out of every day. Here on Capitol Hill, we have problems of congestion, pollution and parking shortages. There are over 6,000 parking spaces which are reserved for our employees, which are not free. The total cost is estimated at about $1,500 per year, and with the temporary closure of the Cannon Office Building garage, parking is at even more of a premium. Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago, with the help of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and then-Speaker Gingrich, we were able to change the policy of only providing free parking to House employees to be able to have a modest transit benefit. We have made some progress in being able to establish it, but unfortunately, we have been passed by by the rest of the Federal Government, by the private sector, even dare I say, by our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol in the Senate. It is time for us to move forward not just for our congressional offices, but the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget Office, to enjoy the transit benefits that we are giving to the rest of the Federal employees. Today's bill provides this important change to include the language and increase the allowable amount to $65 for legislative branch employees. This modification will provide parity for all of the remaining Federal employees in the metropolitan area. It includes other important language such as to update the bike facilities here on Capitol Hill. We have more and more of our employees who are taking advantage of that opportunity. We have an opportunity to secure bike lockers for those Members and staff who walk to work, and to study the new potential locations to replace shower facilities that are being lost with the upcoming closing of the O'Neill Building. Currently, there are only two shower facilities on all of Capitol Hill for over 6,000 employees able to shower at work. Some of us have been providing instructions about how to find them so they are not treated as a secret. I applaud the Committee on Appropriations, particularly the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), for including these simple, low-cost efforts in today's bill. They will provide benefits many times over in terms of the quality of life around the Hill for the environment, and it is a signal to our employees that we value their participation. What better way for the House to be part of the solution of saving energy, protecting air, fighting against congestion than by expanding the transit benefit and permitting our employees who run, walk or bike to work to be able to do so in a fashion that is hygienic and comfortable.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding time to me to speak on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I have a slightly different perspective than my friend, the gentleman from Ohio. I happen to believe very strongly that trade promotion authority is important and that our future, not just from our region but for our country and for developing nations around the world, lies in fairer, freer trade. I supported the trade promotion authority for the last administration. I hope to be able to support it for this administration. But I would look at this agreement today as a model for an approach that we can have trade promotion authority, which I think is important, but do it in a way that brings us together, where we can have 300 or 400 people on this floor, as the gentleman from Michigan is looking for ways to be able to express these concerns about environment, about worker standards. This agreement that we have before us can be a template in a way that does not divide us but actually strengthens free trade. It brings it in a way that does not have to have a partisan edge to it, and actually encourages countries to be able to develop their own labor and environmental standards. We have a number of companies around the world that are doing pioneering work in their own work to be able to advance higher standards for the environment and the workplace; international corporations that are showing the way in terms of how to treat their employees in patterns of compensation and worker safety. I would strongly urge that we approve this agreement before us, and that we look at this as a template for how we ought to put together trade promotion authority. I commend the gentleman from Michigan for the work that he is doing on our side of the aisle to have a broader conversation. He, I think, has shown through his work on China that there are ways to bring us together. I encourage this Chamber to look at this agreement as a way that we can do this in a way that we will not lose the opportunity to develop the consensus. I thank the gentleman for his efforts.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this morning's editorial in the Washington Post calls for a second look at Spring Valley. This is the area in an exclusive residential neighborhood in Washington, D.C., immediately adjacent to the American University campus, that was 83 years ago the site of American chemical weapons testing and production during World War I. It is one of over 1,000 sites across America where we have unexploded ordnance, military toxins, environmental waste left from the past. I could not agree more with the Washington Post that it is time for a second look at what is happening in Spring Valley. Last spring, the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C., (Ms. Norton) and I led a group of media and concerned citizens to visit the site where we have saw the areas of the concentration of arsenic, the vacant child care center that had many, many times the level of recommended contaminants before it was vacated, that now stands empty where just a few months ago there were young children. Or looking at the back yard of the Korean Ambassador that is all scratched away where they are trying even now after the second cleanup to finish the job. Yes, it is time for a second look at the Spring Valley situation to see what happened, who knew the information, to see if people were adequately warned of the dangers. But I think there is a much larger issue here than the management of the Spring Valley site. As I mentioned, this is one of over 1,000 sites across the country. Indeed, it is hard to find a congressional district that does not have at least one of these situations that is there dealing with a potential threat to the local environment. It is important that Congress not be missing in action with the issue of unexploded ordnance, which has claimed 65 lives that we have known of, perhaps more, where we have no real understanding of how many thousands, how many hundreds of thousands indeed. Indeed, the estimates are that it could be as many as 50 million acres that are contaminated. Until Congress gets on top of this issue, I fear that we are going to be putting the Department of Defense in a situation where, with an inadequate budget, they are given no choice but to go from hot spot to hot spot, from the focus of emergency from the media, political pressure or some other contingency forces their attention. A much better approach is for us to take a comprehensive look. I would suggest that my colleagues join me in cosponsoring H.R. 2605, the Ordnance and Explosive Risk Management Act that calls for the identification of a single person who is in charge. Right now there is not a single point of contact. It calls for increased work in terms of research so that we know how best to clean up these sites, that we do a comprehensive inventory so at least we know how big the problem is. Of course, we all need to make sure that we are adequately funding this problem. People who followed this in the news noticed that American University has filed suit against the United States Government for almost $100 million in damages. Ultimately, we were responsible for cleaning up after ourselves in terms of Federal Government. Those of us who care about promoting livable communities that make our families safe, healthy and economically secure and who believe that the single most powerful tool available to us is not new fees, new laws, new requirements, but rather the Federal Government led by this bill, modeling the behavior that we expect of other Americans whether they are families, businesses or local government. We have an opportunity to do that right now in moving forward with legislation, with adequate funding to make sure that the toxic legacy of over a century of unexploded ordnance and environmental degradation is taken care of, is addressed, that we do clean up after ourselves. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues join me in support of H.R. 2605 and that we urge our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations and the Armed Services Committee to make sure we are all doing our job, making the framework so that Congress is no longer missing in action on the issue of unexploded ordnance.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, from Wednesday, July 25 to Friday, July 27, 2001, I was absent due to a personal family emergency and missed a number of rollcall votes. On rollcall votes Numbered: 270, 271, 273, 274, 276, 280, 282, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, and 289, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall votes Numbered: 272, 275, 277, 278, 279, 281, and 283, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall votes 270 and 271, I would have voted ``yea'' on both amendments. Like the majority of my colleagues in this House, I support expanded travel for Americans to Cuba. Increasing travel opportunities for Americans to Cuba is a win-win situation for people in both countries, and helps to expand the opportunities to better understand our two cultures and increase exposure to the ideals of American democracy. Rollcall 271, the Rangel amendment, would have stopped the embargo on Cuba. It should be painfully clear by now that the embargo on Cuba is not working. Castro has ruled the island with an iron-fist for forty years. Four decades ago, had America interacted, traded, and exchanged ideas with Cuba there is a good chance that Castro would be gone and Cuba free. I see that a large number of my colleagues agree with me, and I hope to work with them in the future to change our nation's outmoded sanctions policy in respect to Cuba. On rollcall 273, I would have voted ``yea.'' In the past, I have expressed support for private accounts in our Social Security system, but with the understanding that any such proposal accounts for the true cost of transition to a system that includes some element of privatization. I am sorely disappointed in the process and released report by the Administration's Social Security Commission. I believe it has been dishonest in its assessment of the current state of Social Security, and the Administration has unwisely decided to reduce taxes in order to benefit those least in need of tax cuts, thus leaving the government accounts unbalanced. Given recent pronouncements by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that the Administration may need to dip into Medicare On rollcall 274, I would have voted ``yea'' on the final passage of the FY 2002 Treasury Postal appropriations act. In addition to the numerous important federal programs funded through this legislation, in particular I want to emphasize my support for the inclusion of $16,629,000 to upgrade and retrofit the Pioneer Courthouse in Portland, Oregon. This historic federal courthouse is the second oldest west of the Mississippi River and serves as the cornerstone to my community's public living room, Pioneer Courthouse Square. Each year over 8 million people visit the Courthouse while participating in adjacent public events, riding public transit which intersects at Pioneer Square, or engaging in nearby public and commercial activities. The funds provided in the legislation will help ensure the safety for the men and women who work in the Courthouse, and the millions of others who enjoy this historic, public structure. On rollcall 275, I would have voted ``nay'' on the resolution disapproving of the President's recent Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. Since coming to Congress five years ago, I have been deeply involved in the process of normalizing relations between our nation and Vietnam. Last winter I traveled to Vietnam with President Clinton, and I was present for the signing of the Bilateral Trade Agreement. Vietnam is a diverse nation that is growing rapidly and opening both economically and culturally. To disrupt the hard work of engagement between our two nations now would be devastating. Were I here, I would have voted against the disapproval resolution, and I hope last week's overwhelming vote against the resolution (91-324) will encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together to bring the Vietnam BTA to the floor for consideration. On rollcall 288, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Bonior amendment to reinstate the arsenic standards put in place by the Clinton Administration. The Public Health Service adopted the current 50 parts per billion arsenic standard in 1942, before arsenic was known to cause cancer. In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences unanimously found that this outdated arsenic standard for drinking water does not ensure public health protection and that a downward revision was required. The Academy said that drinking water at the current EPA standard ``could easily'' result in a total fatal cancer risk of one in 100. That's a cancer risk 10,000 times higher than EPA allows for food, and 100 times higher than EPA has ever allowed for tap water contaminants. Arsenic is found in the tap water of over 26 million Americans and is one of the most ubiquitous contaminants of health concern in tap water. The new standard put in place by the Clinton Administration last year was the result of 25 years of public comment, debate and at least three missed statutory deadlines. One of the Bush Administration's first actions was to overturn this rule and instead maintain a less protective arsenic standard. I support the Bonior Amendment and hope that its passage will give a clear indication to the Bush Administration of the need to reconsider their position on this issue and take seriously the threat that Arsenic in our drinking water poses to the health of our families and the livability of our communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this amendment. I respect the gentleman from New York in talking about the difficult trade-offs that are being made and the prospects of having $400 million of other programs of mitigation. The fact is we do not have to wait to develop a practical, effective program. For heaven's sakes, this is one of the show pieces of the last FEMA Director, James Lee Witt, who everyone acknowledges has done an outstanding job. In just 5 years, starting with seven pilot projects, this has grown around the country. I was stunned to address their national conference last fall. I interacted with 2,500 people from around the country, private partnerships, NASA, local government, private business, and we are going to throw this away to develop something new? Mr. Chairman, this is what frustrates people about the Federal Government. When we have a winning program that everybody likes, that reaches down to the grass roots, that is voluntary in nature, that we do not have to guess whether or not it is effective, we would throw that away? I beg the gentleman to reconsider. We can find $25 million to keep this experience alive.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just wanted to continue along the venue the gentleman had with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher). I just wanted to commend the chairman for his personal interest and leadership in helping us zero in on these issues dealing with water and infrastructure. I am particularly interested in the gentleman's willingness to work with us on the State Revolving Fund, because this is an area that, from my perspective, ought to be able to bring together a wide variety of opinions because of the fact that it is a revolving fund that deals with loans rather than grants; that requires more of an investment from local communities; the fact that for some instances where people do not have the start-up money, it actually is better than a grant, and that it has money over time. I want to express my appreciation for the gentleman's focus on this and offer any help that I can give to help reinforce this as it works its way through the legislative process, because it means so much to the livability of our communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding time to me to speak on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity we have to have an extension of the current statutory provisions. I hope that, as we take the time to reexamine this, we look at the long-term sweep of this legislation. I have had some great concerns myself that there may be less here than meets the eye. There is an opportunity now across the world for people to buy a computer product that is far more powerful than was used to generate the hydrogen bomb, for instance. We have had situations where American enterprises have been hamstrung by slow-moving bureaucracy on the Federal level that cannot keep pace with the rapid changing technology. There are jokes at times about hand-held devices that teenagers have that could potentially have been subjected to this legislation in times past. I think we have to be very, very careful about how we craft this legislation. There are opportunities for us to simply divert business to other countries to hamstring American enterprise that in the long term will just encourage the development of this technology and help finance the technology in other countries while it undermines the potential for development here at home. I hope that over the course of the 6 months we can use this opportunity to review the impact we have had over the course of the history of this legislation and to really ask ourselves whether or not we are being fair in terms of American industry and if it will have the intended consequences. But if we move forward, I hope that the leadership of our committee, under the able chairmanship of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) will make sure the tools are available for the administration to be able to effectively administer it so that we do not get caught in a hammerlock and be unable to make sure it works as properly intended.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I appreciate the gentleman's words. I look forward to working with the gentleman and with the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). I include for the Record some additional information about this matter. Congress plays a key role in the use of the development assistance budget in addressing issues of cities in the developing world. Cities around the world must accommodate 2.5 billion additional people in the next 25 years and 95 percent of these people will be in cities of the developing world. In the large urban areas of developing countries, 30 percent do not have access to safe drinking water and 50 percent do not have adequate sanitation. A crisis is in the making and if left unattended, problems due to rapidly expanding cities will have serious repercussions for these nations as well as for us here at home in the U.S. When cities work, the economic growth and potential for trade exists. When things go wrong in cities, it affects the entire nation. We need to support foreign assistance programs that help make cities in the developing world work. We need to help build the capacity to plan for and provide the basic services, promote economic growth, reduce environmental degradation, and improve health services--at the city level. That is why in its Outlook 2015, the Central Intelligence Agency ranks rapid urbanization among its top seven security concerns. The CIA's report states, ``The explosive growth of cities in the developing countries 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.'' The U.S. Agency for the International Development's Office of Environment and Urban Programs provides support for enabling cities to provide environmental services and infrastructure. This Office assists USAID missions and carries out regional activities worldwide through staff based in Regional Urban Development Offices overseas. This RUDO network strengthens urban-rural linkages and emphasizes the key role played by market towns and secondary cities. I urge support for it. I also wish to insert the following document which was provided to me by the Coalition for Sustainable Cities. PADCO, Inc. (Planning and Development Collaborative International) in Washington, DC is the contact for this Coalition. Urban Programs at USAID Rapid urban growth is having a profound impact on sustainable development, and USAID can do more to address the urban challenge. Very soon half of the world's population will be urban, and almost all the world's 2.5 billion increase in population over the next 25 years will take place in the cities of the developing world. Poverty, malnutrition, and chronic disease are shifting their concentration from rural to urban areas. Slum conditions adversely affect natural resources, health, security, and economic progress. Cities are also the engines of economic growth in developing countries, and urban focused programs can increase efficiency in addressing the causes and symptoms of poverty. The Need for Urban Programs: The Growing Consensus There is a growing awareness that mega-cities, with populations of 10 to 20 million, in the developing world are increasingly becoming of great concern, as demonstrated by articles in the June 11th article in the Washington Post and in the April 2001 edition of the ``Global Outlook'' Journal. concerns at usaid USAID knows how to work with the private sector to address urban challenges and capitalize on urban opportunities, but results are diminishing because both central funding for urban programs and the number of USAID urban technical staff have been declining rapidly, and are not being replaced. Although the new reorganization of USAID makes tremendous strides in several key areas, it does not mention the small, but critical international urban programs that focus on making cities work. The Regional Urban Development Offices (RUDO) Network, which enables urban experts to function regionally and are so critical to international urban programs, are in danger of being eliminated, even though Mission directors overwhelmingly support the RUDO Networks. The valuable Housing Guaranty/Urban Environmental Credit program was terminated last year and may need to be created again. It represents the only opportunity to move capital resources into critical areas Congress has traditionally viewed as necessary. Through private sector loans with a USAID/USG guaranty substantial amounts of resources have been leveraged into priority areas at minimal cost and risk. USAID Can be Part of the Solution Urban Programs must play a part in the new thinking at

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesy in yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy, if I could, with the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, the subcommittee chair. I have enjoyed working with him over the years on a number of areas that deal with international affairs, trade and development. I rise today because of deep concern with the work that we have with the Agency for International Development's Environment and Urban Programs. Mr. Chairman, we are told by the experts that we are going to see 2.5 billion people added to the world's urban population in the next 25 years. The overwhelming majority, over 90 percent of them, are going to be in the least developed countries of the world. Already, some 30 percent of these communities do not have adequate drinking water, 50 percent do not have basic sanitation, and we are facing the one program in the Agency for International Development that deals with the urban programs that has a crying need for budget assistance. Its budget has been $4 million last year. This is down from $8 million in 1993. It has been going down and holding steady. I guess I would like to engage the gentleman in a colloquy to inquire if it is possible to work with the committee and with USAID to find ways to see that this program receives its proper emphasis and to encourage AID to build on its pass successes by increasing this program's funding levels.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for over two centuries the United States has been the stage for military action in training, beginning with the Revolutionary War. As a result, bombs and shells that did not go off as intended litter the countryside. Unexploded ordinance is an issue that deserves great attention and priority by this Congress. It is difficult to find a congressional district across America that does not have a problem with unexploded ordinance. Well over 1,000 sites are known or suspected to be contaminated. They range from extremely remote areas in Alaska to dense urban environments such as Spring Valley here in Washington, D.C., adjacent to the American University campus where the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C. (Ms. Norton) and I led a tour this spring. The number of acres within the United States contaminated with UXO is estimated at 20 million acres to perhaps 50 million acres or more. One of the most unsettling facts is that there is no accurate estimate. Even so, we know the price tag for cleaning this problem up is huge. According to the General Accounting Office in a report earlier this year, the Department of Defense estimates that its liability may be $100 billion or more just for cleaning up training ranges. Today, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) and I are introducing the Ordinance and Explosive Risk Management Act to help the Department of Defense do its job. The bill would establish a single point of contact for policy and budgeting regarding former military ranges and other sites around the country. It puts someone in charge by establishing a program manager for UXO who is directly accountable to the Secretary of the Army. It requires an inventory of explosive risk sites at former military ranges. This provision requires the Department of Defense to complete and annually update an inventory it started as part of an earlier process and establishes criteria for site prioritization among these many sites that need our attention. The bill protects the public with the requirement of enhanced security measures at former military ranges and public awareness efforts regarding the dangers associated with these sites. It requires the Department of Defense to develop education and site security plans for former ranges in cooperation with property owners and other agencies. The broad interest in Congress has helped us shape this bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who has been working with the Fort Ord cleanup for years, understands and has urged the provision in our bill that creates the separate Department of Defense account for the removal and cleanup. Because it is so fundamentally different, this provision enables everybody who cares to be able to follow the issue. One of the most important elements of our bill is a result of the experience of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) in dealing with the chemical demilitarization program. He feels strongly, and I agree, that it is important to have an independent panel to be able to look at the problems associated with cleaning up these contaminated sites. This advisory and review panel will include the National Academy of Science, nongovernmental organizations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and representatives of the States. They will report annually to Congress on the progress made by the Department of Defense and make further recommendations for program improvements. I appreciate the contributions of people like the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley). This is a problem that is not going away. At least 65 people have been killed as a result of accidents from this military waste. Recently, American University just filed a lawsuit against the United States for almost $100 million because of problems related to the contamination of that campus when it was used as a site for the development and testing of chemical weapons during World War I and still has not been cleaned up thoroughly. We have a responsibility in Congress to address this issue. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this legislation, along with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley), and make sure that this Congress is not missing in action when it comes to dealing with the consequences of environmental military contamination.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman from Massachusetts in yielding me time and his support and also thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). I thank the chair of the Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen); the forest subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), for their support and swift passage of this legislation. Madam Speaker, we introduced the Little Sandy Protection Act to provide important protections for this sensitive watershed. This Little Sandy Protection Act enjoys broad bipartisan support of the Oregon delegation in both this House and the other body, and is strongly backed by local organizations, including the City of Portland. No resource is more fundamental to the livability of our communities than safe, clean drinking water. This legislation will help protect water quality and quantity for a million residents, not just in the city of Portland but throughout the Portland metropolitan area who drink the Bull Run water today and are counting on it for future generations. This watershed, which stretches across three congressional districts, provides our region with its cleanest and most reliable source of drinking water. In fact, Portland is one of only two American metropolitan areas that provide fresh, untreated water to citizens due to the high quality of the fresh water that is available. This legislation helps protect the supply not just of the water, but also being sensitive to the fragile fish habitat that has been a concern for people in our region. It also recognizes the natural significance of this area. President Teddy Roosevelt signed into law protections for the Bull Run Reserve over 97 years ago, and this measure brings us full circle by extending the boundary of the management unit to include the entire hydrologic boundary of the Little Sandy Watershed, another 2,800 acres. This expansion is critical to secure water quality for potential drinking water for the metropolitan area for years to come. Madam Speaker, the bill before us is the product of many years of discussion and deliberation amongst all parties concerned, and it is something that I began with former Senator Hatfield when I first joined this body. The bill provides additional protections for endangered salmon, it protects water quality, it maintains the integrity of the ONC county funding, and it authorizes Clackamas County to seek additional watershed restoration projects of $10 million that relate to the Endangered Species Act and water quality improvement. Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 427, the Little Sandy Protection Act. It is the product of years of work, and it will pay dividends for years to come.