Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this evening to address this Chamber dealing with issues, as I have often done on this floor, of livability: what the Federal government can do to be a better partner helping American families to be safe, healthy, and more economically secure. And as we approach the notion of how to structure that partnership, there are those that suggest that there are areas of new rules or regulations, tax, fees, new government programs, and they all have their place, I suppose, in the toolkit towards enhancing liveability. Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the single most important factor that enters into the Federal Government being a better partner with our local communities is simply to lead by example. For the Federal Government to model the behavior that we expect of other entities, corporations, individuals, and governments, for the Federal Government to walk the talk, there is nothing that is more powerful, more compelling, that is going to cost less and be more effective. For instance, I have worked with many in this Chamber on a simple piece of legislation that would require the United States Post Office to obey local land-use laws, zoning codes, environmental regulations, to engage the American public in a constructive fashion on decisions that affect communities large and small in over 40,000 locations around the country. It is not particularly revolutionary. It is not going to cost the taxpayer any money. It is not going to be in the long term more difficult for the post office. There is no real difference than their competitors like UPS, for instance, or FedEx. It will help change, however, the relationship that we have with the post office and local communities. Mr. Speaker, as we reflect on ways that the Federal Government can lead by example, I am struck by how key the decisions that we make regarding the United States Department of Defense for our military which is the largest manager of infrastructure in the world, over $500 billion worth of roads, bridges, hospitals, docks, classrooms and apartments. The military, however, is stuck in this struggle in terms of how it is going to promote liveability for enlisted personnel and for the communities in which we are surrounded. In fact, there is all the discussion we have in the United States about the consequences of unplanned growth, the consequences of sprawl; but I think we can make the argument that it is the United States military that is affected the most by the consequences of sprawl and unplanned growth. Think for a moment about the controversies that are facing the military from Hawaii to Puerto Rico, where there is growing resistance to the areas in which the military is conducting its training exercises, people are trying to stop the use of live ammunition and equipment in Hawaii. And as we have seen, the Bush administration has recently announced that in 3 years we are going to stop these activities in Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker, the question arises where is the military, in fact, going to undertake these activities that are still essential to maintaining military readiness for the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces? We are facing a question with this administration, as we did with the Clinton administration before us, what are we going to do with the inventory of military bases and other facilities that are in excess of what are necessary to maintain our fighting forces? Indeed, we have an inventory of military bases that basically reflects a tremendous overhang from World War I and World War II. We have more inventory than we need for today's military bases. But as is well known to Members of this Chamber that when you try attempting to close them, there is a great storm of controversy. There are some communities that are, frankly, very apprehensive about the consequences of losing the employment base in their community, but there are others who frankly are more concerned about what is going to be left once you shut down this base of operation. After you have recycled the jobs elsewhere, will there be an opportunity to use this land for productive purposes? We look at Fort Ord 10 years after the BRAC process closed that base, we have yet to be able to fully transition all of that land to productive private sector uses. As we approach a new round of BRAC decisions, uncertainty about what is going to happen to communities and an unwillingness of the Federal Government to act in a prompt and thoughtful fashion, to clean it up and turn it over adds to the uncertainty. It is going to make it more difficult for this administration politically, economically, and environmentally to do what is right for right-sizing the scale of American military operations. It is going to end up costing us more money, and it is going to delay the use of these lands for more productive uses. There is another serious problem that is associated with it. Today we have an all- volunteer Army; and increasingly, we find that the skill level that is required for the men and women who are in uniform is rising ever higher, retaining these highly qualified men and women, the best and brightest of whom can transition into the private sector, have more certainty in their life, higher quality of life, earn more money, and have more career advancement. In order for the military to retain the highly qualified, technically proficient men and women who make the modern military work we give to them a high quality of life. If we are facing a situation where military housing is substandard, and I have seen reports that suggest half or more of a third of a million military housing units is substandard, it is very difficult to retain the men and women in uniform and their family members, because increasingly, these people are, in fact, more mature. They have their own families, and they care about quality of life. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would reference the difficulty the military faces with the exposure to liability for not having cleaned up after itself. Dealing with the environmental problems that are the legacy of military operations for over a century has the consequence, not only of denying productive use of this land to the community, but it is a distinct liability that the United States Government and the Department of Defense cannot escape. Ultimately, we are responsible for cleaning up after ourselves. The bill is going to come due for the Department of Defense. The longer we evade, the longer we delay in cleaning it up in a forthright fashion, the more expensive it is going to be for the taxpayer, the more damage to the environment. We are looking at what is happening in the State of Massachusetts with the Massachusetts military reservation where there is a toxic plume that is poisoning the aquifer on Martha's Vineyard, the source of drinking water for some of the exclusive properties in this pristine and valuable land. It has historic significance. It is very significant to some of the best and brightest around the country. That is slowly being poisoned because we have not been able to move quickly with the Department of Defense to clean up after itself. The liability in Massachusetts on Martha's Vineyard is not going to get smaller over time; indeed, it is going to escalate. More environmental damage, a larger bill for the taxpayer. One of the areas that I am most concerned about deals with the legacy of unexploded ordnance. We have across the country in over 1,000 sites with potential contamination of 20, 30, 40, maybe 50 million acres or more where we have the legacy of unexploded ordnance from past military activities. We have had this visited upon people, burst on the scene in unexpected ways. My colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), had this occur in her district where on Storm King Mountain State Park, overlooking the Hudson River, the park actually was not a military range, but it was near West Point, and as effective and well trained and talented as the men and women are at West Point, often the targeted were missed. The shells that they were using were lodged in the land in and around the Storm King Mountain State Park. We had a situation here a couple of years ago where there was a serious forest fire and the firefighters were out to try to stop the blaze; and all of a sudden, there were a series of explosions where these shells that had been buried, in some cases for up to a century or more, started exploding due to the heat of the forest fire; and we were forced to close Storm King Mountain State Park, one of the examples of where the unexploded ordnance has returned to haunt the American public and the military. Earlier this spring, Mr. Speaker, I led a group to the campus of American University and to Spring Valley, one of the most exclusive residential districts in the District of Columbia. I am not talking about some far-flung area in the wilderness that had been used for military operations. I am talking about a location that is about a 25-minute bicycle ride from where I am speaking this evening. I have here a map, an aerial map that dates from 1922. It seems that the land adjacent to and surrounding American University, in fact, some of the land on the American University campus during World War I was the location of the American testing for chemical weapons. We have here an aerial view that shows the location of test pits where they had goats and rabbits and hamsters, where they would inflict nerve gas, mustard gas on these animals, where we would manufacture it, where we had over a thousand structures and almost 2,000 men and women working during World War II. Mr. Speaker, it was one of the most toxic sites in America. Some of the facilities were so contaminated they could not even tear the sheds down. They ended up burning a number of them and burying the residue, burying the leftover chemicals and weapons. Now what we see, 83 years after World War I, we still have a toxic legacy here in the United States capital. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we had a situation in the mid-1990s after we had gone in with the work of the Corps of Engineers spending over $30 million, removing contaminated soils and materials and bombs. There were working people out on this site escavating a foundation for one of the multimillion dollar homes for the Spring Valley Development, most of them are between $1 million to $5 million or more, and the workmen were busy with the backhoe. It hit something, broke something and the work people were sent to the hospital because they had discovered a container of a toxic chemical. As they went to the site and started working around it, they found a container of phosphorus where the steel container had rusted away and left the ceramic shell. And when they broke the shell open, the phosphorus came in contact with the oxygen in the air and burst into flames. The question occurs to a thoughtful person, what would have happened if it was a child who had been playing on a construction site who had found this waste from World War I? Farfetched? Well, as I speak, we are spending another $40 million to try and decontaminate the site. As I speak, one can go out to this exclusive residential neighborhood and find little flags in various and sundry properties in the neighborhood where they are taking samples to try and find out where the contaminants are. If any of my colleagues were to go to a cocktail reception at the home of the Korean Ambassador, who lives in a little $10 million bungalow just off this site that I mentioned here, the Korean Ambassador to the United States, I would suggest they not go in his back yard, because they will find that it is all dug away as they are trying to remove the contaminants in his back yard. Just up the hill and across the road from the Ambassador is the child care center from American University. It is a modern child care center. The playground equipment is visible in the yard. But it is vacant because the levels of arsenic in the soil upon which this child care center is built is 20, 40, 50 times the level that is regarded as safe. There are young women who were on the rugby team, the girls that played on the girls intramural field at American University, who wondered why the rashes that they suffered when they were playing on that field did not heal properly, and questions have been raised as to whether or not the contamination on that field was a part of it. I mention Spring Valley not because it is the worst site in America, I mention it because it is here, literally in the shadow of the American Capitol, and it is 83 years after World War I has concluded, after we have spent over $30 million cleaning it up, and we still have not been able to tell the residents around Spring Valley and the university community at American University that we have taken care of the problem. It is not farfetched to speculate what might happen with children who come across unexploded ordnance in over a thousand locations around America. There was a tragic situation that occurred in San Diego where there were three junior high students, young boys, playing in a field in a subdivision that had been built on a formerly used defense site. They came across a shell. Now, 10-, 11-year-old boys will do what children will do. They were playing with it, trying to figure out what to do with it, if it was real, and seeing if they could open it up. It exploded. It killed two of them. I have been able to identify 65 Americans who have been killed as a result of unexploded ordnance. And I suspect on America's military reservations, bases, bombing ranges, that if we had full access to all the information, that, in fact, we have probably had far more than these 65 that I have been able to identify. In Portland, Oregon, just across the river from us, a half-hour's drive, there is a 3,800-acre military reservation, Camp Bonneville. No longer used for military purposes, it has been used for the better part of the last century. It is separated from the public, for most of the 3,800 acres, by three strands of barbed wire. No way we are going to keep out the public. People have been using these 3,800 acres for years. Children have played on it, people have ridden horseback, there are people who have hunted, folks who have used it just for a day hike, even though we attempt to post signs and keep people off it. The military personnel who are responsible for it advise there is no way to secure it and people continue to use it. We do not yet know what all is on the site of Camp Bonneville. We have had situations where they have found 105-millimeter shells on the surface. Now, these are the shells that are about like this, that have seven and a half pounds that serve to detonate the shells. There are ambitious plans to return these 3,800 acres to public use, for a wildlife refuge, for a park, and the people of Vancouver and Clark County, Washington, are excited about the prospect, but we have not yet been able to analyze what is on the site. We have not been able yet to understand what we need to make sure that it is clear and that we can turn it back over. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and spend the remainder of the hour that has been allocated to me just talking about these examples. As I work with the men and women in this Chamber, virtually everybody I work with has a problem like this in their community or near it, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), with Fort Ord in California. Ten years after Fort Ord has been closed, we still have not been able to turn over the 28,000-acre former home to the 30,000 men and women who were there. We have a situation with my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), with Rocky Flats, Colorado, a former nuclear weapons production facility that they are attempting to be able to make the transition for. We have situations with the Aberdeen Proving Ground, affecting the district of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), that contains a number of closed ranges with unexploded ordnance and chemical weapons materials. Now, this is a problem not just for what is on the land there, but the potential of exposing the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries and the potential contaminants in a plume that threatens Harford County's drinking water supply. We have Savannah Army Depot, which concerns the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), some 9,000 to 10,000 acres that we would like to transfer to the Fish and Wildlife Service, but much of the acreage along the Mississippi River is not suitable for transfer or reuse because of UXO. I could continue on and on and on this evening. I will not. Suffice it to say this is representative of over 1,000 locations around the country where we have these problems. It is something that knows no geographic limits because it is east and west, north and south, and indeed it is the islands that the United States is responsible for off our territorial boundaries in Hawaii, in Guam, and in Puerto Rico. It is a situation where we are today, at today's rate of cleanup, looking at this problem continuing for one century, two centuries, 500 years, perhaps 1,000 years or more given the current rate of cleanup. It is a situation where we do not even know what the dollar amount is. What we do know is that the estimates that have been provided by the Department of Defense are completely inaccurate. They are unreliable. They understate the problem in a dramatic sense. The most recent numbers are like $13 billion. It is off by an order of magnitude not just tenfold but it could be $200, $300, $400 billion or more to clean this up. But the notion that it is $13 billion is absolutely laughable. Well, what needs to be done? It seems to me that first and foremost people in the United States Congress need to report to the game. Congress is missing in action in a battle that is still claiming casualties 141 years after some of these materials were deposited during the Civil War, 83 years after World War I, 56 years after World War II, and 25 years after Vietnam. We still have casualties, and not just in the United States. Frankly, the technology that we should be developing to clean up military waste and contamination, unexploded ordnance, the technology that will help us determine whether it is a hubcap or an unexploded land mine will make a difference, and not just in the United States. Sadly, unexploded ordnance, bombs, shells, and land mines are found in former battlefields and current battlefields all across the world, in Kosovo, in the Balkans, and in sub-Saharan Africa. In Southeast Asia, on a trip with President Clinton this last fall, I looked at the children who were blind, maimed, missing limbs as a result of unexploded ordnance and land mines detonating. There are people in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, as we speak, every single week, who are being maimed and being killed. We have a situation where there are some people who are so desperate economically that they are mining these fields trying to recover the military hardware at the risk of their lives. If the United States is able to develop the technology to more efficiently decontaminate, decommission, identify and remove, it will not only return tens of millions of acres to the public for reuse, for wildlife, for open space, for housing and parks, but it will help save lives around the world. I suggest that what we need to do first and foremost is for the United States Congress to no longer be missing in action. I will be proposing legislation in this session of Congress to first of all put one person in charge. Right now the administration, Members of Congress, the public, the media cannot find out exactly what this problem is. There is nobody who is responsible for putting the pieces together. This is unconscionable. And by simply designating somebody in the Department of Defense, in EPA, or an independent agency to be responsible for monitoring, collecting the data, being in charge of the tens of millions of dollars of work that is going on right now to make a dent in it, this will help us in significant, significant ways. Second, we need to put more money into cleaning up after ourselves. At a time when this administration can propose spending $100 billion or $150 billion or more on unproven technology for an unproven threat of a missile attack from a so-called rogue nation like North Korea sometime in the next 10 years, with no expectation that after the $130 billion we have already spent on Star Wars, that it is going to be any more successful. Put aside for the moment that military experts, and I think every Member of this Chamber will acknowledge that if a rogue nation really wanted to inflict damage on the United States, rather than spending a lot of time and money trying to put together a missile that may or may not hit us 10 years from now, which we could track, know who it is and bomb into the Stone Age, it would be much more simple for them to simply float a biological, chemical, or nuclear device into the New York harbor, into San Francisco Bay, into Seattle. They could bring it right here into our Nation's capitol. That is a much more real threat. It poses more danger and could happen tomorrow. But put aside for a moment the logic, think about the numbers. If we are going to invest $100 billion or more on something that is unproven, against a threat that although unproven, will likely have destabilizing effects diplomatically, should we not put a few billion dollars a year into fixing something that threatens the health and safety and environment of American families all across the country? Absolutely, we should. The amount of money that I am talking about to double or triple what we are doing today is literally rounding error in the Pentagon's $350 billion budget. The United States Congress should step to the plate and put $500 million, a billion dollars extra into accelerating the cleanup. Second, they should put more money into research. I mentioned earlier a problem we have got. We have highly sophisticated techniques to detect metal way under the surface. But as I said, we do not know if that is a 105 millimeter Howitzer shell, a hub cap, or a land mine. If my colleagues meet with people in industry, as I have, they will tell my colleagues that with more concentrated research money, we can develop the technology to make it much more efficient and cost effective to know what is there and to move forward with the decontamination. Finally, we need to make a long-term commitment to solve this problem. When it is driven by political considerations, when something like Spring Valley happens, and it happens in the backyard of the rich and the famous in the shadow of the United States Capitol, then we can find $40 million extra to try to clean it up right, 83 years after we made the mess in the first place. But this is taking away from other problems around the country. Mr. Speaker, we are just shifting from serious problem to serious problem based on what has the most media cache, what has the most political pressure. It should not be that way, and it is not the fault of the Corps of Engineers or the Department of Defense. They should not be in a situation where they are making these trade-offs. It is the responsibility of the United States Congress to adequately fund the cleanup. I would hope that before we recess for the summer we have stepped up and made a significant financial contribution to the research and the cleanup and we have put somebody in charge. What will happen if we do that? Again, if my colleagues talk to the firms that are involved with the military cleanup right now, they will tell my colleagues that if they make a concerted effort with adequate funding and a commitment for multiple years, you are going to see the private sector leap into action. They will invest more themselves. We are going to have the research. They are going to develop their own techniques, and in fact we can issue contracts that enable them to do the research and to retain some rights in terms of developing the patent, the techniques, so they profit by helping us solve the problem. What that will do is it will bring more competition. It will drive down the per unit costs. We will have more momentum, and we will be able to decontaminate far more acreage than if we were sitting around doing this in fits and starts, bits and pieces. Once we do that, the savings to the public multiply. As I mentioned, the liability for the Federal Government cleaning up after itself as the largest polluter of superfund sites in the United States, it is the Department of Defense. It is the Federal Government itself. We cannot evade that responsibility by just putting up fences and pretending that it does not exist. And by going faster and being more efficient, what we have done is not only lower the per unit cost, we eliminate long-term responsibilities. If we do not pollute the aquifers in suburban Maryland that threaten the Chesapeake Bay or Martha's Vineyard, we are going to save the Federal Government a huge bill in the future. Once we decontaminate that land, we are creating value. Right now these abandoned bases, the contaminated areas, are a liability. We spend money trying to keep people away. The trail in West Virginia that has a sign on it that says stay on the path, it is safe on the path. If you go off, they warn of explosions. Or the grade school children in Hope, Arkansas who take home flyers every year describing to children what the potential military waste looks like and that they should not touch it. We are spending a lot of money now trying to keep people away from these destructive forces. If we are able to return the land to productive use, we are going to strengthen the environment. We are going to improve wildlife habitat. We will have more recreational opportunities in communities around the country where open space is a premium. We see unplanned growth and sprawl, and being able to turn these facilities back to the public, back to local government, back to park and recreational districts, which add value and quality of life. Many of these facilities, abandoned bases and bombing ranges and military maneuvers, when they are returned have opportunities to be turned into commercial and housing uses, but they must be safe. Once we certify it is safe and we can turn it over, there are opportunities for colleges to be built and airports to be constructed, for parks and recreation, opportunities for commercial activities. These have tremendous, tremendous value. In a nutshell, we will be adding value to communities, saving money and meeting our responsibilities for the environment. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the American public is often ahead of the Federal Government and Members of this Chamber. In the energy debate of late it is interesting to note despite some of what I think is misleading information which has been presented by some in the Federal Government, the American public has a pretty good idea of what they want to have happen as far as energy is concerned. They want wise stewardship. They want conservation. They want us to have more fuel- efficient vehicles. The last thing they want to do is spoil the environment, drill in the Arctic Refuge and build massive numbers of power plants. The same way when it comes to making our communities livable. Citizens would like us to do our job for the Federal Government to be a better partner with them. In over 500 referenda on the State and local level across America, the public has voted at the ballot box to purchase open space, to clean up contamination, to protect watersheds, to provide more transportation choices, to fight against sprawl. The Federal Government has an opportunity to work with the citizens to kind of run to catch up with them, maybe not lead the charge, but to be a full partner. There is nothing that the Federal Government can do that will make more of a difference for improving the livability back home than for us to take these sites, whether it is Spring Valley near the American University campus here in Washington, D.C., Camp Bonneville near Portland, Oregon, the Massachusetts Military Reservation, or any of the other 1,000 sites across the country, clean up after ourselves and enter into a partnership with the American public. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful during this session of Congress we will no longer be missing in action. We will put the structure in place so somebody is in charge. We will put more money into research so we can do this job better. We will fund adequately over a specific period of time so the private sector can do its job, and we can make it easier to promote the livability of America's communities and make our families safe, healthy and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I appreciate her bringing these issues before us. We are dealing with the two elements of her amendment that actually affect people's lives in the most direct and immediate sense. We are watching, in the aftermath of Hurricane Allison, where we could have up to $4 billion dealing with cleanup and related health costs. The restoration of $300 million I would think would be the minimum that we would do to be able to assure that we have the services that are necessary. In a time when we are dealing with global climate change, at least the scientific community feels it is not time to study it, we must move for action. Not having adequate energy assistance literally could mean the difference between life and death for poor citizens who choose between air-conditioning and heating and cooling when we have weather extremes as it relates to global climate change. It makes me very nervous. I appreciate the gentlewoman bringing forth this amendment. I think it can make a huge difference for the people we serve.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the FY 2001 Supplemental Appropriations bill should be an opportunity for Congress to address some important funding shortfalls facing our country. Instead, we are seeing self- fulfilling prophecy played out that is the direct result of the misguided Republican strategy to disconnect spending for tax policy. The $389 million FEMA disaster relief cut in the FY 2001 Supplemental Appropriations bill is the first manifestation of what's wrong with the Republican budget strategy. Today's rule limits debate on the bill and prevents important Democratic alternatives from being brought to the floor, rather than having an open debate on the trade-offs that Congress has made to cut taxes and limit spending. We are prevented from voting on amendments aimed at restoring funding to assist the thousands of people needing disaster relief, ensuring that low-income families have access to affordable energy and heating, or addressing the energy crisis that is crippling the West Coast. The FEMA cut, in particular, could not come at a more inopportune time. Earlier this month we witnessed an example of the type of destructive results that may be a result of global climate change. We are seeing an increase in both frequency and intensity of extreme weather incidents. The devastating efforts of Tropical Storm Allison on Texas, Louisiana, and Florida killed almost 60 people, dumped 3 feet of rain in 6 days, and damaged 20,000 homes. Just today, FEMA director Joe Albaugh stated that the damage from Tropical Storm Allison may be as high as $4 billion to deal with clean-up and related health threats associated with storm damage. Today's Supplemental Appropriations bill illustrates how we in Congress have put ourselves into a tax cut and budget box. The cuts to FEMA's disaster relief program are one of the most egregious aspects of our shortsighted tax and budget policy. For these reasons, I urge Members to vote against the previous question and oppose the rule.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week President Bush met with European leaders to discuss, along with other important policy issues, his dismissal of the Kyoto Protocol and the administration's minimization of global climate change. I personally find it interesting that while the President feels we need to hold off taking action on global warming and instead need to study it more, at the same time he was discussing with our European allies his willingness to advance a national missile defense system that is unproven, expensive, and diplomatically unpopular with less likelihood of destruction, frankly, than what we face with global climate change. Three thousand international scientists and the National Academy of Science have all agreed: global warming is real and we are beginning to see the impacts in the rise of extreme weather episodes that have struck the United States in the past few years. Indeed, it was ironic that at the time the President was minimizing global climate change and heading off to Europe, his home State of Texas was visited by Tropical Storm Allison that hit with brutal ferocity. It killed 22 people in Houston. It rained 3 feet in less than a week, most of it in a single 24-hour period, an unprecedented flood, some would suggest. Damages were estimated at $2 billion in Houston alone, and 28 counties were declared Federal disaster areas. We saw what some scientists feel is a glimpse of the problem in the future, like the woman who was alone in an elevator when the power went out and they are programmed, of course, to go to the bottom floor. Unfortunately, in this case, the bottom 4 floors were flooded, causing the woman to drown. Or the man who was trying to save his television in the midst of a flood and was electrocuted when he touched the antenna, and his mother electrocuted trying to help him. Now, it is inconvenient, it is dangerous, and it is beyond the notion of a few planes canceled, although Continental Airlines canceled 1,000 flights, while the Houston International Airport was closed, Mr. Speaker, a devastating example of the expected human and economic costs associated with global climate change. Now, at the same time, we in Congress are pursuing policies that may make the impact of tropical storms and hurricanes worse as far as our coastal communities are concerned. I was struck by an editorial article in this Sunday's Washington Post by geologist Orrin Pilkey urging Congress to work with the administration on pursuing smarter policies and investments along our Nation's thousands of miles of coastline. He cited one particular area that needed special scrutiny, and the Federal Government has embarked upon what, in many cases, can be termed an ill-advised action of steadily nourishing these beaches. In some cases, we have seen examples where they appear for legislative authorization without extensive interaction on this Chamber floor; at the same time, in much the same manner where the Corps of Engineers over the years have reduced the size of flood plains and increased the potential of damage by building one dyke and dam after another. Nonengineering solutions for beaches are seldom considered, and have the potential of increasing the risk. As we have an artificially rebuilt beach, it encourages people to develop in areas that are ecologically not sustainable. Already, more than 300 East Coast and Gulf Coast beaches have been nourished; and more are being added to the list all the time. Last year in WRDA, without extensive debate on this floor, we added a 14-mile long Outer Banks beach nourishment project in North Carolina that has a projected cost of almost $2 billion over the next 50 years. It boils down to a subsidy of $30,000 per year for 50 years for each beachfront property that is supposed to be projected by this new beach. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is time for the Members of the House of Representatives to consider the impacts of global climate change and to eliminate subsidies and government actions that will make the impacts and costs worse over time. Looking at these existing policies at the same time we work towards global solutions for the impact of global climate change is the key to making our families safe, healthy, and economically secure for more livable communities tomorrow.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and strongly in support of the underlying legislation. It recognizes the fact that the Federal Government should be a full partner in the issue of salmon recovery. Part of the challenge is that this is a requirement of Federal legislation under the Endangered Species Act, which to be charitable, and this comes from somebody who is a strong supporter of the act and its purposes, it is not always the easiest to administer. There are also a myriad of built-in challenges coordinating the various responses of the Federal agencies, NMFS, Bonneville Power, Fish and Wildlife, the Corps of Engineers, EPA, the long list of Federal players, and here again it is not always easy to coordinate this effort. It is hard and expensive to work with the Federal Government, and this legislation acknowledges the fact and would provide help. Additionally, much of the difficulty we face now is not just an operation of the Endangered Species Act and the complex set of Federal partners. It is a direct result of the application of a wide range of Federal policies and practices we have, many of which that at the time of their enactment made sense to Congress, made sense to the public, but sadly today many of these practices are outmoded. They would have serious side effects, even if we have not moved forward to modify them. The construction of Federal dams on the Columbia River, for instance, the application of policies for water reclamation, forestry practices on Federal land, mining, transportation. There is an international implication which will be acknowledged later, as my colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), will offer an amendment that seeks to have the Federal Government monitor the impact of harvests in Canada on the impact on salmon, and I think a very good idea. Unless and until we come forward to deal comprehensively with these range of Federal policies, we need to have the Federal Government help us. There are many encouraging signs of activities taking place today at the local level, with private landowners, with private policies on forest lands. We have State and local activities, as well as the Federal Government itself, but it is going to take us time, money and energy to put these pieces together. I think this bill is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to the passage of the rule and the act.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to promote more livable communities, 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 making sure that people have the choices about where they want to live, work, and how they travel. A recent study highlighted Washington, D.C. as the third most congested city in America for traffic congestion. Rush hour now is up to 6 hours or more out of the day. To bring it down closer to home in our little community on Capitol Hill, we have problems with congestion, pollution and parking shortages. There are over 6,000 parking spaces reserved for House employees alone, which cost the taxpayer more than $1,500 a year per employee. With the temporary closing of the Cannon Building parking garage, now more than ever parking is at a premium on Capitol Hill. Three years ago, with the help of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and Speaker Gingrich, we were able to change the policy so that we did not just give unlimited free parking to House employees and no alternative, but finally help give them a choice by providing a modest $21 Metro transit benefit for those offices that wish to provide it for their employees. Still, the House lags far behind employers in the private sector and other Federal agencies in providing and promoting for transit benefits. As a result of work that we were able to do with the last administration, all Federal employees except our own here in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area get at least $65 a month to promote transit. Soon, the amount of the transit benefit allowed by law will be increased to $100 a month. But the House should not always be playing catch-up. Even our Senate colleagues across the way provide $44 a month for their employees. Recently, we have submitted over three dozen of our colleagues' signatures to the Committee on House Administration asking them to allow those offices that want to provide this transit benefit the full $65 allowed under law. What better way for the House to be a part of the solution of saving energy, protecting the air, fighting against congestion than by expanding the transit benefit the way that we are asking the rest of America to do it. It is also appropriate, I think, on this very muggy day to consider the role of our employees that actually walk or bike or run to work. There are only two facilities on all of Capitol Hill for over 6,000 employees to be able to shower at work when we close the facilities in the O'Neill Building. Now, several years ago, we were able to work with the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch and the House Superintendent to be able to add some showers and lockers to the Rayburn Building. Now it is time for the committee to consider again adding more facilities, at least to avoid reducing the amount for our employees that are trying to do the right thing. Not only does it help protect the environment, but we know that daily physical activity for adults is now at an all-time low. Forty percent of the adult population does not engage in leisure time physical activity. We know that moderate amounts of exercise can significantly promote the health and wellness as well as enhancing the productivity of our employees. I would strongly suggest that my colleagues join me in urging the Committee on House Administration for us to at least not be left behind in promoting transit use of our employees and be able to provide adequate shower and locker facilities for our employees that are trying to do the right thing and promote physical activity and protect the environment. It is important that we work on developing livable communities, not just in our districts, but for the men and women who work here on Capitol Hill. The environment and our employees deserve our best efforts.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. In the rough and tumble of the people's House, sometimes we can obscure the humanity of this institution. I have been thinking a great deal about that these days, just finishing reading a biography of Tip O'Neill in which Joe Moakley was prominently featured. During the last 30 years, Joe Moakley has left his mark. He left his mark on his district to be sure in a physical sense; and we have found out in this last week again, spiritually. He left his mark on hundreds of pieces of legislation during his long tenure on the Committee on Rules. He left his mark in the area of foreign affairs. Just as he helped speed El Salvador's transition to democracy, in recent years he was helping evolve a more rational United States policy toward Cuba with his meetings with Castro and the Pope. But it is here in the House where Joe Moakley's legacy will be most strongly felt. In the 5 years I have been a Member of this Chamber, I have never heard an unkind word or an unfair word from him or about him. In these years, it was difficult for him not only leading the good fight from the position of the minority leader on that committee, but personally he had significant travail. But he never modified his principled politics, his strong convictions or his gentle manner, offering his friendship and humor until his last minute as a Member of this Chamber. Today, our remembrance of Joe Moakley allows this House a chance to hold a mirror up to itself. This little glimpse that we have witnessed here over the last several hours of the House being humane is an important part of his lasting legacy. Thank you, Joe, for reminding us what the people's House could be.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed as we vote on this tax bill for the fifth time that no substantive change has been made to make it more fiscally responsible and direct more help to those who need it the most. Accordingly, I have decided keeping commitments to my constituents in Oregon was a higher priority than voting ``no'' for the fifth time, which I most definitely would have done. Luckily change is in the air as recent events on Capitol Hill have demonstrated the need for true bipartisanship and working together in a cooperative fashion. This hopefully will mean an opportunity to improve this package in the course of the year, and I remain committed to doing so in a way that makes sense for the people I represent in Oregon and the long-term fiscal stability of the country.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy in yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman. There has been a lot of talk on the floor about access; but unlike public schools, which serve all children, private schools are not obligated to accept any student. Students that are the most vulnerable and the more difficult and expensive to educate are left out. In fact, the Department of Education report shows that if required to accept special needs students, 85 percent of the private schools said they would not even participate in a voucher program. It is wrong to divert critical funding from our public schools, especially when all children will not have equal access. Now, in the areas, the cities that have had voucher programs like Milwaukee and Cleveland, the effectiveness has been inconclusive, at best, in terms of the results for the student achievement. However, what these cities have shown is that vouchers have led to greater class and race segregation in the classrooms, they are draining significant financial resources from public schools, and are primarily serving students already in the private school system. This committee has labored to provide more accountability and more public school choice. It is a dramatic step backward to adopt voucher amendments. I strongly urge the House to reject them both.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, since coming to Congress my goal has been to ensure that the federal government is a better partner in building more livable communities. Access to quality public education is a key component of a community that is safe, healthy and economically secure. The public knows and has demonstrated at the ballot box and public opinion surveys that not only the federal government must make investment in our public schools its top priority, but providing private school vouchers undercutting precious resources for our public schools is not the way to improve education. Unlike public schools, which serve all children, private schools are not obligated to accept any student. Students who are most vulnerable and are often more difficult and expensive to educate are left out. In fact, a Department of Education report showed that if required to accept special needs students, 85% of private schools said they would not participate in a voucher program. When all students do not have equal access to education, it is work to divert critical funding from our public schools. In the two cities that have voucher programs, Milwaukee and Cleveland, their effectiveness has been inconclusive. Milwaukee's program, after 10 years, has shown little or no improvement in student achievement relative to comparable public school students. However, what these cities have shown is that vouchers have led to greater class and race segregation in classrooms, they are draining significant financial resources from public schools, and are primarily serving students already in the private school system. In Milwaukee, two-thirds of voucher recipients were already in private schools or just beginning kindergarten, in Cleveland, three-fourths of recipients were already enrolled in private schools or just beginning kindergarten. The Committee has labored to provide more accountability and more public school choice in this legislation. Reject the amendments for vouchers--they are a step in the wrong direction on both counts.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today, I will vote against two amendments to H.R. 1, the Leave No Child Behind Act. In a bill that is heralded for promoting greater local decision making authority, both of these amendments are efforts to impose federal mandates and place strings on schools districts eligible for precious federal dollars. Mr. Vitter's amendment to mandate that public schools receiving ESEA dollars allow military recruiting is currently playing out at the local level in my district. Last night, the Portland School Board voted to continue a ban on military recruiters on schools grounds. Military service is a rewarding career and vital to our national interests. The information recruiters provide can be very helpful to many students. But, it's local school districts and their locally elected school boards, not politicians 3000 miles away, that should decide whether or not the military should be allowed to recruit on school grounds. Similarly, the Hilleary Amendment seeks to overturn school district decisions to deny access to organizations that discriminate by mandating that schools which receive Federal funding allow Boy Scouts to meet on their premises. Personally, I agree with the decisions of local school districts to ban organizations that engage in discriminatory practices from school grounds, but, more importantly, I will vote against this amendment because these types of decisions should be made by local government entities, not the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, today I will, however, vote in favor of H.R. 1, the Leave No Child Behind Act. Since coming to Congress my goal has been to ensure that the Federal Government is a better partner in building more livable communities. Access to quality public education is a key component of a community that is safe, healthy and economically secure. While not perfect, H.R. 1, as passed out of the House Education Committee, represents a bipartisan agreement that will move us in the right direction to providing more support and investment for public education. While I support the overall framework that the bill provides, there are several amendments that I do not support. I am deeply concerned with amendments to block grant federal education funds or to provide taxpayer dollars for private schools through a voucher system. Both proposals threaten precious Federal funding for public schools, most harshly impacting the schools that are the most vulnerable. We can reform and improve our public education system without diverting funds from our already financially strapped public schools. Although this bill is an important step forward, there is still unfinished business to address if we are sincere about proving education in this country. One of the most glaring omissions is the lack of funding for school construction. In my state of Oregon, 96 percent of schools need to be upgraded or repaired. In the Northwest alone, 25,000 schools need major repairs or outright replacement. Schools can serve a vital function in the community, both as places for our children to learn and grow and as a center for community activity, but only if our schools are safe places for students and adults to learn on modern technology and equipment. Investment in renovation of existing schools can significantly enhance community livability. H.R. 1 also provides no additional funding for Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). In the 94th Congress, we mandated special education access for children with severe learning disabilities. Along with that mandate came a promise that the federal government would pay 40 percent of the cost, this was the right thing to do given the increased costs that are often required to teach children with special needs. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has yet to fulfill its commitment to IDEA. We have missed yet another opportunity today to provide full funding for this critical program. Education, like livable communities, is for all of us--not just a select few. The Federal Government should lead by example in offering the best possible public education to our nation's children. H.R. 1 is a good start, but we have a long way to go.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, please accept the following letter of endorsement for the Congressional Record, which corresponds with my introduction today of the Post Office Community Partnership Act of 2001. American Planning Association, 1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC, May 15, 2001. Hon. Earl Blumenauer, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Blumenauer: The American Planning Association is pleased to endorse the Post Office Community Partnership Act of 2001. APA applauds your outstanding vision and leadership in introducing this legislation and once again bringing this important issue before the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation recognizes and protects the central and compelling role that the local post office plays in the economic and social life of a community by providing a needed method for community input and support for local planning. The Postal Service has too often closed or relocated facilities in ways that abandon service for some communities, vacate historic structures in downtown areas, and contribute to urban sprawl without providing for adequate community involvement in the decision-making process. This measure gives local citizens a greater voice in decisions about the location of postal facilities and ensures that local plans addressing growth management, land use, traffic congestion, environmental protection, downtown revitalization and historic preservation are respected by the Postal Service. Increasingly, communities across the nation are developing comprehensive plans to better manage development, preserve vital resources and encourage sustainable economic development. It is essential that the Federal Government is a good neighbor and partner in these smart growth communities. The Post Office Community Partnership Act simply guarantees that the Postal Service operates within the guidelines that a community develops for all other citizens and businesses, without establishing an unduly burdensome mandate on the Postal Service. In a national voter survey sponsored by APA and conducted at the end of 2000, we found that an overwhelming 82% of voters support legislation ensuring that federal facilities are located in places that are easily accessible to citizens and are consistent with local growth management plans. This support transcended partisan affiliation, demographic group and regional location. The post office is an institution at the heart of any community, particularly small towns. By protecting the values and vision of local citizens as embodied in the planning process, this bill lives up to its title by creating a real and lasting partnership between the Postal Service and communities. APA lends its enthusiastic support to your efforts and urges the United States Senate to enact this legislation. Sincerely, Bruce McClendon, FAICP President.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress dedicated to making the federal government a better partner in building livable communities. Perhaps the most important opportunity for realizing this goal is to ensure that the federal government lead by example through such simple actions as locating federal facilities in ways that support existing communities. Today I am introducing the Post Office Community Partnership Act. This legislation, similar to the bills I introduced in the 105th and 106th Congresses, outlines minimum community contact procedures that the United States Postal Service must pursue for any proposed closing, consolidation, relocation, or construction of a post office. Simply put, the bill requires the Postal Service to comply with local zoning, planning, or other land use laws. This bill is being introduced with 57 bi-partisan original cosponsors. In the 106th Congress this bill was supported by 240 bi- partisan cosponsors. Identical companion legislation is being introduced this week by Senators James Jeffords of Vermont and Max Baucus of Montana. This continued and widespread support, in addition to the multitude of letters received from constituents and stories in newspapers throughout the country, illustrates the important need for this bill to become law. The Post Office Community Partnership Act takes another step in making the federal government a better partner with communities and local governments. It is important that local officials and citizens have input into the decisions that impact the daily livability of their communities. Additionally, this bill addresses the need for the Postal Service to abide by a community's own plans for growth management, land use, traffic management, and environmental protection--rules by which all citizens and businesses must adhere. Communities and neighborhoods across the country have been subjected to Postal Service decisions that have negatively impacted service to postal customers and community development. This bill provides communities an opportunity to be notified of Postal Service plans in advance, which will allow for interaction in the decision-making process between local government officials, the public, and the Postal Service. The beneficial results of this type of interaction can be seen from Fairview Village in my congressional district to Castine, Maine. In Fairview Village, Oregon, by working with the developers of the community, the post office was the first civic building constructed in the area and acted as an anchor for what has developed into a retail street. By centrally locating the post office as the developers proposed, residents can easily walk or drive to the post office from anywhere in Fairview Village. In Castine, Maine, the Postal Service proposed moving the oldest operating post office in the country--a national historic landmark--from its downtown location to the suburbs. After a public outcry, the Postal Service and the Town of Castine worked together to find a way to expand the existing building and keep the post office in its historic downtown location. Despite these examples, too often the Postal Service does not involve the community and instead relies on the fact that they are not required to follow local land use laws when building new facilities or renovating existing facilities. The Post Office Community Partnership Act puts in place basic procedures for notifying local officials and post office customers of any planned facility changes or construction. The Act also requires that the Postal Service follow local land use laws, procedures and public participation requirements to the same extent and manner as other private enterprises. It has been shown that the Postal Service can manage this process without hampering its mission of cost effective and efficient universal service as evidenced by Fairview Village, Oregon and Castine, Maine. It is time to ensure that the Postal Service operates within the same framework and rules that a community imposes on its own citizens and businesses. The Post Office Community Partnership Act would establish community notification and land use policies and procedures that should have been in place all along. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will help ensure that the post office is a productive federal partner in building livable communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments; and I was particularly struck by something that the gentleman said at the outset, because the gentleman was here in Congress when there was a big uproar because the First Lady had a secret committee examining health care costs and ways to bring it down. My recollection is that people on the other side of the aisle were outraged that there would be these discussions about a public policy issue and not be open to the public. And it seems to me that you make an extremely valid point that all these discussions now have been in secret, with a very limited cross-section of people excluding the broad range of interests, and now it is going to be inflicted upon us. It seems to me a certain amount of inconsistency.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. Clearly he has identified a critical area where 12 percent of our Nation's population is facing something that surely we are all going to have to contend with. What have we discussed here at this point this evening? Well, first and foremost, we have established that conservation may be a virtue. I think it is, but it certainly is an important part of an energy policy for this country, and we are arguing it ought to be part of the foundation. Without the conservation that was inspired in the mid-1970s and, sadly, to a certain extent rolled back during the Reagan years, without that energy conservation, the use in the United States of energy in the year 2000, if we had kept on the same line, would have been 40 percent higher and Americans would have spent $260 billion more for energy. Conservation works. But we have just barely scratched the surface of the potential for achieving more savings. If we had one of the popular SUVs that had an average of 40 miles per gallon over the next decade, it would save the equivalent of 50 billion barrels of oil, 15 times more than would be reclaimed from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, if that is where you want to go. We have been dealing with the facts surrounding the energy situation. We have heard about what the situation is in the State of California. We are in fact now building, and any reader of The Wall Street Journal this last week has learned that we are moving ahead without a Federal initiative, to build more generating capacity. More is on line; markets are in fact responding. We have heard this myth somehow that people, for example, in California, or the ``radical environmentalists,'' were at fault for not building up refining capacity in this country and talk about how there has not been a lot of new refineries built. Well, the reason there have not been new refineries built is because the industry has been going through consolidation. We have more refinery capacity today, fewer refineries. And if you look at what the petroleum giants are doing, they are shedding refinery capacity because it is not profitable enough. What measures up to the hundreds of percent or thousands of percent rate of return that can be extracted from some of the situations that we have had described on the floor today? It is not somehow the fault of the environmentalists, it is market forces that are at work. We understand, and I have heard twice now the Vice President extolling the virtues of going back to nuclear energy. Interesting. I come from a State that shut down a nuclear plant. The private company that owned it shut it down earlier than its license would have required because it was not profitable. It is true that over 20 percent of the generation currently comes from nuclear power, but there has not been a new nuclear power plant ordered in the United States in over 23 years. And it was not just in my State that they shut it down. The gentleman from New Jersey can testify that there was the same situation occurring there and in Maine, Illinois, and Connecticut, where people were backing away from nuclear energy. We still do not have a safe place to store nuclear waste in this country. We have been tied in knots over that. Yet some want to go ahead and deal with more. The assertion somehow that nuclear energy is the salvation, the silver bullet, that it does not provide pollution, well, excuse me. First of all, nuclear waste continues for a quarter of a million years or longer. Nuclear waste, when you are dealing with it, is not just nuclear energy; it is the very warm water that is generated. It pollutes the waterways. The process of enriching uranium uses a substantial amount of electricity in and of itself that produces many of the same sort of traditional fossil fuel air pollutants. Nuclear energy is not a silver bullet. We have heard some arguing that somehow the environmentalists have locked up all the land. We cannot have access. Wait a minute. Right now the oil and gas industry has access to huge tracts of BLM lands. Only 3.5 percent of the BLM land in Colorado is off limits to exploration; only 2 percent in Montana; only 2.5 percent in Wyoming; 4 percent in New Mexico. It simply is not true that there is not access. It is interesting watching the little struggle between the President's brother and the people in California and Alaska who are concerned about off-shore drilling, but there is still over 60 percent of the Nation's undiscovered economically recoverable oil and 80 percent of the economically recoverable gas that is located in areas that are accessible. There are opportunities for further exploration. It is the private sector that to this point has chosen not to take advantage of them. I guess I will conclude my remarks before turning to the gentleman from New Jersey to wrap it up to just make one other point, that there are many opportunities now for low-income people to be able to reduce their energy costs over time. We have talked about the lunacy of having a massive tax cut that is not going to benefit the vast majority of low- and moderate-income people, but somehow they are going to take this tax cut and pay it for higher energy costs. But if for a moment we can spend upwards of $2 trillion over the next 11 years, is it not possible that Congress and this administration could design programs to help very low- and moderate-income people pay some of the higher costs through rebates or direct tax credits that go back to them, so they can afford to be more energy efficient, lower their electrical costs today, not tomorrow or 20 years from now, lower those costs today, save them money today, and have additional savings that will accrue to the broader community because we will not have to build an energy plant a week? It seems to me that this is a simple, commonsense approach; that if we could get it to the floor, I am convinced an overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats would agree with the American public to put conservation, wise use, invest in American technology, do that first before we move ahead with things that simply they are opposed to. I think it makes good sense, and I hope that this Congress will listen to what we are being told by the American public. With that, I will turn to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for the last word in our special order this evening.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman sharing his insights and his kind words. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we also have been joined by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who has had lots of practical experience from a State that has dealt in the past with energy problems. I know that from leadership as the Senate president of the great State of Connecticut, he has had a chance to navigate these rocky shoals before, and I am honored that the gentleman joins us for this discussion.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I turn to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), my colleague from the Seattle area who has been an advocate and concerned citizen dealing with these issues. We have had a tremendous impact in the State of Washington, and I know the gentleman has been a leader here in bringing people from the West and the West Coast to deal with these impacts. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman would like to make a few comments from his unique perspective. Maybe California thinks that they are ground zero, but there are those of us who feel we are getting a few of the after-shocks.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for that clarification. I would now, if I could, turn to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been a tireless champion on this floor dealing with issues of the environment generally and I know has a special interest in areas that affect energy conservation, the use of energy; and I yield to him at this time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's forceful explanation this evening, and he is one who has been a tireless advocate for trying to shine a spotlight on the situation in California. I really appreciate his focusing on what has happened to a State over the last couple of years that is actually using less energy, that is working on conservation, and is paying a terrible price, multiple, multiple times what they paid just 2 years ago. The gentleman's tireless advocacy is extraordinarily useful in helping us understand this situation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have had the first hour discussing issues that relate to energy and the current situation. Some would label it a crisis. I must say that I listened to my esteemed colleagues from the other side of the aisle, but I guess I would take a slightly different tact in terms of the situation we face and the opportunities for improving it. Having a dependable supply of energy and using it wisely is clearly critical for a livable community. But the current controversy surrounding energy ought to be an example where we can come together and make a difference, where this Congress and this administration can give thoughtful consideration to the impact that energy decisions can have on the livability of our communities and develop a more rational approach to energy utilization. Now, unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle, the President, his chief spokesperson, and most recently, Vice President Cheney are setting up a false policy conflict for the American public. This has nothing to do with cutting back on the American quality of life, throwing vast numbers of people out of work. They would like us to believe that somehow being more thoughtful about the use of energy and the Federal Government's role in promoting a better approach is somehow an assault on the American way of life. Nothing could be further from the truth. America works best when we give people choices so that they can determine what works best for them. What choice do our friends in California have today paying far more for energy using far less when energy supplies are actually in pretty strong condition? We are going to hear from one of my colleagues tonight from California discussing that situation in greater length. A country that disregards the value of conservation, that ignores fuel efficiency for automobiles, that seeks to maximize production at the expense of environmental quality is not protecting the American way of life, nor is it doing American families or business any favors. With all due respect to the Vice President, he got it exactly wrong. Energy conservation is not just a matter of personal virtue. But even if it was, there is nothing wrong with formulating energy policy that recognizes the importance of this virtue. Energy conservation should be the foundation of our national policy, not belittled by our national leaders. Now, luckily, the Vice President and the President have been backing away from that for the last couple of days, and maybe we are going to get some positive recommendations from them; but the fact remains that it is the only way we will provide significant amounts of additional energy in the near term, not the proposal to go nuclear, not the proposal to build a power plant a week. Energy conservation is an approach that has already been proven to be effective and has received, when we get a chance to deal with it here on the floor of this Chamber, broad bipartisan support. All the hotly debated talk about drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is not going to alleviate problems facing the consumers now. Indeed, the administration has proposed cutting the budget for energy conservation. We need a set of policies that actually encourages it. Tonight we are going to discuss some of these elements, because there are simple, energy-efficient conservation methods that we can be taking today. In my State of Oregon, like 10 other States, there is a bottle bill. Aluminum-can recycling saves 95 percent of the energy needed to make aluminum from bauxite oil. Energy savings in 1993 alone was enough to light up a city the size of Pittsburgh for 6 years. Now, let me bring this down to a more tangible example. The energy saved from recycling one aluminum can will operate a home computer for 3 hours. Energy saved from recycling one glass bottle will operate a 100 watt light bulb for 4 hours. Recycling seven soup cans saves enough energy to operate a 60 watt bulb for 26 hours. There was talk from the other side of the aisle about somehow taking cars away from the American public. That is ludicrous. That is not the issue. We are talking about extending fuel-efficiency standards so that the 40 percent of oil that is used by cars and light trucks goes further. Switching from driving an average new car to a 13-mile-per- gallon SUV for 1 year is the equivalent of leaving your refrigerator door open for 6 years. And it has been discussed at great length. The notion of just improving the fuel standards for SUVs three miles per gallon will more than offset the amount of energy that we could hope to extract from the wildlife refuge, which the American public does not want us to invade; and it will get that energy to us quicker. We are going to discuss this evening issues that relate to energy conservation with building standards. If we simply change the color of a roof to a light color, it will reflect the heat rays and lower home temperatures by as much as 5 degrees. We have issues that we are going to be discussing this evening in terms of dealing with higher standards for energy-guzzling appliances. Rather than rolling back the standards that would improve these efficiencies that are improved by the last administration, we ought to maintain them. We have, today, an opportunity to move forward and make a difference. And, sadly, it is my friends on the other side of the aisle and the Republican administration that are out of step with the American public. In Monday's poll in USA Today, an overwhelming majority of Americans favored conservation over drilling in the ANWR or moving in other directions. The American public understands that that will make a huge difference. Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I could, to turn to my colleague from California, who has had some firsthand experience in the impacts that this has. We are going to have a spirited discussion. We have a number of colleagues, but I would like to turn the first 3 or 4 minutes of our discussion over to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who can talk a little bit about the perspective of what we are facing in the State of California and what we ought to be doing to help this country.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have dedicated my efforts in Congress to the promotion of more livable communities, communities that are safe, healthy and economically secure, here and abroad. Our contribution to international family planning efforts is an example of our partnership on an international level to promote more livable communities. Poverty-stricken nations face significant obstacles to providing for the health, safety, and economic security of their families. The ``Global Gage rule'' put into effect by the Bush Administration earlier this year placed an additional burden on these struggling countries. I commend Congresswoman Lee for her successful effort in Committee to overturn the Mexico City restrictions and restore funding to family planning clinics across the world. U.S. aid for international family planning is used to provide health education, family planning, contraception, and women's health services to women across the globe. Since 1983, by law these funds cannot be used to perform abortions; instead they provide resources critical to combating mother and infant mortality and diseases like HIV/AIDS which cripple development efforts in third world nations. Without these funds, non-governmental agencies in 52 developing nations will be forced to lose or severely reduce their efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. The people who don't believe women should control their own reproduction have successfully placed many restrictions on American women in the last 25 years. We should not further this agenda overseas with additional restrictions that would be illegal if enacted here. The height of hypocrisy is that the President proposes providing federal dollars for his Faith Based Initiative, allowing churches to compartmentalize their federally funded activities, but refuses to extend the same latitude to hard pressed organizations in desperately poor countries. I urge my colleagues to support the action of the committee to restore U.S. international family planning dollars by opposing the Hyde/Barcia/Smith/Oberstar Amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1696, legislation that would expedite building the World War II Memorial at the expense of protecting our National Mall. I inadvertently voted in support of this legislation earlier today. While I believe it is important to recognize the important contributions and sacrifices that our fighting men and women made during this turning event in world history, I do not support legislation that would do irrevocable harm to the World War II Memorial itself and to the national mall. If any precious national treasure deserves protection by Congress, it is the National Mall. H.R. 1696 would eliminate indispensable oversight for the largest and most significant memorial on the Mall since the Lincoln Memorial was constructed almost 80 years ago. I oppose this legislation because not only is it unnecessary, but its provisions could seriously compromise the water quality and surrounding cultural and historical landmarks of the city. Congress should not promote legislation that would eliminate or reduce oversight on already agreed to provisions that the City and National Planning Commission have developed. Such critical provisions not addressed by this bill include not allowing contaiminated groundwater to be pumped into the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay, ensuring the structural integrity of the Washington Monument, and providing tourists with the ability to appreciate this Memorial and the Mall without suffering severe traffic congestion. Congress should let the National Planning Commission deal with building the Memorial in a more appropriate manner, one that is already underway and which befits the important legacy that this Memorial is designed to honor.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in Congress is for the Federal Government to be a better partner with individual citizens, their State and local governments; our communities more livable, our families safe, healthy and economically secure. Having a dependable supply of energy and using it wisely is critical for a livable community. The current controversy surrounding energy is an excellent opportunity for this administration and this Congress to give thoughtful consideration to the impact that energy decisions can have on the livability of our communities and to develop a more rational approach to energy utilization. Unfortunately, the President, his chief spokesperson, and most recently the Vice President, are setting up a false policy conflict for Americans. They would like us to somehow believe that being more thoughtful about use of energy and the Federal Government's role in promoting a better approach is somehow an assault on the American way of life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Speaker, America works best when we give people choices so they can determine what works best for them. A country that disregards the value of conservation, that ignores fuel efficiency for all automobiles, that seeks to maximize production of energy at the expense of environmental quality is not protecting the American way of life, nor is it doing American families or businesses any favors. Energy conservation is not just a matter of personal virtue, but if it were, there is nothing wrong with formulating energy policy that recognizes the importance of this virtue. Energy conservation should be, with all due respect to the Vice President, the foundation of our national policy. It is the only way we will provide significant amounts of energy in the near term. Furthermore, it is an approach that has already proven effective and has received bipartisan support. All the hotly debated talk about drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and building a new power plant a week is not going to alleviate the problems facing consumers now. Instead of cutting the budget for environmental conservation, we need to set policies that actually encourage it. There are simple conservation measures we could be taking today. Number one, extending fuel efficiency standards to all vehicles, including SUVs, light trucks and minivans. An increase of 3 miles per gallon in the fuel efficiency of SUVs will save more oil than drilling in the Arctic would ever produce, and we will get the benefits long before we ever get any Arctic oil. Two, encouraging higher building standards that are more energy efficient, such as colored roofs, which reflect heat rays and lower home temperatures by as much as 5 degrees. Three, we should be promoting new technologies and alternate fuels. We should not force people who want a 70-mile-per-gallon vehicle to have to buy one from overseas. By providing incentives and Federal support for developing and deploying energy-efficient technologies here in the United States, we can provide new and lucrative markets for American businesses. Four, we ought to restore the higher standards for energy guzzling appliances. The Bush administration should allow the saving standards issued by the Clinton administration to stand, not be rolling them back. Businesses are already realizing these benefits. A DuPont plant in New Jersey, for instance, which refused energy use per pound of product by one-third, cut global warming pollution per pound of product by nearly one-half, and as production rose 9 percent, the total energy bill fell by $17 million a year. But we need to get help to the people who perhaps cannot afford it. Five, helping low-income people with today's skyrocketing energy bills and helping them install energy savings appliances seems to make sense. If we can afford, as some suggest, up to $2 trillion in tax cuts, there is no reason that Congress cannot put some money on the table now that will help reduce the demand for energy production and help low- and moderate-income people save money over time. We should have policies that reduce the extra costs for low-income people who may not have the money to replace appliances that in the long term will pay for themselves many times over. The long-term benefits accrue not just to those low-income households. The community and the utilities will benefit huge savings by not building unnecessary power plants. Yesterday's poll in USA Today showed that the American public understands this problem and an overwhelming percentage favor conservation over production. We should invest in alternative energy, retrofit existing buildings with new technology, help lower-income people cope today and conserve for tomorrow, and all of us should embrace conservation. These principles should be the basis of a national energy policy, an approach that will unite us in Washington, D.C., because it is what the people want and it is the quickest path to building more livable communities.