Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I salute the work that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) have done in moving forward this critical framework for how the Department of State is going to operate. I do appreciate the words that we heard from the Secretary of State, Colin Powell. I think there is going to be a lot of potential progress, and it is embodied in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, there are two things that I would refer to in the context here. Number one, I am very pleased with the language that has been added to encourage the United States to participate in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. I think it is absolutely critical that the United States not abrogate its leadership in issues of the global environment and climate change. I am one of those people who does not sit back, and I am saying that global warming is a problem for the planet. I think the Federal Government should take steps to mitigate the impact of global climate change. Our planet has already warmed by over a degree in the last 100 years. Sea level has risen between 4 and 8 inches. The problems are predicted to be much, much worse. Mr. Chairman, today more than 50 percent of our Nation's population lives within 30 miles of the coast. If we have increased raising of sea level, increased dramatic climate incidents, heavy rainfall, these are things that are going to be more and more serious for all of our citizens. Mr. Chairman, Congress can help in many ways, keeping this language in the resolution, and then by stepping forward to do simple, commonsense things to reduce the consumption of energy. A simple one- half mile per gallon improvement in vehicle mileage would be the energy equivalent of what we would drill in ANWR, and would not only protect energy but protect the climate. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we keep this language in, and I strongly urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, the programs and budget contained within the State Department impact the lives of thousands of federal employees, millions of American citizens both at home and abroad, and the diplomatic relations between the United States and the rest of the world. Few other federal agencies that Congress works with have such an impact on our nation's economy, security, and livability. I have a great interest in bringing about common-sense practices in the planning and management of our overseas buildings infrastructure. I am impressed with the business-like approach being taken by General Chuck Williams (US Army Corps of Engineers, Ret.), Chief Operating Officer for the State Department's Office of Foreign Building Operations and I look forward to working with him on some needed reforms. He has instigated a long-range planning process which will allow us to gain greater value for our investment of resources. There are some statutory changes that need to be made in order to best assure that our 260 diplomatic missions located in some 130 countries have appropriate facilities to achieve our foreign policy objectives. We must provide all 20,000 employees at our missions with safe, secure, and functional facilities. I want to begin a dialogue on this topic to prepare to make needed changes. General Williams has done yeoman's work in the short time since he was appointed March 12 and we are just getting started in bringing about these practical reforms. I am working with my colleagues to incorporate needed language into the conference report on this bill. The language that is needed in the conference report on this bill should accomplish the following: (1) Allow the Office of Foreign Buildings Operations to be a stand- alone organization within the State Department as Secretary Powell has proposed, (2) Transfer the office into a results-based organization, and (3) Create a rent or capital surcharge program to require agencies to share in the cost of secure overseas facilities for their personnel. Congress can play a constructive role in solving some of these problems. We can begin to make planning drive the funding and thereby help the State Department best do its job.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the budget conference committee report. Amazingly, this proposal keeps getting worse, not better. The item before us, in order to accommodate the tax cut, does not include provisions earlier passed by the Senate for education. The $294 billion supported by the bipartisan majority in the Senate, and that would be supported by a majority of the members in this body, is nowhere to be seen. It even does not have $21.5 billion for education proposed by President Bush and approved by the House in March. It also provides less money than the President requested for the Ryan White AIDS Treatment Grants, Maternal and Child Care Health Block Grants, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Food and Drug Administration. This budget proposal has $700 million less for veteran's programs in FY 2002 than the House-passed resolution and $2.7 billion less than the Senate-passed resolution. Furthermore, at a time of energy crisis, this document does nothing to restore the significant reductions in energy conservation proposed by the Administration. It is in short, a resolution that stands our bipartisan budget priorities on their head. The part that is most objectionable to those of us in Oregon is the silence on where future budget cuts are going to fall. There will be a requirement for additional budget cuts of at least $6 billion next year and more than ten times that amount over the next ten years, without a hint of where those reductions will come from. Last week the budget process fell apart after keeping the Members of this House waiting until the early hours of the morning for a vote. In part, this breakdown was less due to the two pages that were lost, and more due to the fact that this bill has not proceeded as a serious piece of bipartisan legislation. Despite the hopeful rhetoric about changing the tone in Washington from the Bush Administration, nobody had seen the resolution last week, and now what has been revealed to us leaves gaping holes in essential priorities. What we do know is the Administration is about to unveil massive increases for defense. When coupled with the known requirement for annual emergency spending that is not accounted for in this document, the cost rises by hundreds of billions of extra dollars. Additionally, we must acknowledge the need to correct the problem of the Alternative Minimum Tax that was originally implemented to ensure the super wealthy at least paid some income tax. Instead the AMT is affecting lower income Americans with large families in ways never intended and the impact will be much worse under President Bush's proposed income tax rate reductions. Everyone in Congress knows it has to be fixed and this budget resolution ignores our duty to correct this inequity in the tax code. Congress and the American people deserve an honest budget resolution that tells us where we want to go and how we are realistically going to get there. This proposal does neither.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, if Members care about livable communities, they should be encouraged with the recent discussions surrounding the flooding in the Upper Mississippi. We cannot make families safe, healthy, and economically secure unless we squarely address how we manage these disasters. Despite massive construction efforts to stave off harm over the last 40 years, losses adjusted for inflation are six times greater than before we started. The reasons are quite clear. First, we have often made the problems worse by our efforts to prevent disasters. We have channelized the rivers, we have narrowed them, we have reduced the capacity to carry water while they increase the velocity. And we leave no place for the water to go when it floods. Number two, we have a decided lack of careful planning for land around the edges of rivers and other bodies of water. Water is a magnet for development, especially when we implement things that appear to increase safety, like build more and higher sea walls and dikes. This has encouraged people to develop in flood plains, which by their very nature puts people at risk. There is a reason why they are called flood plains. Nationally, we have developed over half our Nation's wetlands with houses and parking lots. In some communities 90 percent or more of the original wetlands have disappeared, taking with it the capacity for the ground in low-lying areas to soak up water and to have relatively benign pools, ponds, and temporary lakes. The swamps, which are always targeted to be eliminated, were actually very effective devices to prevent floodwater from inflicting more damage. Into this volatile mix, we need to factor global climate change. There are some who still argue, well, we should just study it. But the strong consensus from the scientific community is that global warming and climate change is a reality. There is a very high degree of probability that the warming we have seen in the last century will continue and even accelerate. And while many people associate this with severe droughts and much higher temperature in urban areas and nighttime temperatures, there is another significant factor, extreme storm events. There have been many incidents recently where communities have set all-time records for rainfall in a 24-hour period. This combination of mismanaged flood protection, inappropriate development, and the likelihood of things getting worse in terms of increased precipitation makes these questions even more significant. There is a golden opportunity for environmentalists to join with the administration, for fiscal conservatives to join with people who are concerned about preventing human misery to agree to simple, common sense steps that will provide for true improvement. First, there ought to be an incentive, an emphasis, on prevention. We should not discourage or eliminate promising programs like Project Impact, which help people prepare to resist disasters before the fact. Second, there ought to be increased local responsibility. There is no question that local communities must bear the consequences for decisions they make about the location and nature of development. There is no question that more expensive or intrusive measures should require more local or State support. However, the Federal match should be higher for things that are going to be preventative in nature while subsidy should be reduced or eliminated for things that are more likely to make it worse. Local communities should implement sound land-use planning and building codes to help themselves. There is no excuse to put hog waste lagoons in flood plains, to not have reasonable building requirements for window covering for areas that are subject to extreme tropical storm damage, or to allow people to maintain a residence in repeatedly flooded areas. All these people should be given clear signals that they are going to have to accept responsibility to mitigate these clearly avoidable damages. Finally, a simple, common sense step should be to reform the flood insurance program to eliminate Federal subsidy for repetitive flood- loss payments. It is critical that we not make this into a political tug of war at a time when there is consensus in the scientific community, environmentalists, the professionals who work in disaster mitigation about what will work, what will make things better, what will keep people out of harm's way. We need to work cooperatively to make our communities more livable with a better match between private responsibility and government policy at all levels.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support both H.R. 10 and the substitute amendment. I am gratified to see this bipartisan legislation improving pension and retirement savings vehicles has been brought before the House of Representatives for consideration. I am especially pleased with one provision that I have been working to change since coming to Congress: Section 415. The current statutes establish arbitrary and punitive levels on working people by not allowing those who are covered by pension programs to collect the full benefits they have accrued. This is wrong and H.R. 10 will fix this inequity and allow all hard working citizens to collect their full pension. Both H.R. 10 and the substitute deal with the 100 percent of compensation problem, which speaks to the disparity lower-paid employees face when they do not get the pension they should because programs are based on years of service, rather than salary amounts. Those who retire early due to the difficult and often physical nature of their work currently are not allowed to withdraw the full amount of their pension. This legislation would address that problem. These are important issues and the legislation is long overdue.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, you cannot promote livable communities without examining the problems associated with our complex set of State, local and Federal policies for emergency relief. Many of these policies have encouraged people to live and invest in places where nature has repeatedly shown they are not welcome. The recent increase in the number of natural disasters and the associated losses has clearly demonstrated that our protective strategies are inherently flawed. We had better figure it out before we are overwhelmed by further impacts of global climate change. In the last decade alone, we have lost nearly $100 billion and almost 1,000 lives. Although we have invested tens of billions of dollars in dams and levees over the last 40 years, our losses now total almost six times the amount lost before we began. Natural forces continue to confound our best engineering efforts. The average coastline in the United States is due to erode approximately 500 feet over the next 60 years, and this figure does not take into account any rise in sea level or increased intensity of storms due to global warming. Walling off our coastlines is a contest we are going to lose. The National Flood Insurance Program is a good idea and an important program, but it is not sound because over 8,000 victims of repetitive flood loss are not required to either flood-proof their property or relocate out of harm's way. The worst example of this absurdity is the payment of over $800,000 to the owner of a home in Houston for 16 losses over 20 years for a home that is appraised at less than $115,000. Communities on the West Coast should be required to upgrade seismic standards in preparation for earthquakes, to place vulnerable coastal areas off limits to development, and to carefully evaluate the long- term effectiveness of beach reconstruction and fortification. All of these actions should emphasize appropriate cost-sharing and environmental sustainability. If State or local governments have not or will not do their job, then Federal support should be phased down. Davenport Iowa's mayor Phil Yerington is correct to point out that the residents of his city are not the only ones who should be subjected to scrutiny. While I appreciate FEMA director Allbaugh's tough questions, I am not convinced that flood walls are the only or even the best answer. Oftentimes structural solutions may provide local protection but only increase flooding problems downstream. Passive flood control systems using wetlands and other natural features may provide better alternatives. But whatever the approach, people need to accept the consequences of their location and development decisions. Repetitive flood loss should not be the sole responsibility of the Federal government. State and local governments should ensure that zoning regulations and building codes in storm-prone areas are rigorous enough to limit wind and water damage by highly predictable weather patterns. I commend the FEMA director for his concerns, and stand ready, along with my congressional colleagues, to work with him on these difficult issues. Disaster relief should not be lost in the shuffle of must-pass emergency legislation. It must receive the scrutiny it deserves. We ought to make sure, for example, that Federal tax dollars are not used to rebuild environmentally-damaging lagoons of hog waste in flood plains. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act was a terrific Reagan-era environmental protection embraced by Democrats and Republicans, environmentalists and business interests alike. It should be extended to all coastal areas. Sensitive shorelines should not have private development subsidized at the Federal taxpayer expense. Government regulations should be making it cheaper and easier for local communities to take the less intrusive greener approach to flood control than to use the more environmentally-damaging structural approaches. Project Impact, which invested small amounts of Federal money to develop emergency management partnerships and planning in advance of a disaster, should be enhanced, not eliminated, as recommended by the Bush administration. It was an ill omen for the administration to propose Impact's elimination on the very day of the Seattle earthquake. It is time for the administration to align its land use, disaster, and infrastructure policies to be supportive these cost-effective, visionary approaches. It is time for Congress to step up to be a full partner, rather than supporting short-term parochial interests that only encourage people to live in harm's way, waste tax dollars, and ultimately make the problem worse. What better response to this year's Earth Day than a bipartisan cooperative approach between the administration and Congress to tackle this long-term and growing problem.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted in opposition to H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Since the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, Congress has slowly passed legislation that has eroded women's reproductive choices. This is a personal and private decision that should be made by a woman, her family, her physician, and her beliefs, not subjected to increasing levels of government interference. Rather than being merely a good faith effort to protect pregnant mothers from violence, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act'' is actually a back door attempt to interject government into individuals private lives. Harsh penalties already exist in 38 States for crimes against pregnant women that result in the injury or death of her fetus. The overwhelming majority of crimes against pregnant women that cause injury to her fetus occur in cases of domestic abuse or drunk driving accidents, instances that are prosecutable under currently existing state laws. H.R. 503 would do nothing to add to the existing protections against these serious and prevalent crimes. Nearly one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by their partner during adulthood. Drunk driving accidents continue to result in substantial loss of life in every city across the nation. Instead of focusing on purely political measures aimed at the erosion of a woman's reproductive freedom, we should be protecting women from violence and increase assistance to women in life threatening domestic situations. I did support the Lofgren Amendment that would have enacted strict punishments for crimes that result in the injury or death of the fetus with out the inclusion of constitutionally questionable language. If protecting pregnant women from violent crime were truly our priority, Congress would have passed this amendment to H.R. 503.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's observations, the hard work that he has done in protecting the environment, and the admonition that we need to be vigilant not just on Earth Day, but this is an ongoing effort. I must confess that I share the gentleman's observation. My assessment is that our commitment is to protect the environment. I have deep concerns about some of the administration's policies, as the gentleman mentioned. I hope, however, that we can on this floor reach common cause across party lines, geographic and philosophical divides, because the American public desires that we are able to move forward and be productive in this fashion. Mr. Speaker, I came from a very environmentally aware State. I think we both share that kinship and that consensus. In our State, in Oregon, much of the environmental leadership transcended party politics. It came from an era, particularly in the 1970s, where half the time there was a Republican governor who was working with Democrats in the legislature; and when the Democrats took control of the State house, the governorship, it continued on. Most of the major pieces of legislation that we are working on actually have bipartisan support, and if we could ever get them to the floor of this chamber, I think we would find that there would be strong votes, including significant Republican support. I think it is important for us to walk that line, to fight back when there are items that are at odds with what the American public wants. As the gentleman pointed out with the budget, we need to acknowledge some of the positive things that are not where that takes place, and Congress must be willing to step up and lead by example in terms of walking the walk. I had a couple of other observations that were positive in nature that I wanted to share, because I thought they were very significant. Joe Albaugh, the new director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, maybe created some waves the last couple of days when there was high water around Davenport, Iowa, but I think he raised an important issue about the responsibility of the Federal Government to help, but not to continue to step in and subsidize areas where it appears as though people are not moving out of harm's way. There are in this country over 8,000 properties that have a history of repeated loss claims from floods. Over the last 8 years, we have lost over $89 billion of damage as a result of flooding. We have lost over 800 lives. And there are still a number of people who live with Federal subsidy in places where God has repeatedly shown that he does not want them to live. I appreciate that this administration is willing to raise the issue. In the budget there are some budget savings that have been claimed as a result of modifying and reforming the Federal flood insurance program. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I have legislation that we have introduced, the ``Two Floods and You're Out of the Taxpayer Pocket,'' which would help provide a mechanism to claim the savings that the administration is interested in; and I appreciate what the FEMA Director is doing, and I know there will be support in Congress to come forward to try and make that important reform. Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure earlier this week to share a platform with General Robert Flowers, the head of the Corps of Engineers, who made, I thought, an extraordinary, extraordinary statement. I commend people to perhaps go to the Web site, to the Corps of Engineers, look at General Flowers' statement. It was one that I think any Member of the House of Representatives would have been proud to make. The General committed to environmental sustainability, that all Corps of Engineers work will be based on the need for people and nature to coexist in a healthy, supportive, diverse and sustainable condition; to recognize the interdependence of activities, that we will recognize interdependence with nature, we will consider the possibility of second- and third-order effects on his projects; that the Corps would be responsible for cumulative impacts. The Corps would accept responsibility for the consequences of planning, design, and construction decisions upon the continued viability of natural systems and human life. The Corps would be committed to long-term public safety, creating engineered objects of long-term value; that it would support a systems approach in all aspects of design and construction. The Corps will evaluate and optimize the life cycle of products and processes so that as much as possible, we approach the natural state of systems in which there is no waste; to understand and utilize the dynamic nature of the environment. Their products will continue to rely to the fullest extent possible on renewable energy sources and recyclable products, and to seek continuous improvements, seeking constant improvements by sharing, promoting, collaborating and integrating knowledge. Mr. Speaker, I thought it was an outstanding statement by General Flowers, and I, for one, am standing willing to help him achieve that with the Corps of Engineers in terms of policy and budget and to make sure that Congress is supporting, rather than interfering. I wanted to acknowledge that as, I thought, one of the most important statements that I had heard in the course of the week of Earth Day celebrations.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Indeed.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's somber reflections because we need to look at this in a balanced and objective fashion. I would just conclude my remarks this evening on a note of optimism and hoping that we will be able to work in a bipartisan fashion to do something about having the Federal Government step up and lead by example. The United States Government is the largest Superfund polluter in the United States, the government itself. The military waste, the toxics and explosives that we have littering the landscape constitute a battle right here on American soil 26 years after the Vietnam war, 56 years after the conclusion of World War II, 83 years after World War I. It involves mines and nerve gases and toxics and explosive shells. It has claimed at least 65 lives that we know of, most of them since World War II. There is a strong likelihood, I am told, that there are more people who have lost their lives that we just as yet do not know about, and there are many more who have been maimed and injured. What, I guess, shocked me the most were two young boys who were killed as a result of an explosive shell that they found in a field in a subdivision in their hometown of San Diego that was a formerly used military defense site. Three boys found the shell. They were playing with it. They detonated it, and two of them were killed. This danger continues every day. If we are not careful, at the rate we are going, it could last for another 500 or 1,000 years. Now, this toxic waste of military activities in the United States could potentially contaminate 20 to 25 million acres, and some estimates are as high as 50 million acres. As I pointed out, we do not have a good inventory. We do not know. But what we do know is, at the current rate of spending in a budget that is not yet adequate, it will take centuries, potentially 1,000 years or more to return the land to safe and productive use and to protect children who may be playing, wildlife. Fire fighters in the forests who were a couple of summers ago in a forest fire in New York State, all of a sudden they were out in the forest, and there were huge explosions because buried shells from artillery practice that did not explode were suddenly being detonated by the forest fire. Congress needs to report for duty. It needs to provide the administrative and financial tools that are necessary. What I am talking about here is not going to affect active ranges and readiness. My concern is for closed, transferred, and transferring ranges where the public is already exposed or soon will be. I hope that we can make every Member of Congress, every aspect of the Department of Defense, the Corps of Engineers understand what is going on in each and every one of our States, because every State is at risk. We can make sure that somebody is in charge, that there is enough funding, and that we get the job done so that no child will be at risk of death, dismemberment or serious illness as a result of the United States Government not cleaning up after itself. In the course of our conversation this evening, we have talked about some positive elements and some that were perhaps a little disconcerting, but I think this is an area that we can commit ourselves to working in a bipartisan way. I can think of no more positive aspect for claiming the true purpose and spirit of Earth Day than acting to make sure that the Federal Government is doing all it can in this important area.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker. I was particularly taken by a comment the gentleman made about the opportunities to build the environment, to create jobs, to build the economy; that these are things that can be done concurrently and actually add value, being able to help make our families safe, healthy, and economically secure. I had an opportunity this last week to tour a location where actually what the gentleman is talking about could have a tremendous effect. In the metropolitan Portland area, across the river, it is not in my district or in my State but it is a very short journey, there is a large formerly-used defense facility called Camp Bonneville, 3,800 acres that has been used for the better part of this last century for military purposes. The community has a plan where they would like to take this area that has been off limits, that has not been subjected to development. It has a potential for wildlife, for recreation, that is almost unsurpassed, just a few minutes from the core of a major metropolitan area, but it is going to require that the Department of Defense step up and provide the resources to decontaminate the area. We do not know what is on the 3,800 acres. There is not money budgeted, although we recently had a reversal of a decision by the Department of Defense to go in and help us with that survey. It is critical that we examine areas like this. When they first went in, there were 105-millimeter shells on the ground that they could find. These are items of high explosives, 7\1/2\ pounds of blasting powder, that could do tremendous damage. Now we have an opportunity perhaps, if the Department of Defense, the Corps of Engineers, and this Congress steps forward, to be able to make a difference for the people in the metropolitan area of Portland- Vancouver-Washington. But it is an example of what we can do to balance the environment, provide jobs, and give back precious resources in terms of open space and redevelopment possibilities. But while we were on recess this last week, there was finally the long-awaited report from the General Accounting Office that deals with the environmental liabilities of just training range cleanup costs. The report was rather startling. It indicated that while the Department of Defense thought that its liability for the cleanup of training ranges was about $14 billion, they find that other estimates show that liability could well exceed $100 billion just for training range cleanup. Without complete and accurate data, it is impossible to determine whether these amounts represent a reasonable estimate, or what the implications are. We have not performed a complete inventory of the ranges, identifying the types and extent of the unexploded ordnance and the associated contamination. We have a long list of areas that are formerly-used defense sites, training sites, base closures. We do not have the top management focus and leadership necessary even to get reliable report estimates at this point, and sadly, there is no specific program for unexploded ordnance remediation policy, goals, or program. Now, we have been writing as Members of Congress, bringing this to the attention of the appropriators, to our fellow Members of Congress. This is a situation that affects not just metropolitan Portland, but it is something that touches people all across the country. Two weeks ago, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I led a trip to the American University campus and Spring Valley residential development here in the District of Columbia, where they are still excavating the hillside, removing arsenic. There is a child care center on the campus of American University that was closed because of intolerably high arsenic levels. In our Nation's Capitol, from coast-to-coast, border to border, we have over 1,000 of these sites that need to be addressed that represent a threat to the public safety and health, and if done properly, represent an opportunity to have a transformational effect on communities in terms of the economic activities associated with cleanup and then the reuse of these facilities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, as one who came to Congress committed to having the Federal Government be a better partner in making our communities more livable, making our families safe, healthy and economically secure, this last weekend in the celebration of Earth Day was a special time. Every April 22, around the world, there is recognition of the Earth Day celebrations. This was an undertaking that was founded in 1970 by then U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson, who proposed a nationwide environmental protest to, quote, shake up the political establishment and force this issue on to the national agenda. Well, Senator Nelson succeeded, I think, even beyond his expectations, as he was able to encourage this recognition internationally. I think it was appropriate that he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his role as the founder of Earth Day. This year, as we reviewed the news accounts, there was a great deal of energy, excitement and indeed some good news for the environment around the world. Part of it was the environmental activism itself. There were over 800 rallies held across the United States, and internationally there were more than 100. In honor of Earth Day, the Wilderness Society named the White House as an object of their future concerns about national parks and monuments. There was in Washington, D.C. a forum on solar energy held to celebrate the advances made in the technology, economics and prospects for the use of solar energy. There was a massive Trees Are My Friends campaign that helped to educate urban residents about the value of street trees in the urban forest canopy, helping residents connect with tree care and planning activities in their community. This last weekend, I joined with people in my community in Portland, Oregon, to celebrate a successful tree-planting undertaking. They have successfully planted now 207,000 trees. During the month of April, citizens in a variety of cities in the West, including Portland, Seattle and Denver, were engaged in races and walks to raise the awareness of climate change, to help stop global climate warming. There were rallies in India by cycling organizations to push for the creation of no vehicle zones in major cities. Additionally, there were events to protest deforestation in Mexico, children rallying for the protection of endangered species in Estonia and Russia; and there were tree plantings in Burmese refugee camps in Thailand. There was good news on the State level. One in particular that caught my attention was in the State of California where the Department of Fish and Game has issued draft regulations to protect sea otters and other marine mammals from deadly gill nets. These regulations are going to make a huge difference in the protection of marine mammals. In Massachusetts, that State will become the first on a State level to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under their own clean air rules. The new standard, which will go into effect in June, will also limit mercury emissions, acid rain causing sulfur dioxide, and smog-causing nitrogen oxide. It will apply to the State's dirtiest power plants that are contributing to global warming. There were very significant developments in the Pacific Northwest, including in British Columbia where the government of that province, in coordination with environmental groups, logging companies and the first nations of Canada announced the plan to prohibit or defer logging on 3.5 million acres of the Great Bear Rain Forest, an area 4 times the size of Rhode Island. This is one of the largest rain forest conservation efforts in North American history and will protect the only home of the white Spirit Bear, a rare subspecies of the black bear. Madam Speaker, on occasion I have taken to this floor because I have taken offense with some of the activities of this administration as it relates to the environment. Admittedly, I was more than a little concerned when some of our predictions were borne out with the release of President Bush's recommended budget. He has decided to recommend major cuts in the EPA enforcement budget and to slash by 87 percent a global tropical forest program which he had endorsed on the campaign trail, I believe pledging $100 million. The budget also shows that the President has a mixed reaction to what is proposed as an energy crisis by recommending that the Department of Energy research on renewables be slashed by nearly 50 percent and that energy efficiency funding be cut by 23 percent. It simply, from where I stand, is a little disappointing to say the least; but I must confess that there have been a number of announcements and activities from this administration in the course of Earth Day, Earth Week activities that do, I think, bear commendation; and I think we should come forward and express appreciation for steps that are, in fact, positive. The President announced that he will sign the international agreement on persistent organic pollutants to halt the worldwide spread of these dangerous chemicals, such as dioxins. I think that is a positive step. On Saturday, April 21, the day before Earth Day, at a meeting on free trade in Quebec, the President promised to link trade with a strong commitment to protect our environment, a movement that reinforces the work done by his trade representative, Ambassador Zoellick, who is working hard to see if we can reach some bipartisan accord to protect environmental values in the area of trade, and I commend them. The administration has at least agreed to attend the next round of international talks on global climate change, even though they continue their opposition to the Kyoto protocol and have not expressed a willingness to compromise and a willingness to move forward. I hope cooler heads hopefully will prevail because it is inappropriate for the United States to abrogate leadership in the international arena. I appreciated the fact that the President has decided to allow a ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Park to take effect. It was my pleasure recently to meet with Mike Finley, the outgoing superintendent of Yellowstone National Park, who has done an outstanding job for the Park Service. This ban was an important part of Mike's legacy and will phase out snowmobiles in these critical parks in the next 3 years. The administration has also decided to uphold a Clinton administration rule to dramatically expand reporting requirements for the emissions of lead. This is a step in the right direction to deal with a serious toxic metal which is linked to learning and behavior problems. In the area of wetlands, the administration announced last week that it will uphold a wetlands development regulation that requires developers to get an Army Corps of Engineer's permit for various activities that would modify the wetlands. And in the area of home appliances, the White House will keep Clinton administration energy conservation rules on washing machines and water heaters, measures which will make clothes washers become 22 percent more efficient by 2004, 35 percent more efficient by 2007, and will make a big difference in terms of saving energy and conserving water. While I was disappointed that the administration is weakening the air conditioning rule by some 50 percent, nonetheless it still represents a substantial improvement and a move in the right direction. Madam Speaker, I notice that I have been joined by my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), a gentleman known for his zeal and concern for protecting the environment and his environmentally sensitive State, and I would yield to the gentleman for some comments.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Community Character Act of 2001. This legislation will provide state grants to develop or revise state land use plans and planning legislation that underpin local and state efforts to address public transit, affordable housing, environmental and other livability issues. States, tribal governments, and native Hawaiian organizations would be eligible for grants of up to $1,000,000 each upon application approval by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Total appropriations would be limited to $50 million each year. Applicants that receive grants would be required to provide 10 percent in matching funds. Funds may be used to obtain technical assistance in drafting land use planning legislation; carrying out research and development for planning programs; conducting workshops, educating and consulting for local officials and policy makers; and involving citizens in the planning process. I submit the following letters of endorsement from the American Planning Association, National Association of Realtors, and the American Society of Landscape Architects to be included in the Congressional Record. American Planning Association, Washington, DC, April 4, 2001. Hon. Earl Blumenauer, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Rep. Blumenauer: The American Planning Association is pleased to endorse the Community Character Act of 2001. APA is heartened by the introduction of this legislation and the assistance it would provide to the numerous states and communities struggling with the consequences of change, whether it be growth and development or economic decline. This legislation recognizes that the Federal government can, and should, be a constructive partner with those communities seeking innovative solutions to improving local quality of life through better planning and land use. APA, with more than 30,000 members, is the largest private organization working to promote planning for communities that effectively meets the needs of our people, now and in the future. Planning is the single most effective way to deal with growth issues facing states and communities. Passage of the Community Character Act is among the most important and beneficial things Congress could do to help promote local solutions to such pressing issues as downtown revitalization, traffic congestion, urban sprawl and open space protection This legislation responds to widespread citizen interest in--smart growth by providing critical resources to help state and local political leaders, business and environmental interests, and others manage change. In a recent national voter survey, APA found that an overwhelming majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, geographic locale, or demographic group, believe Congress should take action to support state and local smart growth initiatives. Seventy-eight percent of those surveyed believe it is important for the 107th Congress to help communities solve problems associated with urban growth. Moreover, three- quarters of voters also support providing incentives to help promote smart growth and improve planning. The Community Character Act provides vital assistance to meet the serious challenge of reforming outdated planning statutes and supporting planning as the basis for smart growth. Currently, more than half the states are still operating under planning statutes devised in the 1920s. And, even in those states with updated planning laws, comnunities are struggling to find and implement tools to grow smarter and in ways consistent with the values and vision of the citizens. Thus far in 2001, twenty-seven governors have initiated some type smart growth proposals and there is pending legislative or executive activity related to planning, growth and land use in twenty-two states. This is happening in states as diverse as Oklahoma and New York, Montana and Massachusetts. This bipartisan legislation would provide $50 million to states, multi-state regional programs and tribal governments to assist in revising land use planning legislation and developing comprehensive plans. The bill is intended to support efforts to promote improved quality of life, economic development and community livability through planning reform. Grants could Under the Community Character Act states are encouraged to create a framework for smart growth planning, but the bill avoids dictating land use policies. In the best sense, it is a `funded non-mandate.' The Community Character Act specifically acknowledges that land use planning is rightfully a local and state prerogative. The bill seeks to encourage states to provide their cities, towns, counties and regions with innovative and updated tools for managing the many challenges presented by growth. Communities would not be forced to pursue smart growth strategies but the legislation would provide assistance to those states that have chosen to do so. Grant guidelines call for comprehensive planning that coordinates transportation, housing and education with infrastructure investments and conserves historic, scenic and natural resources. The bill also acknowledges that it is the collective vision and values of citizens that should guide planning. Land use planning should not stop at arbitrary jurisdictional boundaries. This bill seeks to promote a vision of land use planning and resource management that works for regions by allowing multi-state regional project to qualify for funding. The legislation also encourages greater cooperation between local planning and federal land management planning. Additionally, the legislation recognizes and seeks to address the tremendous need for planning and community development by the nation's tribal governments. This legislation promotes smart growth principles and encourages state to create or update the framework necessary for good planning. It creates a federal partnership with communities through incentives, not mandates. The bill does not mandate that states implement specific changes but rather seeks to support and inform that process once it is underway. This program is a small investment that will bring substantial dividends in improving the livability of cities, towns, and neighborhoods throughout the nation. The American Planning Association applauds your outstanding leadership and vision in introducing the Community Character Act and urges the House of Representatives to enact this legislation. Sincerely, Bruce McClendon, FAICP President.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 8, the third installment of President Bush's fiscally questionable tax package. For nearly a month, this body has discussed and voted on bills that provide tax relief to people least in need while ignoring our Nation's serious needs for education, health care, and the environment and, most important, the fiscal prudence, paying down the debt and meeting our existing responsibilities. Virtually every Member of Congress agrees that the current estate tax needs to be reformed. I have supported increases in exemptions, adjustment for inflation, reduction in rate and protections for closely held family farms and small businesses which are only 9 percent of the total inheritance tax program. I fundamentally believe that reforming the estate tax will allow for more farmland, wood lots and green spaces to be preserved and small business to be protected. Estate tax reform is an essential part of making our communities more livable. That being said, it is frustrating that despite near unanimity on this issue, my Republican colleagues insist on legislation that provides vast benefits for people who need it the least while stalling on relief for people who need help now, not 10 or 11 years from now but now. The legislation we are debating today costs $662 billion. That is why the repeal does not take place until 2011. This is an accounting gimmick that puts the full cost of the bill outside the budgeting window, preventing the Joint Committee on Taxation from scoring the true cost of the bill. Despite the overwhelming cost, this bill does not substantially benefit the small business or the family farm for more than a decade. The Democratic alternative provides far more help for those who need it most in the next 10 years and does so now. Since coming to Washington over 4 years ago, I have worked to make our world a more livable place, improve bipartisan cooperation and maintain our hard-earned fiscal discipline. Unfortunately, H.R. 8 manages to violate all three of those principles. It should be rejected and meaningful reform enacted.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is time at this juncture appropriate to step back and take stock of recent actions. We have had some commentary here on the floor this evening dealing with the environment and dealing with the recent activities of this Congress and the administration. I think it is appropriate for us to do this, as I have fresh in my mind very vivid memories of a tour that I organized today to visit the exclusive residential area of Spring Valley here in the District of Columbia around the American University campus. It was a tour to be able to understand clearly one of the key environmental issues that deals with 1,000 sites around the country. Twenty-six years after the Vietnam War, 56 years after the conclusion of World War II, 83 years after World War I, there is still a battle taking place, and it is taking place right here on the soil of America. It involves mines, nerve gases, toxics and explosive shells. This battle has claimed 69 lives and has maimed and injured far more. Sadly, this battle continues every day. If we are not careful in this country, it may continue for another 100 years, 500 years. There are some estimates that the areas of contamination by military hazardous waste are such that at the current rate, it may take over 1,000 years. Toxic explosive wastes of our military activities here in the United States, unexploded ordnance on formerly-used defense installations, probably contaminates at least 25 million acres in the United States, and, indeed, that number could be as much as twice as high, approaching 50 million acres or more. Sadly, nobody can even give an accurate appraisal of this problem, but we do know that at the current rate of spending, which is less than $300 million a year, this problem of many billion dollars of magnitude will take centuries to return the land to safe and productive uses. Sadly, some areas of this country are so damaged that we cannot even attempt to clean them up at all. Mr. Speaker, unexploded ordnance is a serious problem today. Human activity and wildlife is encroaching on more and more of these sites as our neighborhoods grow, as our cities sprawl, and, at the same time, the natural rhythm of nature, flooding, earthquakes, landslides, aided and abetted by human activity, exposes these dangers as the land mines, as the unexploded bombs and shells work their way to the surface. Today across America we are finding lost and forgotten unexploded ordnance that in some cases was intentionally buried in a feeble attempt just to get rid of it, or we find shells that were fired and missed their mark and did not explode as intended. These are acute dangers. I recall one example that occurred in San Diego where two children, actually there were three, who were playing on a vacant lot in a subdivision that was formerly military territory. This had been used as a bombing ring, as a target. These children found an unexploded shell, started playing with it. It detonated. It killed two of them and seriously injured a third. At the sites that I visited today, there is a child care center on the campus of American University that has been closed because the level of toxicity from arsenic is so high that it poses a threat to human health. Across the road there is a grand home that belongs to the Korean Ambassador, and the whole backyard has been excavated away, as they are dealing there again with high levels of soil contamination. There are acres and acres of this site next to the American University campus and some that is on the campus itself that was used to test chemical weapons during World War I. At the height of the activity, there were almost 2,000 people working on this area. There were over 100 buildings. They were testing things like mustard gas, arsenic. There were circles where they tied animals and subjected them to the gas. There were areas where they manufactured these chemical weapons. When the war was over, we were pretty haphazard about what happened there. In some cases, the buildings were so contaminated, they just burned them, and then covered them up. There was no careful accounting of the materials, and we have found over the years that some of the shells and explosives and toxics have been exposed. There was some construction there of late, in the last decades, in the 1990s, and as they were bulldozing away, they found shells that contained toxic explosives. There was a glass container that was broken in the late 1990s during construction that sent workers to the hospital. There was phosphorus that was encountered that when the container was broken open and the phosphorus was exposed to the air, it exploded into flame. Now, this is an area that is developed with homes and a university campus less than a 30-minute bike ride from where I am speaking this evening. We were done with it by 1919, and yet we have yet to thoroughly decontaminate the area. Now, there are many targets of frustration that citizens can have to direct their anger and concern. They can be frustrated and angry with the Department of Defense or the Corps of Engineers or the EPA or local authorities. People have legitimate concerns about these and other agencies about what they have done in the past and what they are doing now. But sadly, there is one participant in this battle that is missing in action: the United States Congress. Only we in Congress can set adequate funding levels, can budget clearly, make sure enough money is appropriated to do the job right. Congress can pinpoint managerial responsibility and establish the rules of the game. It is not acceptable to me, and I hope not acceptable to the American public, for Congress to occasionally step in from the sidelines, complain, protest, perhaps shift already inadequate budget resources from one high-priority project to another. This is worse than a zero-sum game and does not advance the goal of protecting the public. Congress needs to report for duty and needs to provide the administrative and financial tools that are necessary. Now, I am not talking about the active ranges and military readiness. There are issues there, but that is a separate topic for another time. My concern is for the closed, the transferred or the transferring properties where the public is exposed, soon will be exposed, or unsuspecting children and members of the public could potentially be exposed in the future. More than 1,000 years to clean up these sites is not an appropriate timetable when people are at risk, and they are, in fact, at risk every day. Mr. Speaker, we need to provide the resources to solve this problem, not in 1,000 years or 300 years, but in the lifetime of our children. If we do this, provide the momentum, the energy, there will be improvement in technology, the development of appropriate partnerships that will mean we can make a quantum improvement in our ability to find these hazards, the unexploded ordnance, to decontaminate the sites, to have the infrastructure companies train personnel to do it right. I do believe that if we in this Chamber made a commitment that we would get the job done, say, in the next 75 years, it could create such a burst of enthusiasm and energy, that, in fact, we could get the job done far sooner. Our goal in Congress should be to make sure that the administration and that every Member in the House and the Senate understands what is going on; what is going on in their State, what is going on from border to border, coast to coast, because this is a problem in every single State in the Union. Our goal is to make sure that there is somebody, one person, who is in charge. Our goal is to make sure that there is enough funding so that we can at least get the cleanup done this century, hopefully sooner, and that no child will be at risk for death, dismemberment, or serious illness as a result of the United States Government not cleaning up after itself. I come here tonight with serious concern about the environment and with initially a plea for bipartisan cooperation in Congress, in the House and in the Senate, and with the administration to solve this problem. That is, in fact, what should be our approach to protecting our environment, to making our communities more livable and our families safe, healthy and more economically secure. It should be in a bipartisan, objective, thoughtful approach. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Members that I have been deeply concerned by the events that have occurred with this new administration. There was in fact an opportunity to take the rhetoric of Governor Bush on the campaign trail, and the rhetoric that we heard from President Bush as he was installed in office, to reach out, to be a compassionate conservative, to work together to solve America's problems. That was what we heard on the campaign trail. But, as some of us were concerned about on the floor of this Chamber, as we spoke out during the last campaign, it is important to look at a candidate's performance, not just the words. Frankly, I was concerned that this administration that we have now with President Bush, because of its past record, would not measure up to the rhetoric, the soft and fuzzy language we were hearing on the campaign trail. Sadly, my worst fears have in fact been confirmed. I will tell the Members candidly, even though I was a strong opponent of the President on the campaign trail, and I had no illusions based on his record as Governor of Texas that he was going to be particularly environmentally sensitive, frankly, I was shocked at what we have been visited with as a nation in the first hours of this administration. We have heard them push ahead with proposals to solve our energy crisis, not with the summoning of a call to arms to use our energy more thoughtfully, more carefully, more constructively to conserve. Instead, they are pushing ahead with their proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even though this will take perhaps a decade, even though this is opposed by the majority of the American public, even though this will be a false proposal to provide energy security for the United States. The Secretary of Energy managed to make an entire speech about the so-called energy crisis that we are in right now, and there was profound concern expressed in calling for building 1,600 new generation plants, and virtually no word about conservation. I believe there was one line about energy conservation. There was no word about the opportunity to conserve oil by improving the mileage of American vehicles, even though this is the area in which it would be easiest for us to take aggressive action. Indeed, this administration is proposing a budget that will cut the budget of the Department of Energy 7 percent and cut money for energy conservation 10 percent, an absolute wrong-headed approach for energy conservation. This administration took action to reverse the cleanup regulation for hardrock mining, returning to regulations from 1980 that do not require mining companies to pay for their own cleanup and restoration when mining for silver, gold, and other metals. That is absolutely outrageous, and completely out of sync with where the American public is. This administration is failing to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants. This is despite explicit campaign promises from candidate Bush that he was going to introduce mandatory legislation to deal with a reduction of CO2 emissions. This was a formal presentation of the most highly-scripted campaign perhaps in our Nation's history. They knew exactly what they were doing. Indeed, President Bush as a candidate attacked, during the debate with Vice President Gore, attacked the Vice President, who has a lifetime of working to protect the environment, because he was too soft; because he, Gore, was not willing to embrace what candidate Bush was promising, but what President Bush turned his back on, changed his mind on, conveniently, after the election when he was facing a little pressure to follow through on his campaign promise. They are taking action in this administration to delay implementation of the roadless areas protection policy until May, and most people feel that they are simply embracing delays and catering to the special interests that want to open these areas more to timber companies, to off-road vehicles, and that this is just the first step to repeal this important protection. This administration, with its about-face on the campaign pledge for the CO2 emissions, is not just breaking a pledge that was made to the American voters. This is having a destabilizing effect on our efforts to work with other national governments to follow through on the Kyoto accords, on the greenhouse emissions treaty. It is angering important allies, and dodging the United States' responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It seems to me disingenuous to point a finger at developing countries like China and India and say that they have to solve the problem when the United States, as the greatest polluter of greenhouse gases, emitting six times the world average per capita, twice as much as our allies in developed countries like Japan and Germany, when the United States fails to step forward and to provide leadership in this global concern. The administration, the President, suggests that we need more time to study whether or not we have a problem with greenhouse gases and global warming, despite the overwhelming consensus of the environmental and scientific community since having 8 of the last 10 years be the highest temperatures on record; as we are seeing the ice caps shrink, as we see glaciers shrink. The rest of the world knows that we have a problem, and that it is time for the United States to assume leadership. In fact, President Bush could just simply listen to members of his own cabinet. The Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, in his previous life as chairman and CEO of Alcoa Aluminum, likened global warming to a potential disaster on the par of a nuclear holocaust. This was 2 years ago that Secretary of the Treasury, in his prior life as a respected business leader, was saying, we need to get serious. Now President Bush and this administration are falling back from our global responsibility. I had an eye-opening experience on the campus of American University on the hazards of arsenic. As I was looking at that site of the former military test ground for chemical weapons at American University in the Northwest part of the District of Columbia, I thought about this administration and wondered if we could get them excited about it, because this, after all, is the administration that has now recently revoked the arsenic rule, dismantling a rule that was mandated by Congress to reduce the level of carcinogenic arsenic in water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion and provide healthier drinking water for the American public. This is not some crazy standard that is being proposed by the rabid environmentalists in the Clinton administration, this is the standard of the European Union, of the World Health Organization. This was the standard that was recommended for the American public for its protection. Yet, this administration has now revoked that rule. It is hard to imagine what would have happened if candidate Bush had spoken what was in his mind and his heart on the campaign trail. I think if he had proposed revoking the arsenic rule as a candidate, I do not think we would have had to worry about hanging chads in Florida. I do not think the election would have even been close, the election where Vice President Gore got the majority of votes of the American public. This administration has proposed eliminating Project Impact, a creative project with the Federal Emergency Management Administration that is working with over 2,500 partners in the private sector around the country, and dozens and dozens of governments are working to eliminate hazards before they occur from flooding, hurricane, and earthquake. This administration is ignoring the energy crisis in ways that could have the most impact now. If we ask any of the experts in the energy field, there is only one thing that is going to make a difference in the short term to provide more energy for those of us in the West who are having a serious problem, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the drought, we have been supplying energy that we cannot afford to share, actually, with our friends in California. We are paying far higher prices for the privilege. Yet, if we ask the experts in industry, in the environmental community, in business, in the neighborhoods and local government, the only thing that is going to make a difference now is energy conservation: making do with what we have in a more creative way. There are simple things we can do. Painting the roofs in California a light color that is reflective could cut the energy requirement for air conditioning by 30 percent. But where are we hearing a call to arms from this administration for people to do something right now that is going to make a difference in cutting down on the waste of energy? We listen in vain. It is not on their radar screen. We have seen this administration move forward threatening the designation of important national monuments. One of the areas that the last administration will be known for for generations in a positive way is moving to protect critical designations of national monuments, the most designations since the Antiquities Act was first used by President Teddy Roosevelt almost a century ago. Now this administration has signaled its intention to revisit these national monument designations. They want to have more comment to see if there is more that could be done for vehicle use, grazing, extracting more water, and mining that could alter or threaten these national treasures. We have seen the budget that has been submitted by this administration that was going to be more compassionate, kinder, gentler. They are, in their rush to have a tax cut that was supposed to only be $1.6 trillion, and now is over $2 trillion and counting in terms of the proposal they want, they are, in order to be able to carve out money in the budget to do this, they are reducing funding for everything from child care assistance for low-income families, programs to combat child abuse, cutting funding for the Interior Department, the EPA, and important bipartisan conservation agreements. As I mentioned, this budget proposes a 7 percent reduction in the budget of the Department of Energy when allegedly some people in this administration think we have an energy crisis, and a 10 percent reduction in energy conservation when this is the only approach that is going to make a difference this year. I recently had lunch with the retiring superintendent of Yellowstone Park, Michael Finley, a creative, brilliant public servant who has served us, and served us well, for over 30 years. Mr. Finley, and I think it is no coincidence that he is an Oregonian and has this reverence for the treasure that he was able to have stewardship for, he called forth the critical requirement to control the use of snowmobiles in our national parks, like Yellowstone. Mr. Speaker, it is a tragedy and a travesty to have people roaring through at 60 miles an hour, 80 miles an hour, spewing forth pollution, the noise, the hazard to wildlife, the hazard to the air, the hazard to the tranquility that other park-goers treasure and, indeed, a risk to each other in terms of the death that results from the reckless operation. This administration is now reviewing the important Yellowstone-Grand Tetons rule and possibly settling lawsuits with snowmobile groups in order to reverse the rulemaking, an outrage for these national treasures. Again, candidate Bush gave no hint that he would be involved in such reckless antienvironmental activity. Another area that is going to have significant environmental inconveniences has to do with the judicial process. One of the things that concerned a number of us when candidate Bush was running for office was his identification of people like Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas as his role models for judicial candidates that he was going to nominate for our highest courts. Given the environmental record of those two justices, it did not give much comfort to people who care about protecting the environment, because increasingly given the gridlock in Congress, citizens have to resort to our courts for the enforcement of environmental laws; and sometimes if there is an administration that is recalcitrant and bent on doing things like we are talking about with this administration, sometimes recourse to the courts is the only avenue open to citizens to protect the environment. Mr. Speaker, I found it extraordinarily disconcerting that this administration has chosen to reverse a policy implemented by President Eisenhower over 50 years ago to provide the American Bar Association as a nonpartisan impartial body that would review the qualifications of judicial nominees. This has served us well, Republican, Democrat, conservative and liberal. Every President since Eisenhower has relied on this screening process to help ensure, regardless of the philosophy of the candidates in question, to ensure the highest quality in terms of their standards, their qualifications. This administration has decided to not have that impartial professional review from the bar association. They have removed the ABA from this role of interviewing the peers of the nominees and other people in the legal community about their competence, their integrity, and their judicial temperament; and instead it is all going to be done in the White House with the aid and assistance of organizations that are by no stretch of the imagination impartial. In fact, you have seen in the newspapers of this country the expressions of glee on the part of the most reactionary elements that they have been able to push the ABA, making it easier to be able to have the most extreme people nominated and make it easier to confirm. Finally, I would reference the repeal of the ergonomic standards for repetitive stress. This was important in terms of the work that is done. And I am not concerned frankly by the majority of the American employers. The vast majority of the people that I represent in Oregon, in areas that I have worked around the country, I am confident that these rules would have been easy for the vast majority of the business community to comply with; but in fact, the majority of them probably did not even need these rules in the first place. That did not mean that those rules were not important. I wonder if representatives of this administration had talked, as I had, to a woman who was a chicken-thigh deboner, a woman who worked 8 hours, 10 hours, 12 hours a day in a cold workplace dealing with semifrozen chicken carcasses that speed past her, the same repetitive motion time and time again, talking about what happened to her, to her hands, to the amazing stress and the mind-numbing activity. It was for a woman like that that we needed to have that ergonomic rule. There was a gentleman within an hour's drive from where we are, on Capitol Hill this evening, who is a chicken catcher, who catches chickens at the factory farms hour after hour after hour in the sweltering heat gathering them up, the feathers, the dust for hours at a time and carrying them to be loaded to go off for slaughter. This is back-breaking, mind-numbing work; and these people need the benefit of the ergonomics rule. It is estimated that the stress and strain of repetitive-stress injury costs the economy over $50 billion a year, but it is the largest single workplace safety and health problem in the United States today. It is not just cost. It is the toll on workers who do not have the benefit in many cases of enlightened employers, the protection of unions for whom this rule promulgated by OSHA would have made all the difference in the world. This President signed in to law legislation to overturn these standards and is going to have a serious effect on the health and welfare of tens of thousands of American workers who need this help the most. Mr. Speaker, this is a summary of some of the most depressing actions on the part of this administration in just the first 3 months. These are not the actions of candidate Governor George Bush. These are activities that in some cases violate explicit campaign promises, misleading the American public about its intentions. There are things that are going to have serious consequences for decades to come. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we will have an opportunity to review in greater detail these activities on the floor of this Chamber. I am hopeful that the American public is going to push back to hold this administration accountable for the specifics and the rhetoric that was embodied on the campaign trail. It is important for us to take several of these items to be able to focus on them, to make sure that the American public is, in fact, heard. I think there is no area that perhaps there is a greater difference between where the American public is and where this administration is pushing than drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is one of the premier approaches to this administration for solving the energy crisis that they are talking about. Bear in mind, as I mentioned, this administration is not proposing an increase in conservation. In fact, they are proposing to cut conservation dollars. They are proposing to cut the budget for the Department of Energy. Yet they are proposing to solve the problem by drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. This refuge is a more sensitive area than Prudoe Bay. It is a resting, nesting and breeding area for over 160 species of birds, including species that visit each of the lower 48 States. It is known as America's Sarengetti because of the huge herds of caribou, 130,000 of them that calf and rear their young on the coastal plane. These are the herds that provide subsistence for native Alaskans in an area whose way of life would be destroyed by a disruption of the herd. We could talk about the disruption of the habitat of significant polar bear denning habitat, but the time this evening actually does not permit me to go into the detail that I would; but suffice it to say that this is an area of deep, deep concern for many in the environmental community, because 95 percent of Alaska North Slope is already available for oil and gas exploitation and leasing. This Wildlife Refuge is only the remaining 5 percent and it is the most sensitive. It is an area first and foremost that makes no sense in terms of a timely reaction to the energy problems that we have now. First of all, only about 1 percent of the State that is having the most difficulty, California, comes from petroleum-based sources. Of that 1 percent, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is not going to help at all. It will take conservatively 10 years before this oil is going to flow and be available. But reflect for a moment the total amount of oil that would be available, according to reasonable projections, is only about a 6-month supply for the American public. It is an amount, to put it in perspective, that we could save if we simply increase the miles per gallon of SUVs in this country 3 miles a gallon. Three miles a gallon, we would not have to drill at all. Okay. Maybe that is a radical notion to take SUVs and have a 3-mile per gallon improvement. Forgive me, but let us suggest a less radical proposal, because the mileage fleet numbers for the United States this year are tied for a 20-year low. Just taking that 20-year low and improving it \1/2\ mile per gallon across the board for the fleet, we would not have to drill in the Arctic. But what about energy security some of my colleagues suggest? This is an area that will improve America's energy independence and security by being able to exploit our own resources. This is perhaps the most bizarre notion that we are going to take an aging pipeline, 800 miles long that already has problems, and we are going to rely for our energy security for protecting this 800-mile length of the pipeline. Everybody that I have talked to acknowledges that this 800-mile aging pipeline is already subjected to any deranged person, to hostile powers, to accident. If this is what we are relying on, we are potentially in big trouble in the future, because this 800-mile pipeline is a sitting duck for a terrorist, a foreign threat, or simply a deranged person in this country. We have seen them act. It is far more appropriate, I would suggest, rather than drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, for us to get serious about improving fuel efficiency, improving how we utilize energy in this country, if we were only to listen to the American public. The vast majority of the American public says nothing, and something that I have found intriguing, even citizens of Alaska are conflicted on this issue. A slight majority in the most recent poll I have seen oppose development: 46.7 percent to 45.7 percent. Now, these are people for whom the permanent fund in Alaska State with no sales tax, no income tax, that runs on revenue from oil, and every man, woman and child who has resided in Alaska for more than a year gets a payment, I believe last year it was $2,000, these people with a financial stake in drilling, a slight majority oppose drilling in the ANWR. But this is not the limit of where the administration has reversed its direction and moved in the wrong way relating to the environment. Mr. Speaker, we look at hardrock mining. One of the things that I was pleased the last administration did was to deal with proposing the regulations under which the Bureau of Land Management dealt with hardrock mining. The Clinton administration, after 4 years of work listening to the public, listening to the experts, looking at the impact, issued new regulations. These 3809 hardrock mining regulations required that the companies that mine for silver, for gold, copper, lead and zinc, that they have to administer and pay for cleaning and restoration efforts on the land once the mine closes to reduce the risk of water pollution. Reversing these regulations will open legal loopholes for the mining industry and allow them to evade cleanup costs after they finish mining. From Pennsylvania to Montana to my State of Oregon, we have seen the devastation from the mining industry, often on public lands owned by the public. The mining companies are able to extract these minerals for a pittance, and bear in mind that the Mining Act of 1872 is exactly as it appeared when it was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant. It is not adequate to protect the American public. The American public does not get adequate value for the minerals that are extracted under it, unless you think $250 an acre, in some cases $5 an acre, is adequate payment to the American public for the ability to exploit, extract, and then leave ravished land. These standards have aggravated the mining industry. They have prompted numerous lawsuits, and now the Bush administration has requested the return to the inadequate, inferior regulations of 1980. Mr. Speaker, I am frankly shocked that we have seen this reversal. I am disappointed at a time when I would hope that there would be some areas that would be exempt from this extreme activity. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog agency that has helped us a great deal to sort of focus a spotlight on this, a nonpartisan group that is looking over our shoulders, the return to the old rule would allow mining practices to continue that will cost taxpayers more than $1 billion to clean up. I think it is another example where we cannot afford these type of reversals of the hard, painstaking activity of the previous administration. Mr. Speaker, I referenced earlier in my opening summary that the administration has turned its back on the arsenic rules. I mentioned that this was something that was heavy on my mind because I had visited polluted sites here in the District of Columbia where arsenic contamination is something that we are spending millions of dollars to try to eliminate, yet last week the Environmental Protection Agency, and it is not just EPA, it is the Environmental Protection Agency, the same agency that was caught flat-footed when President Bush reversed himself on his explicit campaign promise to reverse CO2 emissions, the EPA has announced its intention to withdraw a new drinking water regulation on arsenic that was approved by the Clinton administration. Administrator Whitman announced that the EPA will propose to withdraw the pending standard that was issued on January 22 that would have reduced the acceptable level of arsenic in water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. Mr. Speaker, this is a reduction in a standard of a known carcinogen, and it is not some wild-eyed environmental proposal. And forgive me at times for being a wild-eyed environmentalist, which is something, given the alternative, is not that bad. This 10-parts-per-billion standard is already the standard in place to protect the people in the European Union. This is the World Health Organization standard that is already in place. At least 11 million Americans rely on drinking water with arsenic standards higher than the proposed standard, and one that I think should give pause to Americans across the country. This 55-parts-per-billion standard was adopted in 1942 by the Public Health Service. This was before we had proven the causal connection between arsenic and cancer. The National Academy of Sciences found that the EPA's old standard was not protective of health and should be reduced as promptly as possible. We do not need to study this anymore. It should be reduced as promptly as possible. The National Academy of Sciences found in its unanimous 1999 report, Arsenic in Drinking Water, that the prior standard that the Bush administration proposes that we go back to ``does not,'' and I am quoting, ``achieve EPA's goal for public health protection; and, therefore, requires downward revision as promptly as possible.'' The Academy found that drinking water at the current standard that the Bush administration now wants to go back to could easily result in a fatal cancer risk of 1 in 100. That is a cancer risk 1,000 times higher than the EPA allows for food, and 100 times higher than the EPA has ever allowed for tap water contaminants. Why in the name of all that is holy does this administration plan to go back, to reverse that standard, to study it further? Arsenic is found in the tap water of millions of American homes. Over 26 million American homes have levels averaging over 5 parts per billion. Scientists point out that not everybody is equally susceptible. It is the children and pregnant women who are especially susceptible. A wider margin of safety might be needed when conducting risk assessments, the National Academy found, because of variations of the sensitivity of these individuals. But the Bush administration has proposed that we go back to the standard that was good enough for 1942. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that this Congress, in its rush to focus on a very narrow agenda from the administration where they do not want to talk about these inconvenient proposals, these inconvenient reminders of their campaign pledges, they want to narrow the discussion to their economic agenda, and actually I do not have any qualms about the American public turning a searchlight on that proposal, on the $1.6 trillion tax cut that was conjured up by Presidential candidate Bush 2 years ago because it was just right. We did not need it. The economy was rolling along and, therefore, we needed to return the surplus. Now the same proposal is needed when the economy is going down because that is somehow magically going to stimulate the economy. But of course that was not going to stimulate the economy 2 years ago. There is a certain discontinuity, I find, in terms of that argument, and I would wish that the American public would focus on it. I would wish that the American public would focus on the illusory $5.6 trillion surplus that the administration is claiming, except if they use the same budget assumptions that the recent commission reporting on Social Security and Medicare reported on, that the budget surplus evaporates. They assume that we are going to spend at a lower rate than even the revolution of Mr. Gingrich when they were riding high, and we never achieved the 4 percent reduction. They are assuming that tax breaks that we know are going to be reinstituted somehow are magically going to go away. And the fact that millions of Americans are going to be subjected to the alternative minimum tax, and we know that we are going to fix that at a cost of probably $400 billion, all of these are ignored. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to debate these on the floor of the Chamber. It would be nice to have debate time rather than rushing it through. At least our colleagues in the Senate are going to take some time and deliberate on it. I think it is ironic that this tax cut my colleagues think is so important, they have permitted 1 hour debate. At a time when we were standing around waiting for my colleagues to come back from meetings across the country, we could have had an opportunity to discuss it, if not amend it. While we have that debate, it is important that every American reflect on what is going on in the back rooms here in Washington, D.C., what is going on in the agencies as we are having campaign pledges reversed, as we are having campaign promises ignored, and we are having vital protections for the American public put at risk. I came to Congress committed to work in a bipartisan, cooperative way for the Federal Government to be a better partner working with communities to make them more livable, to make our families safe, healthy and more economically secure. Mr. Speaker, I fear that reversing the arsenic standard, drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, ignoring energy conservation, and turning our back on our leadership in global climate change is not in keeping with that goal. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that there will be time for Congress to give voice to what the American public is concerned about in protecting the environment, and urge the Bush administration to reconsider these ill-advised policies. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues this evening.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from the campus of American University in the exclusive Spring Valley residential community here in Washington, D.C. From a distance one could not imagine, but it is actually one of over a thousand sites around the country where war is being continued; 26 years after the Vietnam War, 56 years after the conclusion of World War II, 83 years after World War I, there is still a battle taking place right here on American soil. It involves mines, nerve gases, and toxics and explosive shells. It has claimed at least 65 lives, and has maimed and injured many more. Sadly, it continues every day, and if we are not careful, it will continue for another thousand years. Toxic explosive waste of our military activities in the United States, unexploded ordnances on formerly used defense installations probably contaminates 20 to 25 million acres in the United States, and the number could be as high as 50 million acres. Sadly, no one can give us an accurate appraisal of the problem. What we do know is at the current rate of spending, it will take centuries, maybe even a thousand years or more, to return this land to safe and productive use. Some may be so damaged, we may not attempt to clean it up. Unexploded ordnances are a serious problem today. Human activity and wildlife are encroaching on more and more of these sites as our neighborhoods grow and sprawl. At the same time, the natural rhythms of nature, flooding, earthquakes, and landslides, aided and abetted by human activity, exposes these dangers. Today, across America, we are finding lost and forgotten unexploded ordnance that was intentionally buried in a feeble attempt to dispose of it, or a shell that missed its mark and did not explode as intended. There are many targets toward which citizens can direct their frustrations and in some cases anger: the Department of Defense, the Army Corps of Engineers or EPA. People have some legitimate concerns about what these and other agencies have done in the past and what they are doing now. But there is one participant that is missing in action, and that is the United States Congress. Only we in Congress can set adequate funding levels, budget clearly, and then make sure that enough money is appropriated to do the job right. Congress can pinpoint managerial responsibility and establish the rules of the game. It is not acceptable to me for Congress to occasionally step in from the sidelines, complain, protest, and then shift inadequate funding from one high-priority project to another high-priority project. This ability to find an unexploded ordnance, decontaminate sites and have the infrastructure is going to be a zero-sum game if we do not properly advance the goal of protection. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to report for duty, and needs to provide the administrative and financial tools that are necessary. What I am talking about will not affect active ranges and readiness. That is a separate topic with its own set of issues. My concern is the closed, transferred and transferring ranges where the public is exposed or soon will be. More than 1,000 years to clean up these sites is not an appropriate timetable when people are at risk every day. In the 1980s, three boys in San Diego were playing in a field next to a subdivision that they lived in, and they found a shell. It exploded and killed two of them. American University campus that I just left has a child care center that is now closed down because of high levels of arsenic contamination because this area during World War I was a test ground for poison and chemical warfare. Mr. Speaker, we must make sure that whether it is in suburban Washington, D.C., on Martha's Vineyard or in Camp Bonneville in my community that we get the job done, and it is not appropriate to take a millennium or even a century to do it. We need to step up and do the job. Mr. Speaker, my goal in Congress is to make sure that every Member understands what is going on in their State because there are these toxic waste dumps, chemical and weapons disposal in every State. We can make sure that somebody is in charge, that there is enough funding, and we get the job done so that no child will be at risk for death, dismemberment or serious illness as a result of the United States Government not cleaning up after itself.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, Congress debated further tax cuts under the guise of fixing the so-called ``marriage penalty.'' Ultimately, like yesterday's discussions about the budget, today's debate is about priorities: more tax benefits for those who need help the least, versus tax relief for all working Americans and fixing serious flaws in our tax system. Only a small portion of the legislation proposed today would go to taxpayers that actually pay the ``marriage penalty.'' It does not address the growing problem posed by the alternative minimum tax (AMT). The AMT was passed to ensure the wealthy did not avoid paying their fair share of taxes. According to the Wall Street Journal, if the Bush proposal is fully implemented, an Oregon family of four with an income of $72,747 will be forced into the AMT. I assure you that such a family is not wealthy. If we are to ensure that all Americans are able to enjoy tax relief, no matter what bill we pass, Congress must address the alternative minimum tax. The Republican proposal puts the financial health of our country at- risk. Passing tax cuts based on dubious surplus estimates, threatening the strong fiscal health of our country by sending us back into the era of big deficits. The Democratic alternative fixes the ``marriage penalty'' and provides immediate rate reductions in order to stimulate our economy. It also addresses the AMT. The cost of the Democratic proposal is consistent with our goals of protecting the nation's fiscal health. Additionally, the Democratic alternative provides relief to low income families whose tax problem is the payroll tax. I support this alternative. I remain convinced that Congress can work together to pass reasonable tax reform without putting our fiscal health at risk. Hopefully the American public will be heard during the next phase of the legislative process.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, Congressman Mark Foley and I are introducing legislation to extend commuter benefits to bicyclists. This important legislation includes bicycles in the definition of transportation covered by the qualified transportation fringe benefit. Currently, employers may offer a Transportation Fringe Benefit to their employees for commuting to work. Employees who take advantage of this benefit may receive a tax exemption benefit totaling $175 for participating in qualified parking plans or $65 for transit or car-pool expenses. Employees may also opt to take cash compensation instead, which is subject to employment taxes. The Bike Commuter Bill would extend these same Transportation Fringe Benefits to employees who choose to commute by bicycle. It's time to level the playing field for bicycle commuters. At a time when communities across the country are seeking to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and increase the safety of their neighborhoods, bicycles offer a wonderful alternative to driving for the more than 50% of the working population who commute 5 miles or less to work. The Federal Government should do its part to support these goals by providing transportation benefits to people who choose to commute in a healthy, environmental, and neighborhood-friendly fashion. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, bicycles are second only to cars as a preferred mode of transportation, demonstrating their potential for commuter use. Many Americans own one or more bicycles, but limit their use to recreational purposes. This legislation is an important step in making the Federal Government a better partner for more livable communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today, Congress debated and voted on the President's FY 2002 Budget plan. The President's plan is both harmful to our economy and unnecessarily cuts important government programs, and I voted against it. Today, in response, I supported three alternative budgets that better address our future needs while providing working Americans with tax relief. Each alternative plan allows for an honest estimate of future spending needs and provides tax relief that will go directly to families who most need assistance. The Republican plan triple counts Social Security and fails to protect Medicare in order to fit the President's tax cut. Such a proposal doesn't address some of the real inequities in the tax code like the Alternative Minimum Tax, which increasingly impacts middle- income families. I know Oregonians deserve better than the shame budget approved today, and I was pleased to support alternative plans that realistically address America's needs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to make the Federal Government a better partner in the creating of more livable communities, communities that are safe, healthy, and economically secure. Today, transportation and energy are issues in every community across America. These problems are the results of countless individual decisions. Mr. Speaker, this week a group of activists dedicated to making America a better place are gathering here in Washington, D.C. The League of American Bicyclists is convening the first annual Bike Summit. I would like to congratulate them on their efforts. As the spokesman for the Bipartisan Congressional Bicycle Caucus, I am excited that this bicycle community is coming to Washington, D.C. to make their voice heard. Cyclists have a long and effective history of advocacy in this country. At the turn of the century, bicycling was fun, fast, convenient; and it was modern. The problem was there was no good place to ride these new-fangled contraptions. As a result, there was increasing demand for new, safe bike routes. In response, the Good Roads Movement was launched here in Washington, D.C. after a successful effort to lobby Congress for a $10,000 grant to study the possibility of a paved-road system. Well, the rest is history. Bicycling remains a favorite alternative mode of transportation. While only 1 percent of Americans use bicycles as their primary mode of transportation, studies show that in communities that have good bike facilities, bike lanes and parking, that up to 50 percent of the public living within the 5- to 10-mile range will use it for commuting. Good bicycling communities rival European communities in terms of cycling participation. Even in my hometown, rainy Portland, Oregon, we are more than double the national average. The league conference is an opportunity for us who hear once again from the bike advocates from around the country on the importance of using cycling as a means of transportation. It does not contribute to pollution or create traffic congestion. A 4-mile bicycle round trip prevents 15 pounds of air pollution, and we have in fact made huge strides with bicycle facilities. We have committed in the last 10 years almost $2 billion for bike and pedestrian projects, far more than the $41 million that had been done the 17 previous years. Mr. Speaker, we need to encourage people to expand these small, meaningful choices in transportation. Worried about OPEC, parking problems, a lack of exercise, simply level the playing field, give the cyclists today an opportunity. There are millions of them around the country who are waiting not only to be heard but to be given a chance to cycle safely in their communities. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of this Congress to take advantage of this opportunity to meet with advocates and industry representatives from their districts this week, not just in your office. Thursday night the Bike League is hosting a reception from 5 to 7 in Room 268 of the Rayburn; and on Friday the Bicycle Caucus, the Washington Area Bicycle Association, and the League of American Bicyclists will be hosting the first Bike Caucus Ride of the 107th Congress for Members and their staff. It is a fun 7-mile ride. It is a perfect way to get to know your constituents and have a better feel for the community in which we work here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, what about Members who do not have their bicycle here yet? No excuse. Contact us and we will make sure that that there is a bicycle available for Members and their staff. It would be a great idea also for Members of Congress to make sure that they have renewed their membership in the bicycle caucus before somebody asks them to do so. Last year we had almost 80 Members. Get ready to ride and have fun, but also help your own community with the serious side because cycling is important for recreation and exercising. It is a way for more children to be able to get to school on their own. It is an excellent transportation choice for communities for adults; and it is an excellent way, if we do our part, to make our communities more livable, more safe and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, today, Congress is debating the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Resolution, a document that is sadly, fraudulent. Common sense dictates that budget forecasting should be realistic and conservative. The document before us today is neither. The projections used in this document are not only widely optimistic, but also prone to extreme error. If the Congressional Budget Office used the same economic assumptions that the Social Security Trustees use when forecasting the future financial solvency of Social Security and Medicare, the two largest government programs, there would be no surplus. Despite this fact, the majority has pressed ahead with a financial plan that leaves no room for error, leading us down a fiscally dangerous path. The Majority has based spending decisions on unrealistic spending assumptions. Four years ago, I watched this Congress engage in much backslapping and self-congratulating after passing the last Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Almost immediately, Congress began to wink and nod at spending limits imposed in that bill, tortuously bending and breaking the rules in order to claim spending limits had been honored. Two years ago, Congress dropped the charade, shattering spending limits and effectively giving up on the 1997 act. Now we are again holding down spending to unrealistic levels. Even the Republican Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has already stated that the spending limits in the legislation are not feasible. The document before us today drastically underfunds critical health, environment, and veterans programs. As our country is facing what the President and GOP claim is an energy crisis, they have proposed cutting funding for the Department of Energy by 7 percent. Energy conservation programs, the only truly feasible solutions for helping us address the short-term energy problems, are cut by nearly 10 percent. President Bush has repeatedly called for improved spending on America's veterans, yet he under funds VA programs by one billion dollars. Finally, this budget resolution cuts funding for environmental programs by 11 percent. While this is consistent with the Administration's anti- environmental actions, it threatens the important progress we've made in environmental policy over the last decade. The budget resolution before us is not a financial blueprint, but rather a tax cut dressed up as a budget outline. All of the optimistic surplus assumptions and draconian cuts in needed programs are simply a charade to allow the President and my Republican colleagues to claim they can cut taxes and balance the budget. But they can not. This document does not protect the Medicare trust fund and triple counts the Social Security Trust fund in order to fit the President''s tax proposal. The tax cuts described in this resolution are heavily tilted to those who need help the least and premised on questionable economic forecasts. Since coming to Congress in 19996, I have based my fiscal policies on five basic principles: 1. Fair tax relief for working Americans. 2. Honoring our promises to Social Security and Medicare. 3. Paying down our $6 trillion national debt. 4. Avoiding future funding shortfalls. 5. Funding commitments to our children, seniors, veterans, and the environment. I believe these are important goals that most of my colleagues share. Unfortunately, the document we are debating today accomplishes none of these principles. Oregonians have repeatedly told me they want to see budget and tax policies that are fiscally prudent and deal with for the challenges our country faces. This resolution doesn't and I oppose it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, and I think we have some interesting context that has been established here. I would just take a moment to reference what my other colleague from Portland, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), talked about, that it is going to be 100 years or more before the full impact of actions that we take today will be felt, that we have set in motion a pattern of environmental destruction that will take decades and perhaps centuries to correct. There is no time to waste, and it is not appropriate for us to continue pretending to do something about it by just reiterating the studies that have already been done. Most Americans agree with the scientific evidence that global warming is real and that we must, in fact, do something about it. It is in this context that I must confess a certain surprise by the administration's proposal to meet the current energy crisis with a proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. This issue beyond question, let us just put for a moment aside the notion that whether or not it is going to be destructive for the environment, whether the environmental costs, whether the problems that would deal with the native indigenous culture, treaty problems and environmental problems with our friends in Canada, put all of those aside for a moment, assume that it is either they could be moderated or it would be worth it. There is a fundamental question whether or not it is actually worth it to go ahead and pursue this approach for the energy security of the United States. I was pleased recently to read the latest newsletters from the Rocky Mountain Institute where Amory and Hunter Levins asked that fundamental question, can you, in fact, make a profit over the course of the next 20 years by invading the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? It is interesting that the State of Alaska itself has done its recent price forecasting that suggests that what the State of Alaska envisions as being the long-term price of oil over the course of the next 10 years, that it would not generate enough revenue to be profitable. If we use our time and our resources to recover this expensive oil in some of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the world, it would actually end up resulting in a waste of money, and we would have to be importing more oil sooner, as opposed to dealing with less expensive energy alternatives. Many would argue that another fundamental issue, and it is one that I agree, is whether this country can continue to use the current energy patterns that we have using six times as much energy per capita as the rest of the world, twice as much as developed countries like Japan and Germany. The irony is that conservation and energy efficiency does in fact work. It works better than an effort to exploit the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It is estimated that a mere 3 miles per gallon improvement in the performance of SUVs would offset the oil production from the Arctic. If, for some reason, we cannot change those huge and inefficient vehicles, just one half mile per gallon efficiency overall for the fleet would more than equal the production of the arctic wilderness. This is not beyond our power. Last year, the average fleet efficiency of 24 miles per gallon was tied for a 20-year low. We can and we should do better. In the Pacific Northwest, we are sending energy that we really do not have to spare to the State of California. Yet we find that there could be a 30 percent energy savings for reducing air conditioning just by changing the color of the roofs in southern California to a white reflective surface. It would be far more effective for us to make that investment in conservation. When I started in this business 25 years ago, we were in the midst of an energy crisis. Even though many of those initiatives were reversed by the Reagan administration, conservation has nonetheless saved a quantity of energy that is four times the entire domestic oil industries production. In the West, this is our only immediate solution. Given droughts and limited generating capacity, the only way this year that we will be able to make a difference is by changing our patterns of consumption. When we conserve, there is no threat from terrorists. There is no risk of environmental damage. It keeps producing year after year. I must point out, perhaps most significantly when I hear on the floor of this Chamber people talking about protecting our strategic oil reserves, that if we place all of our bets on the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, we are, in fact, dooming the United States to a very insecure posture. If we are going to place our bets on an aging 800-mile long facility, a pipeline through the Arctic that is increasingly unreliable, that is wearing out, that is impossible to defend from disruption, from terrorists or rogue states or deranged people, it is not a very smart way for us to make those investments. Far better to deal with how we use energy in a more cost effective and efficient manner. I have more comments to make on this, but I want to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's argument and continued leadership. It is my privilege in our remaining 2 minutes to turn to two final leaders that we have here. First, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a gentleman who has been active in providing leadership on energy issues as a local official, as a mayor, as a legislator, and now as a Member of Congress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) dating back to the last time we were in a major energy crisis. We are privileged to have join us the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). I thank him for his concern and interest in issues that relate to the environment and the leadership he has provided individually and on the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and this opportunity to join in this discussion. It is important to me. I commend the gentleman for focusing attention on the environment and how the pieces fit together, and the relationship between Congress, the new administration and the American people. It is very much in keeping with why I came to Congress, determined to make sure that the Federal Government was a better partner in promoting community livability, making our families safe, healthy and economically secure. An important part of that partnership, frankly, is that the Federal Government needs to play a constructive role. It needs to lead by example, set the tone, and follow through. I, frankly, was shocked in the area of environmental stewardship with last week's announcement dealing with global warming and the broken promise of the Bush administration dealing with how we were going to deal with CO2 emissions. I just returned from 4 days in my State of Oregon; and, like your State of New Jersey, citizens there are keenly concerned about the environment and quality of life. I was, frankly, despite that environmental orientation of Oregonians, surprised at the intensity of the public reaction to the administration's lack of commitment to the environment. Now, setting apart the fuzzy image portrayed by the last campaign, it is clear at this point it is more characterized by a series of reversals. You have already referenced the reversal of the arsenic standard by EPA administrator Whitman. Earlier in the week we heard from Department of Energy Secretary Abraham that our energy crisis could be avoided by relaxing environmental regulations and drilling for oil in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge. Of course, last week, President Bush reversed an explicit campaign position to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. None of these actions demonstrates that commitment to the livability of our communities, ensuring the public safety, environmental protection, or long-term energy conservation. We certainly do not need to spend more time studying whether or not global warming is happening, or whether arsenic poses a health problem to our children and families. We know that it is. We need to devote our time and energy instead to deal with how we are going to fix it. It is true that we do not harbor a false sense of security in numbers. The fact is that almost 2,000 scientists have reiterated their findings that global warming is occurring, and its linkage to carbon- based energy consumption is clear. This is a clear emerging scientific consensus. The administration's actions are also out of sync with where the American public is concerned. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and I take pride in the environmental consciousness of the citizens that we represent in New Jersey and Oregon, but it is clear that the American public feel deeply about the environment and environmental protection. It was just this week that a Gallop poll found that 52 percent of Americans believe that we should be protecting the environment over a much smaller number dealing with energy, and by almost 2 to 1 there was a majority of those polled who opposed drilling for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. On the campaign trail, then-Governor Bush promised to seek a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, including those emissions on a long list of pollutants regulated at power plants. Last fall, the Bush campaign materials released a comprehensive national energy policy that spoke of the ``need for a comprehensive energy policy,'' I am quoting, ``that would be forward-looking, encourage the development of renewable energy sources and increased conservation.'' Specifically, then-Governor Bush proposed that legislation be introduced that would require electric utilities to reduce emissions and significantly improve air quality and ``establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of 4 main pollutants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide.'' He was going to phase them in, and so on and so forth, provide market-based incentives; the gentleman from New Jersey has heard the drill. The point is that he was clear and unequivocal. In fact, then- candidate Bush derided Vice President Gore for being too soft on this. This came up in one of the Presidential debates, and we know those are perhaps the most intensely scripted political theaters in the history of the Republic. This was not accidental, this was calculated. Now, the question arises, and I have had difficulty from the press because they want to know, was this an action of deliberately misleading the public on the part of candidate Bush, or did he just not understand. I do not want to be in a situation to try and delve into the hearts and minds of other politicians, but suffice it to say, I think it is kind of an unnerving Hobson's choice here. Do we believe that a governor of an energy-producing State whose primary professional background to that point had been as an energy executive, did not know what he was talking about, or the alternative, which was he knew, in fact, what he was talking about, and there was never any intention to provide this protection to the American public. I think, frankly, either approach is unacceptable. It is unnerving, it underscores the credibility of what we are doing in the political process, and I personally am very much dismayed, not just because of what it says about the political process, but what it means for us as a public to try and deal with problems of global warming, of acid rain, of trying to get on to the next generation of energy-efficient activities and do what this Congress needs to be doing. I am more than willing, Mr. Speaker, to continue. I have some further thoughts, but I notice that we have been joined by another colleague, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) perhaps at this point, before going on and talking about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in a few minutes, maybe the gentleman has other parts of this discussion that he would like to enter into at this point.