Leonard Boswell

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, first off I would like to compliment, as many others have done, and justly so, Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm for the manner in which they have worked on this bill. In my years in the legislature and in the years I have been here, I have never seen a better effort. They deserve a lot of appreciation for their hard work. As we all know, America has a long established strategic oil reserve in the event of a petroleum shortage or supply interruption. The creation of this reserve is a responsible policy that has protected our country and its industrial foundation from potential instability in oil and fuel markets as well as from disruption of foreign oil supplies. Since the inception of the reserve, our energy needs have become more diverse, and our capacity to develop and produce large amounts of clean burning renewable fuels has been tested and proved. Consumers, car manufacturers, commodity processors and farmers recognize that renewable fuels are quickly becoming a vital and integral part of our national supply of clean-air transportation fuels. The time is right to establish a strategic renewable energy reserve. Farmers can help America's energy security by dedicating a renewable commodity reserve to emergency renewable fuel production. For these reasons, I am offering a renewable energy reserve amendment, using product grown from the land that can be repeated year after year and give us some independence from OPEC and a chance to show the country and the world we are serious about alternatives. I am offering the renewable energy amendment to, one, establish a government-owned and farmer-stored renewable energy reserve containing an amount of farm commodities equal to 4 months' production of ethanol and biodiesel. These commodities will be stored on-farm in corn and soybean base and will be designated solely for the production of renewable fuels. Two, create a renewable energy reserve that will complement all bio- based fuel initiatives and add to America's emergency energy preparedness plan. Three, shift some of our national energy consumption away from high- priced imported oil and towards renewable energy products grown on our Nation's farms. This strategy is compatible with our national environmental objectives and will strengthen our economy and our national security. And, lastly, create a renewable energy reserve that will ensure a steady supply of feed stock for energy production in the event of a national emergency, crop production shortfall, increased commodity prices or a gasoline/diesel shortage. The cost of this amendment will be approximately $650 million over 10 years. The funding for the renewable energy reserve will be taken from the commodity title through an across-the-board percentage reduction in the overall funding of less than 1 percent. According to USDA estimates, as the U.S. moves toward banning MTBE and increasing the use of ethanol as a transportation fuel, the tripling of demand for ethanol would increase U.S. farm income by an average of $1.3 billion each year and would save the country over $4 billion annually in imported oil and hundreds of millions of dollars annually in taxpayer outlays for farm programs. I urge my colleagues to join me in the support of this amendment.

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for one additional minute to make a response.

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) for his comments. This reserve will not hang over the market. These commodities are designated specifically for energy reserve. 66.2 million annually for 300 million gallons of renewable fuel seems like a reasonable request. I appreciate the gentleman's comments and concerns. The gentleman mentions all the other amendments. This just happens to be the most important one.

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I hold accountable, and I believe that the leaders will bring the other bill about the workers next week. After hearings this week, hours and hours of hearings that we spent together, our committee, I know our aviation industry is literally on the brink of collapse and liquidation. The need for government assistance cannot be overstated. A failure to act tonight would be like throwing an anvil to a drowning person. The airlines have had their lines of credit cut off, their assets devalued, and their insurance canceled. A catastrophe is staring them in the face. We are faced with the worst crisis ever to confront our aviation industry. We must provide a helping hand. I urge Members' support. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I rise in strong support of the Airline Stabilization Act. If I was the sole author of this legislation, I would have written it differently. Because this is a collaborative body, we must come together and reach a consensus in what is known as the legislative process. Our respective congressional leaders, after consultation with members of Congress, industry leaders, labor representatives, financial analysts, and government officials, have written the bill we have under consideration. I believe it merits our support. After 2 days of hearings this week, I have a very clear picture of our Nation's aviation industry. The industry is literally on the brink of collapse and liquidation. The need for immediate governmental assistance cannot be overstated. A failure to act tonight would be like throwing an anvil to a drowning person. The airlines have had their lines of credit cutoff, their assets devalued, and their insurance canceled. A catastrophe isn't around the corner, but it is staring them in the face. We are faced with the greatest crisis ever to confront our aviation industry. We must provide a helping hand to them to ensure we will still have an industry next week. I am very concerned about the thousands of employees who are employed in the aviation industry and the thousands who have been or will soon be laid off. This economic devastation will cause great harm to many families across our Nation. We must promptly address their economic catastrophe next week, and also provide assistance to those who are facing job loss because of their association with the aviation industry. I challenge our leaders who brought forth this legislation tonight, to bring similar legislation to help our workers next week. Please, let us act promptly and approve this very important and necessary legislation.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, a recent Department of Commerce report states that only 38.9 percent of rural households have Internet access. In this unprecedented age of information and global interaction, broadband access and the Internet are critical elements. Americans are increasingly using online services to conduct such everyday activities as bank account transactions, personal correspondence, shopping, and research. As our Nation continues to evolve, access to the opportunities of the Internet will have an important supporting role in the economic, educational, and social successes of our citizens. Today, along with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), I am introducing the Rural American Technology Enhancement Act, or RATE, of 2001. The legislation will: one, provide incentives to expand broadband/high-speed telecommunications access to rural America; two, provide incentives and tax credits for expanding and relocating high- tech businesses to rural America; three, provide funding to prepare, educate, and train our current and future workforce for high-tech-based employment; and finally, establish an Office of Rural Technology within the Department of Agriculture to coordinate rural technology programs and act as a clearinghouse for government and private, high-tech grant information. Broadband access should not be an intangible idea lying beyond the reach of our rural citizens. We must continue to take steps to expand access to these information resources and include those Americans who are currently being left behind in the effort to eliminate the digital divide. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in the support of this legislation.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen who have worked on this very, very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the passage of the bill, and I am thankful for this opportunity to give my support. The situation in Sudan came to my personal attention as a result of constituent case work, diligently completed by Karen Kinkel of my Iowa district office staff. In April of 1999, we received a letter from a constituent, Paula Friederich of Ames, regarding her passionate concern for a group of children now commonly referred to as the ``Lost Boys of the Sudan.'' Paula and her husband, Dr. Jim Friederich, expressed their desire and their commitment to assist financially the plight of two of these lost boys in particular. The Friederichs had recently learned of the war in the Sudan from a young man named Madul Aguan, who is currently a senior at Iowa State University. I submit for the Record today a copy of the experience of how he escaped as a young lad of 8 years old. His father had been killed, who was a Dinka chief, when the war that raged separated him from his mother. Then they came back and were going to take the children, and he escaped over into Ethiopia into a refugee camp. The experience of what he went through is just heartrending. By force he was returned to the Sudan and then he was shot, broken ribs and wounded severely, and he survived that. Then he went to another refugee camp. To make a long story short, he finally landed in the United States with help from the State Department and many other entities. So he landed there and as a youngster was going to school in Kansas City, sleeping on a mattress in a leaky basement but kept pushing on. He said, I have freedom. It is okay. I have freedom. Then he landed up in Ames. Now he is in the State University where he met the Friederichs and told them of his brother and his nephew that were having a similar situation. So the Friederichs set out to help. They worked with us and we worked with them, and the work went on and on and on. Last winter, on a cold night in Des Moines, Iowa, off the airplane came the brother and the nephew. The brother and the nephew, which I will show here, Aguan in the middle, had not seen each other for 15 years, little children at the time, and here they were. They came and they were reunited in the United States. They are in a warm home with loving care, getting an education and moving forward in their lives. That experience to me and for all of us should be a reminder that being in Congress is a lot more than just casting a vote here and there. Sometimes the most rewarding experiences that we can have are for our constituents and the positive role that plays, and such an important factor in their life. I am hopeful today we will not only pass this rule and this bill that will help bring this to an end, I would encourage everybody that is listening and thinking about it, give it their whole-hearted support. It is the right thing to do. In 1986, when Aguan was 8 years old, Northern Sudanese troops attacked his village of Lou Mawein in Southern Sudan. Aguan's father, a Dinka chief, had been assassinated in 1983. In the confusion of this battle, Aguan was separated from his mother. After two days of attacks from the northern troops, the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA), in Aguan's words, ``came into the village to bury the dead, tend to the wounded and gather up the children who parents were killed or lost''. At this time, Aguan began walking, barefoot, to an Ethiopian refuge camp. It is my understanding that many other children did not survive the journey to Ethiopia, dying when attacked by crocodiles as they passed through the Gilo river. During the last three days of his journey, Aguan had no food or water. Aguan stayed in an Ethiopian refuge camp for five years, until Ethiopia had it's own civil war. As a result of this war, Aguan was forced to return to southern Sudan, which was once again attacked by northern troops. With the assistance of the United Nations, Aguan went to Kapoeta to be protected by the SPLA. However Kapoeta was attacked, and Aguan was short. The bullet broke his ribs, collapsed his lung and caused internal bleeding. He was taken by the Red Cross to Lokichoggio, Kenya for surgery. At this time, Aguan was placed in the Kakuma refuge camp, in northern Kenya. According to Aguan the conditions in the camp were inhumane. The water was polluted and there was little food. The tents were overcrowded. After two years, Aguan went to Nairobi for medical exams. Following results of the exam, he began the process of obtaining a referral as a refugee for resettlement. When he was approved for resettlement as a refugee by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Aguan immigrated to the United States. This was made possible through the primary assistance of the Joint Voluntary Agency and the Red Cross. Aguan worked to put himself through high school in Kansas City, Missouri, sleeping on a mattress in a leaky basement for three years. Aguan told the Friederich's he was just ``happy to be free''. Following high school graduation, Aguan attended the Des Moines Area Community College for one year before transferring to Iowa State University, where he now majors in International Law. Aguan plans to attend law school following graduation. This story of Aguan's escape from the Sudan that was shared with Jim and Paula Friederich. Aguan then asked the Friederich's if there was any way they could help him bring two surviving family members, a brother and a nephew, to the United States for the purpose of family reunification. I brought this inquiry to the attention of the appropriate African Population, Refugee and Migration Bureau (PRM) representative of the State Department which coordinates overall United States Government policy on assistance, protection and resettlement of refugees. Refugee resettlement involves the White House, National Security Council, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of State, Department of Health and Human Service, the International Organization for Migration, the Joint Voluntary Agency (Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the United States Congress. After working for over two years to facilitate communication with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the State Department on behalf of Aguan and the Friederich's, Aguan's brother and nephew were located, and were granted approved for refugee resettlement in September 2000. They arrived at the Des Moines International Airport in January of 2001. Aguan had not seen his brother in over fifteen years. He last saw his nephew eight years ago. Aguan's brother and nephew have similar stories of how they survived and escaped and the war in southern Sudan. I believe that this reunion would not have been possible without the assistance of the aforementioned federal agencies, coupled with the concern and involvement of the Friederich's, and the persistent work of my casework staff. Members on both sides of the aisle, there is a civil war in the Sudan that has been raging for the past 18 years. As a result of this war, children are lost from their families, and many are sold into slavery. The fortunate ones escape to surrounding countries, but often with little hope for a future. I have been touched by this story. It is my desire to bring an end to this war, and now is the time to take action on behalf of the helpless who remain in Sudan. Please join me in support of H.R. 2052.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I will recall again, if I could, for all of us that the President came up to Nemacolin here a few weeks ago and he shared with us and we appreciated it very, very much. We asked him there, can we see a budget? And he said yes. And that has come forth. None of us expect that to be a perfect document. We have the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) to work on that. We would like to see what they will produce and come forward with. So I am wondering, is this a criticism, what we are doing without a budget, is this a criticism of the President's ability to lead or is this a criticism of the folks to follow? We have got our work to do. We have not done it. Common sense would tell us we would not expect to do this with a business or a family. We have heard those comments made several times. We would not go ahead and do something to our family and plan a vacation and not have kids to have their shoes for school or whatever. We would not do that. Let us not gamble on our future. We do not have to. We have got a better situation. We do not have to do that. A little bit ago, someone referred to 1981. We do not have the luxuries of 1981. We do not have a $1 trillion debt. We have got $5.7 trillion. We ought to deal with it.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I come tonight at this late hour troubled somewhat about an event that I think needs some attention. I kind of hesitate talking about it after those wonderful words said by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) about a very important thing. This is on another subject; but I appreciate what the gentleman said tonight, and I want to thank him for it. Tomorrow, according to our majority leader, we are going to be dealing with the first round of our tax bill, and I am concerned about that. A few days ago President Bush came up to Nemacolin and talked to our caucus, and we enjoyed that visit very much. We appreciated it. And in the process we asked him, Can we see a budget first? Can we see the budget? For me, that was very real, because before I came here there was a time when I was in our State legislature and had a very significant role to play in working up a balanced budget and getting our State out of bondage and out of debt. So I am very conscious of that. So we appreciated him saying that. So he sent the document, as he said he would. I thank him for that. I did not expect it to be a perfect thing. It does not have to be, because we have the legislative process. So the document came and we laid it side by side with what our staff has, and I have had for some bit of time, and things just do not quite jive in the sense of what it does for agriculture and what it does for education and some of the things I am very concerned about, the construction in some of our research centers and so on. I think it needs some attention. I thought, well, that is okay, we have a process. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), along with the ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), will bring us a document that we can look at, and it will have the refinement of their work, and that will be good, it will be helpful. But that is not going to happen, so I am told, and that is wrong. It is very wrong. I just have to reflect on what we do in our own families. I travel across my district; and when families sit at the table and talk about what they are going to do with their resources, they want to pay off their debts, if they are planning a vacation, they have to be sure that they have things in order; that the kids are ready for school, they have their clothes, all those things. They see their budget before they spend that which they may not have to spend. County and city government, I have dealt a lot with them. In our States they have to deal with property tax. That is how they run most of county and city government. Everybody would like to have relief from property tax, me too; but they would not think of declaring a property tax relief until they considered the needs of the budget for that entity. They just would not think of it. Yet here we are about to embark on this. In 1981, 20 years ago, when the tax bill of that day was passed, I was talking to my accountant, Mr. Chuck Church, down in Des Moines, Iowa, he is a CPA there, and we discussed this. We thought, well, this is pretty good, but then we started thinking about some of the other things that could take place. Now, I bring this up for comparison, budget first, because things are much different than it was 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, we only had $1 trillion in debt. Now we have $5.7 trillion. The service of the debt now is quite a contrast. If we made a mistake then, we had the strength and so on to recover from it. Do we today, if we make a mistake? I do not know. I am concerned about it. I do not think that in those days they were thinking about the baby boomers coming on. They are coming. Now they are just 8 years away before they start entering into the fray, and we have to deal with that. Twenty years ago they were not giving that much attention. And I think that needs attention. So we need the budget first, and I want to say to the American people tonight and whoever else is listening in their offices or wherever, common sense says show the budget. Like the little lady said on advertising some years ago, ``Show me the beef.'' Show us the budget so we can see where we are at and so we can go forward with good sense and make the progress we need to make. We all would like to have tax relief. I want tax relief. The money we have here is not our money. It is the people's money. We all know that. If we have more than we need, then we ought to send it back. But we ought to deal with the realities of where we are at and not jeopardize Social Security and Medicare and defense and agriculture, and a number of things that are very, very high priorities to us. We ought to think of it and be sure that we have the budget first. So here we are tonight, Mr. Speaker, at this point, a few hours away from taking it up, and I would hope we would give some consideration to what we have talked about.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize a public-private partnership between Iowa State University and the organization Practical Farmers of Iowa. In April this partnership was awarded one of 16 National Awards for Environmental Sustainability by Renew America. Since 1989, Renew America has been bringing national attention to constructive, community based programs through which average citizens are meeting the challenges of sustainable development. A private, nonprofit organization, Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI) was begun in 1985 as a vehicle to share information from farmer to farmer about how to farm successfully using sustainable methods. The farmers and other agricultural professionals who originated the organization recognized that, while the university system was becoming active in researching alternative farming methods, there was also a wealth of indigenous knowledge among producers. PFI was formed to be a conduit and ``amplifier'' for that information. PFI initiated a network of on-farm research and farm field days in 1987 using straightforward protocols that farmers can use to plan, implement, and analyze their own on-farm research. It was at this point that far-sighted leaders at Iowa State University saw the opportunity for collaboration with Practical Farmers of Iowa, and the leadership of PFI responded. Out of the partnership grew the statewide on-farm research program with an ISU Extension agronomist as coordinator. The on-farm research and dissemination effort has grown to include new kinds of research and new kinds of collaborators, both in the farming community and within the university. The PFI-ISU partnership is a ``lightning rod'' allowing the university to respond quickly to new issues, issues as diverse as animal-friendly swine production systems, alternative parasite control methods, local food systems and community-supported agriculture (CSA). The partnership also provides the university with thoughtful and sometimes critical feedback concerning research and technology development The PFI-ISU partnership was among the first between a university and a sustainable agriculture organization, and it is among the more successful. It is a credit to the leadership on both sides, reflecting a science-based approach and cordial relationships. The project has drawn in scientists from many disciplines, providing skilled farmer- collaborators and a support constituency for research into topics as diverse as integrated pest management, soil quality, intercropping, energy crops, prairie restoration, synthetic corn varieties, family allocation of labor, deep-bedded swine systems, specialty marketing, and the social impacts of sustainable agriculture. The membership of PFI brings a built-in ``conscience'' to the collaboration that keeps it focused on the issues relevant to sustaining the land, farm families, and communities. In the past decade as our understanding of sustainable agriculture has deepened and broadened, this partnership has provided a forum through which that process has advanced.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, because of illness in the family, I was necessarily absent on the following votes yesterday. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall No. 410--``yea'' on the Neal (MA) amendment; Rollcall No. 411--``yea'' on the motion to recommit; Rollcall No. 412--``yea'' on final passage of H.R. 1102; Rollcall No. 413--``yea'' on adoption of the conference report accompanying H.R. 4576; Rollcall No. 414--``yea'' on final passage of H.R. 4118; Rollcall No. 415--``yea'' on motion to instruct conferees to the bill H.R. 4577; Rollcall No. 416--``yea'' on final passage of H.R. 2634.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, because of illness in the family, I was necessarily absent on the following votes and had I been present I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall No. 405--NAY on H.J. Res. 103; Rollcall No. 406--YEA on H.R. 3113; Rollcall No. 407--YEA on H.R. 4517; Rollcall No. 408--YEA on Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4810; and Rollcall No. 409--YEA on H.R. 4866.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for yielding me the time. To the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), if I could just take a personal moment, a mutual friend of ours down there in New Mexico said it right, I say to the gentleman. He said, you are a good man. I have watched the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the last 4 years, and they have their hearts in what they are doing, and I appreciate it. I would like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by the gentlewoman from Ohio. I think that we do, in fact, have an emergency; and I understand that this amendment is not going to be dealt with today, because it would fall in that category. So I understand that. I know that the Chairman will carry forth in that rule and so on. But I do think we have an emergency. We could make a case for it. The reason I say that is because in my area and the chairman's area and the gentlewoman from Ohio's area and all of those across rural America, we see the family farm, which is hard to define, but we see it going by the wayside. Bigger and bigger, much more corporate farming going on, and so on. So we do have an emergency, I believe. Here are some of the reasons I feel that way. Mr. Chairman, we have a safe, plentiful, affordable food supply compared cost-wise to any other modern country in the world, as the percentage of disposable income is so much less. We are privileged to have that. I see that in danger of escaping from us. We should think of it. How many of us here, myself included, pick up the newspaper and we turn over to the stock market and we see what is going on. We are concerned and we ought to be, and we want to see whatever we have invested in to have some profitability; and if it does not, we are concerned. If it goes through a quarter and it is down, why, we want something done about it; and that is just the way it is. There is nothing wrong with profitability; it is good, the way it should be. But when the prices are down, the CEOs are under a lot of pressure, and we see things change. When it comes to food and fiber, I think that is a different category. What we feed this Nation and around the world with is something different. Every one of us in this country, all of us, should be very much tuned into this because the amount of one's disposable income that one will pay for one's safe, plentiful food is going to change if we do not get a grip on this. It is just simply going to happen. So this idea that the gentlewoman brings forth, I think, needs consideration. The only tool that I see out there right now that is effectively working, and I have been in part of that system for a long time; I chaired a board for a long time, I am an active member in my local district and I live on the farm, is to allow those communities to have those co-ops and to have the opportunity to purchase, and the advantage of their shareholders and also to market and to be part of the value added to the system, to be part of the value added; and we are not doing that now. So I applaud the gentlewoman for her efforts to try to create some resources to do that. We have seen a little of that done in some isolated places, and it works. For the producer to have a part of the action for the value added, it just makes sense.

Mr. BOSWELL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. BOSWELL. When they can co-operate together they still have the ownership of it, and it is going right back to that family farm. Whatever is gained there is a good thing for not only them but for the community, for the State, for the country. I think we have to look for opportunities to enhance that. That is what the gentlewoman is trying to do. I would ask the chairman if he would help, and if we get a chance to do things for these people, that we pull together to do it. I have confidence that the gentleman will. I am delighted that I can come here this afternoon and participate in this dialogue. We are doing the right thing. Everybody is interested to have safe, plentiful, and affordable food. We ought to do everything we can to be sure that happens. I say our chances are much better if we have it spread over the land, over a number of family farms, rather than in the collective hands of a few.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) might join me in a brief colloquy.

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the chairman a very significant emergency taking place right now in my home State of Iowa, and perhaps most prevalently in my district. I know our chairman is most certainly aware of it, as he also is a colleague from Iowa. But right now hundreds of farmers are suffering from a severe drought. According to the National Weather Service, it has been 45 years since the Midwest has been in such a serious drought at this point in the year. According to weather service data, this past April was the fifth driest in Iowa in more than a century of record keeping. Iowa, like most agriculture States, depends on abundant rainfall levels in April to help grow a bountiful crop during the summer. However, during this past April, rainfall was significantly below normal. This sustained lack of rainfall is devastating to farmers. The subsoil moisture levels are nonexistent or very low. As a fellow farmer, my colleague might understand. I recently dug a post hole trying to repair a fence in a lot and it was powdery dry as far down as we went, and we went down about four feet. Iowa's State climatologist has stated the 8-month period between September 1 and May 1 was the second driest on record in Iowa. Although the National Weather Service says there is a slight chance of relief, soaring summer temperatures will increase evaporation and will bring a quick return to dry conditions. I would like to call to the chairman's attention a provision drafted by Senator Harkin and Senator Byrd in the Senate version of the Agriculture Appropriations bill. This provision will provide $50 million for rural water needs to help farmers and those who live in the surrounding town to make it through this extremely dry time. I would have liked to have offered a similar amendment on today's Agriculture Appropriation bill, but because this would be considered emergency spending, I understand it will not be allowed. So I would like to express my support for the Harkin-Byrd provision in the Senate appropriations bill and hope that we could work together to get relief for farmers who are struggling through this incredibly tough time.

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I do know that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) understands this, and I appreciate his concern. I look forward to working with him in any way that we can to bring relief to the farmers throughout the Nation, in my area, as well as his, that are suffering from drought. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) again for his kind consideration and his hard work on this bill.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained while en route from Iowa back to Washington yesterday afternoon. Due to an aircraft mechanical problem, I missed rollcall vote No. 322, the Sanford amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I also missed rollcall vote No. 323, the Olver amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Finally, I also missed rollcall vote No. 324, the Hostettler amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Hulshof amendment. In fact, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and I have worked very closely with him on a number of things, and my good friend from Missouri, my neighbor, my good friend from Illinois, just across the river, ``kattywompus'' as we say down our way, has a lot of concerns. I would say to the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard), we respect the gentleman's work on this very, very much, but this is not really a project in the sense that we think of projects. This involves the Mississippi. This involves the Illinois. This involves a great expanse, involving much more than any of us would have in an individual project, and our joint interest in this is for a number of reasons. We have worked very hard to get folks along the river to realize what a great resource it is in many, many ways. I think that the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) recognizes and appreciates that. I have no doubt about that, but there is a lot of interest groups out there that have different opinions. Part of our process with our Mississippi River Caucus that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) and I have cosponsored is to bring those folks together to see if we cannot work out how to take care of the navigation needs, the commerce needs, the things to do with recreation, the environment and so on, and we feel like we are making some progress. We feel good about it. Now, this plan is needed so we can proceed, so we can go forth. It has been authorized by WRDA, and we would like now to put the resource with it to make this happen. In fact, I say to the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) this very respectfully, we had hoped that if this would pass today that the gentleman would carry forth with the enthusiasm to conference to maybe restore that offset to keep things going. We would not want to put an idea in the gentleman's mind, but I will take that opportunity. So thanks so much for listening, but different things have been said about how people depend on that river for commerce. They depend on the river for recreation. They are concerned about preserving the environment and all these things, and we are, too. We are going forward with the premise with this study and what would bring to bear that we can put those kinds of folks together in the same room, so to speak, and we can work these things out. That is really what we are trying to do. It is not a project for me. It is not a project for the gentleman from Missouri (Congressman Hulshof) or the gentleman from Illinois (Congressman Shimkus) or anybody else, it is for the entire resource of the Mississippi and the Illinois. I think actually it will go on to be even beyond that. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for his nodding response.

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for yielding me this time. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, it seems like I go these long spells and do not say much, but today I come asking for the consideration of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). I had intended, I had hoped today, to offer an amendment which would have added $4.3 million to the Environment, Health, and Safety section of title III of the bill. This addition would have matched the administration's request for important health screening and treatment for workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Burlington, Iowa, which I am proud to represent. Unfortunately, this was not accepted by the committee. I know, from what we have discussed earlier, I understand the dilemma that the committee is in. Mr. Chairman, I will say that from 1946 until 1975, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission operated a portion of this plant near Burlington to assemble nuclear weapons, employing approximately 4,000 people, 4,000 workers. A recent review by the EPA of documents provided by the Department of Energy has revealed the release of radioactive isotopes and hazardous chemicals at the plant during this time period. This development raises serious concerns regarding the health and welfare of the workers at the plant. There is a tremendous need for this funding to properly screen and treat those that were exposed to harmful elements. Funding for screening and treatment at this plant at Burlington is not the only important screening activity which will not be funded in this bill. Medical monitoring of more than 1,000 workers who were employed at Amchitka, Alaska, during the time that the U.S. Government maintained a nuclear testing facility on the island will be canceled. The project identifies, locates and provides targeted medical screening for those workers. Other sites such as Pantex in Texas and Los Alamos in New Mexico will not be able to begin medical monitoring projects because the funding is not available. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask of the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, and so on and all the rest, that when they go to conference, and any other opportunity that they may have, I ask that they consider the service the workers in these ammunition plants, these tests sites, did for our country during this Cold War period. Their noble service is as responsible as some of us who wore the uniform, some of us that make the decisions we have to make in operations such as this now. Mr. Chairman, these Cold War warriors need our country's help to deal with the health problems they have incurred due to their service. So I hope that these gentlemen and my colleagues in the House will work with me and others to get this restored during conference committee or any other possible opportunity. That is my request that I come to the floor with today.

Mr. BOSWELL. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for yielding me the time. I appreciate very much to have an opportunity to speak in support of the Hutchinson amendment. Methamphetamine continues to ravage our communities. Now is the time, in my opinion, to take immediate and aggressive action and to continue immediate and aggressive action to bring it under control. We cannot allow this crisis to continue. I have traveled with local law enforcement and drug rehabilitation experts throughout my district, and I have seep firsthand the damage this is reaping on our communities. Today, I am proud to support this amendment to make an extra $15 million available to the Drug Enforcement Agency to assist the cost in cleaning up meth labs. Meth is the greatest threat to our young people I have ever seen. In fact, I would tell my colleagues that, in my lifetime, I have never seen anything more threatening internally to our country than what I perceive methamphetamine to be. And it is a real threat, and we are in a battle that we must win. We must win this. Local law enforcement agencies are already working under extremely tight budgetary conditions. The high cost of cleaning up just one of these meth labs can mean the complete disruption of normal law enforcement activities and can wipe out their budget and their resources. This is just a part of my efforts to battle meth. I have also introduced this, and I will call this to the attention of my friend from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), listen to this, we have introduced the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Abuse Reduction Act. This measure takes a multipronged approach to the problem and will provide our communities with the tools they need to win the battle against meth. I will hope my colleague will look at that. This measure takes a multipronged approach, as we have said. The initiative increases resources for law enforcement to combat meth labs and traffickers and provides funds for State and local establishments to be involved in the program. In closing, I want to say I strongly support the Hutchinson amendment. We must do all we can to win this battle with meth. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).