Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. China is building a huge and very expensive multibillion dollar new high-speed rail system, probably with some U.S. investment behind it.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we should remember that unemployment benefits have been paid for by the employers and the employees. The employers have to pay a tax; most economists say that comes in the form of lower wages or at least is shared in lower wages by the employees, and there is a large and healthy balance in the unemployment trust fund. Yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the President and the Republican majority, have refused to expend some of those taxes. That was money that was saved for a rainy day for families and individuals across this country. It is raining like hell out there right now, and they need that money. It is their money. That, in fact, does not have an impact on the deficit. Giving a $300 billion tax break to people who clip coupons on their taxes does cost the Federal Treasury and will increase the deficit, but if we kept the books honestly, money spent out of the unemployment trust fund which has been accumulated over many years for a rainy day would not count as money that is spent and created out of nothing. There is money there to spend. It is just like we could invest in infrastructure by spending down the highway trust fund. We could invest in aviation by spending down the aviation trust fund. We could accelerate a whole bunch of projects across this country and put people back to work, really. I mean, in the phony way we keep books here, it counts as deficit; but in reality it would not be. The American taxpayers would be getting the money back that they paid for the purpose for which it was intended, which is unemployment benefits or investment in bridges, highways, roads and aviation.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if I could expand on that, it is day 10 since the extended unemployment benefits expired, and Congress is not in official session this evening taking care of that problem. They are out, many of them downtown with the lobbyists on K Street celebrating with champagne beyond the weekly food budget of many of these families who are unemployed.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if I could, in my State, we have an extraordinary, we have already exhausted this year's allocation of low- income energy assistance in our State; and we are, what, 3 months into the year, the beginning of the heating season; and there are tens of thousands of people on the waiting list in my State, and I am sure in other States across America. And to say, well, we just cannot afford those things, but we can afford for the people who live up on the top of the hill in the big houses with all of the lights on and the windows open, we are going to give them a little extra gift so that they can go to Antigua to avoid the colder months.

Mr. DeFAZIO. From local small businesses.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would keep in perspective, the total cost of the Democratic proposal, as I understand, it is to be twice as generous in terms of the extension of unemployment benefits; and to again, to begin to even penetrate some of those other people who have been longer unemployed or underemployed, is about one-twentieth, 5 percent, of what the President is proposing to gift upon the wealthiest by relieving them of the horrible burden of paying a small percentage tax on the dividends they earn by clipping coupons on stocks that they own. Where are our priorities? Could he not do 10 percent for the unemployed and for their families? I mean, it is just extraordinary to me that the emphasis would be so thinly disguised.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, 28,000 people in my State alone saw an end to their unemployment benefits in the week between Christmas and New Year. Happy New Year from the Federal Government.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman raised the unemployment numbers. It is interesting that recently a survey has come out of rural areas in my State, particularly areas that were previously timber- dependent areas, about unemployment; and the numbers that we record today in unemployment do not reflect the real suffering or the true degree of unemployment. As high as unemployment is in the United States, and it is at some of the highest numbers it has been in a decade under this administration without an extension of unemployment benefits, which hopefully will be rectified here this week, but the numbers are actually much worse because the definitions have been cleverly changed to say, well, if they are unemployed and their unemployment benefits have run out, they are not considered unemployed anymore in the United States. So if we follow that illogic through, if everybody in America lost their job today and all their benefits an out a year from today and nobody got their job back, no one would be working and we would have zero unemployment. It is an absolute absurdity. So the true measure of unemployment is actually much, much higher than we are seeing; and the struggle, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) said, to bring some productive capacity back to this country and put people back to work, we were all first promised, well, they are losing their jobs in industry but they will all go into the new economy. Well, the new economy has gone bust, and most of them did not get jobs there anyway or benefit during those good years; and one cannot, in my opinion, be a great Nation if one does not build things, and the reliance on foreign oil is extraordinary. The fact that our greatest balance of payment, the deficit, is to buy foreign oil, supporting people who hardly have any interest in the United States in mind and our future in mind and the investment in alternative fuels, alternative fuel technology to include fuel cells and all the other things that the gentlewoman talked about, bring those industries home to the United States and begin to export them into the rest of the world in addition to insulating ourselves from these people who are jacking up oil prices around the world would be an extraordinary benefit to the American people. And I hope that this administration, this unfortunately oil administration that we have in the White House, might be able to clear their vision a little bit, instead of saying we can somehow drill our way out of this, which we cannot. Even if there was as much oil as the most optimistic say up in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and along the coast of the United States, we still could not drill our way out of this problem. We would still have a growing dependence on foreign oil. We need to make dramatic steps and investments in that direction, and we should orient more longer-term packages toward the recovery of our economy toward those new technologies, toward those investments in our country, and those are the kinds of things we need. An ephemeral investment or expenditure of $300 billion to relieve people from paying taxes on dividends on stock, mostly people who earn over $100,000 a year, as an economic stimulus is almost laughable. I mean, it is extraordinary to me. And if it does work and it stimulates the stock market without dealing with the underlying problems and the fundamentals of U.S. industry and their unwillingness to invest if this country, in the productive capacity of this country, it will create another bubble, and guess what, some people will ride the bubble up, get out, and it will pop again, and what happens? The people who are always stuck are the middle class and working people who cannot get in and out of the market because their only investments in the market are through their retirement funds which they cannot liquidate and speculate on the way that some of these other folks can. It may well cause a big run-up in the stocks that pay dividends in particular, but it is not going to generally leaven the economy and put people back to work. I have yet to see a single credible economist make that assertion, that somehow this $300 billion gift other than through the trickle-down theory is going to somehow put people in this country back to work.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I appreciate the gentleman coming to the floor to try and explain the differences between these two critical plans. I happen to represent a part of the State of Oregon which has the highest unemployment rate in the United States of America and a part of the State which is particularly hard hit and am very concerned about an effective economic stimulus package. Representing a district with a high and enduring unemployment rate, I do not find that the elimination of the tax on dividends is very high on the agenda of anybody that I meet with in my district and how we are going to put people back to work and how we are going to get the economy rolling again. I share the gentleman's concerns. Certainly there are some interesting arguments to be made about how best to properly tax corporate profits and/or dividends which result from them, but if one looks underneath that whole issue, we find that many profitable corporations do not pay taxes and, therefore, the dividends are not being double-taxed in any way or form whatsoever. And also many of the individuals who realize these dividends are not the people who are unemployed or are worrying about their future or how to put food on the table for their kids. In fact, as the gentleman said earlier in the discussion, more than two-thirds of the benefits will accrue to people with incomes over $100,000 a year. The question becomes, is that an effective economic stimulus? Let us see. A year from now, people will begin to file their taxes, probably most of the folks who clip coupons and dividends would be a little later in the year, so maybe 15 months from now some of those people who earn over $100,000 a year would realize an additional savings in their taxes or maybe a refund which would come in April or May or June and somehow that is going to provide an economic stimulus in the year 2003 when that does not happen until the year 2004? Beyond that, there is a whole issue of is this not a revisiting of trickle- down economics? If we give a little bit more to the people who are already doing relatively well, or in some cases very well, will they not spend that money in a way to put people back to work? I think there are some real questions about that, but it is at least more artfully presented than it was years ago under the Reagan administration. They are avoiding the words ``trickle down.'' But as the gentleman discussed, there are alternatives out there. We could certainly look at, as an alternative, things that are going to have a more immediate impact on the economy of the United States and put more middle- and low-income families back to work or on a more secure economic footing. If we look at, from my perspective on the Transportation Committee, the Nation's incredible underfunding of infrastructure, in my State alone, again the State with the highest unemployment in the union, has discovered that because of construction techniques used for the interstates back in the sixties, we have a $4 billion bridge problem on I-5, the most vital interstate-international link on the western corridor between Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington and Canada. That is something, in a State in as deep a recession as we are, that is beyond our capabilities. We need some additional help from the Federal Government. We know what the problems are. We could get people to work within months, as soon as the contracts could be let on making those repairs. Critical water. There are a whole host of infrastructure needs, rail, bridges, highways, water, that would put people back to work and would provide secondary benefits to suppliers and small businesses in the communities where the workers would be. All these things would certainly have a much more direct economic impact than a tax break to people who are concerned about the taxation on their dividends that would accrue to them some 16 or 18 months from now. Hopefully by then this issue will be behind us. The President's plan, of course, is so extraordinarily expensive. I mean, more than half of the President's entire plan is devoted to the concern about people who pay taxes on dividends as opposed to his rather small benefits for people on unemployment. We need a much more robust extension there. We need more worker retraining. There are other issues that could be debated. Whether or not we should have some sort of tax holiday on part of the FICA tax. More than half the families in America pay more in Social Security and Medicare taxes than they do in income taxes to the Federal Government. So if we could provide some relief there but not short the Social Security fund by putting that money back in; the States, as the Democrats have proposed, to provide to the States. We have heard for years from that side of the aisle, Federal mandates, no unfunded Federal mandates. A whole host of new ones have come down, including the Leave No Child Behind Act and the testing that is required, yet there is no additional money flowing from the Federal Government; yet the States and particularly my State is strapped and the President's tax proposal would actually take money from the States, $4 billion for the exemption of dividends, so States again would not be able to get taxes from those most well off and would be forced to either cut benefits for everybody else on programs, or essential schools, on health care, or they would have to raise taxes again on the remaining smaller tax base. I applaud the gentleman for taking the time to come and try and outline some of these differences here on the floor. It is critical that people know they have a very clear choice. I think over the last couple of years, that was not so clear to many people, but now it is our duty to show them that there are clear choices to be made on some of these very, very critical issues, and this is the first one out of the chute after the elections of last year. I am determined that we will draw the lines and we will show here is what we would do, it is more responsible, it would provide more direct stimulus, it would benefit more people and more people in need in particular as opposed to what is being proposed by the other side of the aisle which is fiscally irresponsible, not paid for, will not kick in for 16 to 18 months or even longer and is really just trying to do what they were already doing before we were in a recession or proposing before we were in a recession but justify it by saying it will help us with a recession. I thank the gentleman for clarifying those issues.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has taken care of their colleagues in the Congress. There is going to be a tidy COLA made available to Members of Congress that will far exceed 6 months' worth of unemployment benefits for most Americans. In this bill, all they could find room for was a 5-week extension. I have to admit, coming from the State of Oregon, with the second- highest unemployment rate in the Nation, with 2,500 people a week exhausting their benefits, that that is better than nothing. Those families now know that through Christmas and the holidays they will not be totally cut off. However, it creates an incredible amount of uncertainty for those families come the end of January. We cannot do better than that? We can give ourselves a COLA for 12 months that far exceeds any benefits they can ever expect under unemployment, but somehow we cannot give them the certainty of another 26 weeks? I do not understand that. I really do not understand that position in this House. Why are we so stingy when it comes to working people, and so generous when it comes to insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry? It might have something to do with who funds our campaigns. This provision of this bill is essential, but it is nowhere near enough. Congress will be immediately confronted upon returning in early January with the issue of further extending unemployment benefits and, hopefully, adopting an effective economic stimulus package. We simply need to put America back to work. We have a trade policy that is exporting jobs, and we are being told that trickle-down will help stimulate the economy and put people back to work; but my people are tired of being trickled on. They need Federal investment. We need something that puts them back to work. We are holding back money from the Highway Trust Fund. That will put people back to work. We cannot get a bill passed to deal with the forest fire projects which could put people back to work in the woods. We do not have time for that, but we do have time for some other special shenanigans around here. Mr. Speaker, I will support the legislation; but I bemoan the fact that Congress sees fit to take care of itself first, its contributors second, and the working people of America last in a very, very, very cursory way that is only temporary.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this resolution represents neither conciliation nor negotiation. It is a resolution for continued containment, deterrence, that would be bolstered by intrusive, effective, forced, unfettered inspections. They worked before. They can work again. The most dispositive report on how effective those inspections were came from Tony Blair to the Parliament, and Saddam Hussein did not cooperate. He tried to hide the stuff. He could not hide it. These inspections worked. There was the destruction of 40,000 munitions for chemical weapons, 2,610 tons of chemical precursors, dismantling of their prime chemical weapons development and production complex at at-Muthanna, the destruction of 48 SCUD-type missiles, the removal and destruction of the infrastructure for the nuclear weapons program, including the al-Athir weaponization/testing facility. Intrusive, unfettered inspections with our allies will work. This cowboy, go-it-alone, to-heck-with-our-allies, to-heck-with-the-rest-of- the-world principle with an attack before we try this alternative is wrong.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. One of the most solemn duties given by us to the Constitution is before the House because the resolution before us is most certainly a declaration of war. It lacks the specificity of the last declared war, World War II, but it closely mirrors the open-ended authority granted President Johnson in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. That is it. That is the key part of this, despite all the whereases and everything else. So, with this resolution, Congress will preauthorize the first-ever preemptive war in the history of the United States, a war that may be fought unilaterally, without a single ally, conducted without restraint or clear objective, potentially in violation of the U.N. charter and widely accepted international law. I do not believe our Nation's founders would think that this was the proper use of our authority under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. What is so extraordinary about Saddam Hussein and the threat he poses that would justify this broad grant of authority? What has changed in the 2 years since then-candidate Bush said, The United States will not be the world's 911, the world's police force, and that we will not engage in nation building? There were the horrendous attacks of September 11, attacks against the United States; but neither the United States nor British intelligence services can find the slightest link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. So that cannot be the reason. The President went to the U.N. 3 weeks ago, and he repeated in Cincinnati a long litany of charges against Iraq, most of them true. Saddam Hussein is a brutal psychopathic dictator. He has committed crimes against humanity. He used chemical weapons against Iranian troops, against rebellious Kurds in his own country. He killed tens of thousands, but that was during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan and Bush 41; and the United States turned a blind eye because Saddam was allied with the U.S. against Iran. He has violated a number of U.N. resolutions, but all along before the last Presidential election. So something else must be behind this. Is this an attempt to obtain nuclear weapons? Two other members of the axis of evil are much further along. Iran has a very well-developed nuclear weapons programs and much stronger proven ties to terrorist groups, including harboring al-Qaeda; and of course, North Korea has probably nuclear weapons and two-thirds of an almost functional intercontinental missile which is having us rush to build Star Wars. So, is that the reason? I do not know. It really seems to me there is something else going on here. Perhaps it is because the President brought a number of people from his father's administration who felt that they were frustrated because they did not get to go to Baghdad the first time when Colin Powell and George Bush 41 stopped them short of that goal; but these men, these old men, these oil men, most of whom have never fought in a war or have never served in the military, are very deaf to the substantial concerns of Colin Powell, General Clark, and others in the war all too well. They are deaf to the concerns of Middle East experts and Arabists at the State Department and our intelligence services. They are deaf to the very vocal concern of our allies around the world. They are deaf to the concerns of millions of Americans who have doubts about this adventure, and they are blind to the potential repercussions of the Pandora's box they will open with this war, the first war fought under the new Bush doctrine of preemptive war. Never has the United States of America launched a preemptive war. The prospect of the United States pursuing a unilateral preemptive war with Iraq with little or no support from allies in the international community is gravely disturbing; but the international application of this doctrine could launch a war against a threat, that is, U.S. or any nation, could launch a war against a threat or perceived threat by another nation. Just think, India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia. The list is long and frightening. The administration proponents of this resolution would have us believe we have no option, but we do. Continued containment, deterrence and intrusive, unfettered inspections. There is a long list of the success of the last inspections rendered by Tony Blair to the Parliament, not by the Bush administration to the Congress: destruction of 40,000 munitions for chemical weapons; 2,610 tons of chemical precursors; 411 tons of chemical warfare agent; dismantling of Iraq's prime chemical weapons development and production complex at LAl- Muthanna; the destruction of 48 SCUD-type missiles; the destruction of the Al-Hakam biological weapons facility. The discovery in 1991 of samples of indigenously produced highly enriched uranium made them disclose their program so that led to the removal and destruction of the infrastructure for the nuclear weapons program, including the Al- Athir weaponization testing facility. Intrusive inspections, despite the harassment, did work. We do have an alternative. We should return to that regime. We should go with our allies under the auspices of the United Nations. We should root out and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. We have an opportunity and a proven alternative before us, unfettered inspections, destruction of the arsenals; but it is not clear that that is the sole objective of this administration. War should be a first resort? No. War should be a last resort. Do not vote a blank check to this administration. They are all too determined to have this war no matter what occurs.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his generous remarks. I would say that my tenacity and outspoken nature are but a mere shadow of that of Wayne L. Morse. Actually, the highest compliment that any of my older constituents who remember Wayne Morse can pay me is to say, ``That reminds me of Wayne Morse. You seem a lot like him.'' There could be virtually no more appropriate time to bring this bill forward, not only because this month will mark the 100 anniversary of Wayne Morse's birth; born in Wisconsin in 1900, raised as a populace progressive and in a tradition that focused on the democratic rights of the working class and disenfranchised. He first moved to Oregon in 1931 and became a law professor within 9 months. He was dean, and he served until 1943 and was elected to the United States Senate in 1944. He served there until 1968. He was often known for lonely stands he took on a number of issues. He changed from Republican to Independent in 1952 and to a Democrat in 1955. Now, why I feel this is a particularly important time to do this is because one of Wayne Morse's most famous moments was his lengthy speech in opposition and adamant opposition to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, one of only two votes in the United States Senate, and one of only two to oppose that war as unwise, as this House is rushing, and the Senate is rushing, to rubber stamp an extraordinarily broad grant of power to the President that eerily echoes the Gulf of Tonkin resolution with even fewer underpinnings and, in fact, this time, marking a preemptive war, perhaps unilateral preemptive war by the United States, the first in our history. I think if Wayne Morse were still with us, even if he were with us at the age of 100, his voice would be heard loud and clear expressing concern about that resolution and this new rush to war by the Congress. He also was known as one who exercised an extraordinary independence of judgment on many issues. In fact, there is the Wayne Morse Pledge, which I have posted in my office. I hope that it will be incorporated at some appropriate place into the new courthouse. The pledge was: ``I will exercise an independence of judgment on the basis of facts and evidence as I find them on each issue. I will weigh the views of my constituents and my party. But I will cast my vote free of political pressure and unmoved by threats of loss of political support if I do not do the bidding of some pressure group.'' If only, if only we had more Members of Congress like that today, this would be a much different place and the policies of this country would be very different. President Truman, who once actually offered to make Wayne Morse Attorney General said, ``Wayne Morse is one of the great dissenters, and we need dissenters, not only in the Senate, we ought to have them in the House. We should have them in the legislatures of various States. Many of the great things we have were voted down by the majority and finally had to be adopted for the benefit and welfare of the people. You may not agree with Senator Morse, you do not have to agree with him when he is right, but what he advocates usually becomes what the people want.'' And then finally, when Senator Morse left the Republican Party, he told a reporter from the Detroit Free Press, ``I sometimes wonder if I am going at all this too hard, but then I think of all of the men and women who wish there was just one politician in Washington who would speak his mind and cast his vote honestly and freely, with only his conscience to guide him. Maybe it's a bit brash to assume that I am that man, but believe me, I am trying to be.'' That was Wayne Morse, and that is something I try to be every day in representing the district from which he was elected to the United States Senate. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the House would unanimously endorse the naming of the new Federal courthouse in Eugene, Oregon. I believe there could be no more appropriate honor in the memory of Wayne Morse on the 100 anniversary of his birth. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) for his work to bring this bill quickly through committee to the floor of the House. Congressman Tom Udall has introduced H.R. 5083, a bill to designate the federal courthouse in Santa Fe, New Mexico as the Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse. Judge Campos was the first Hispanic appointed to the Federal bench in New Mexico. He served as the Chief Judge from 1987 until 1989. President Jimmy Carter appointed him to the Federal bench in 1978. Prior to this appointment Judge Campos was elected to serve as the District Judge for the 1st Judicial District in 1971 and served in that capacity until 1978. Judge Campos was a life long resident of New Mexico and graduated first in his law class from the University of New Mexico. He served the people of New Mexico with honor and great distinction. Known for his compassion, quick wit, and inquisitive mind Judge Campos was a role model for students, fellow jurists, and professional colleagues. I support Congressman Udall and his efforts in behalf of this bill and urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. H.R. 5427 is a bill to designate the federal building in Roswell New Mexico as the Joe Skeen Federal Building. Joe Skeen was born in Roswell, New Mexico in 1927. As a young man he served a one-year enlistment in the Navy and served in the Air Force Reserve between 1949 and 1952. In 1950 he graduated from Texas A&M University. Joe Skeen was elected to Congress in 1980 as a write in candidate in the general election. He was only the third person in the Nation's history to win a U.S. House set through this type of effort. Over the past two decades he has served the people of the 2nd district in New Mexico with distinction and devotion. As Congressman he focused his energy and interests on agriculture, national defense, and public land management. In 1985 he became a member of the House Appropriations Committee, and in 1995 he became chair of the Appropriations subcommittee on Agriculture. At the beginning of the 107th Congress he was named a chair of the Interior subcommittee. One of Congressman Skeen's major legislative accomplishments was to ensure the opening of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant--the Nations' first repository for defense related waste. Concerned about the public's health and safety, and the environment Joe Skeen working tirelessly to address storage of federal waste. Joe Skeen has supported legislation to maintain the viability of the agriculture industry. He also has been a leader in supporting legislative initiatives on the balanced budget, crime, education, and military spending. He is an unapologetic advocate of local control, insisting that citizens make their own determination, and not let legislative systems do it. Congressman Skeen is well respected on both sides of the aisle. He is an earnest and capable legislator, a worthy advisory, and a true gentleman, devoted to his family, and dedicated to his constituents. His good will and humor will be missed by all his colleagues. It is fitting and proper to honor Joe Skeen's life in public service with the designation of the federal building in Roswell New Mexico as the Joe Skeen Federal Building. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5335 is a bill to designate the federal building and courthouse in Dayton, OH, as the Tony Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse, in honor of our former colleague from Ohio, Tony Hall. The bill has strong bipartisan support. Tony Hall is a true son of Ohio. He was born in Dayton in 1942. After attending local schools he graduated from Denison University in 1964. He was accepted into the Peace Corp and served as a volunteer in Thailand from 1966 until 1968. Upon his return he was elected to the Ohio House of Representatives, and in 1972 he was elected to the Ohio Senate. In 1978 he was elected to the House of Representatives where he service for 11 terms. tony Hall currently serves as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture. Tony Hall was founder and cochair of the Congressional Hunger Center, a nonprofit organization created to bring awareness to the growing and persistent problems of world hunger. He also served as chairman for the House Select Committee on Hunger from 1989 until 1993. Congressman Hall sponsored legislation to help immunize the world's children against major diseases, and to increase U.S. funding for Vitamin A and C. His passion for protecting and ensuring human rights and combating hunger brought Congressman Hall to such places as North Korea, Peru, Sudan, Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, Bangladesh, and Haiti. In 1994 he helped nominate Bishop Carlos Belo for the Nobel Peace Prize for the Bishop's role in protecting civilians during armed conflict. Congressman Tony Hall was an exemplar for his unswerving commitment and sustaining contributions to promoting humanity and peace in a world stricken with poverty and worn by war. This designation is a fitting tribute to his exceptional public service. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5169, the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2002. This is a bipartisan bill that would authorize $200 million in grants from the EPA to States and local government entities to conduct vulnerability assessments of wastewater treatment facilities and to take steps to reduce identified vulnerabilities. The legislation is similar to the approach taken for vulnerability assessments of drinking water facilities in the bioterrorism legislation signed into law earlier this summer. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of September 11, we have learned that the Nation's wastewater treatment plants are potentially vulnerable to terrorist activities. Many plants have treatment redundancies, but, often, they have single points of failure. These plants, in addition to the possibility of disruption and environmental catastrophe, often use hazardous materials in the treatment process, and those things certainly also need to be safeguarded. In order to alleviate these concerns, under H.R. 5169 the EPA would be authorized to provide grants for three purposes: conduct vulnerability assessments to publicly-owned treatment works; to implement certain pre-approved security enhancements that have been identified in a vulnerability assessment; and, three, to implement any other security enhancement measures identified in a vulnerability assessment. This legislation would also authorize $15 million to provide technical assistance to small communities, those serving fewer than 20,000 individuals, and $1 million annually for 5 years development and dissemination of computer software, data and vulnerability assessment. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the funding provisions for vulnerability assessments and security enhancements contained in this legislation have been drafted as an amendment to the Clean Water Act with the intent of ensuring that the Davis-Bacon Act would apply to any federally funded work that meets the definition of construction. This approach has been confirmed through staff conversations with representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I certainly would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, we had also hoped to bring up under regular order other legislation which would go to the water infrastructure and economic security particularly of our Nation, the Water Resources Development Act of 2002. The bill itself is in pretty good form in terms of projects. Many Members have vital infrastructure projects included in that bill. The bill did not, because of some controversy and concern on the committee, include any amendments to the current authority of the Corps of Engineers to conduct these projects and did not go to concerns a number of Members have regarding the need for independent peer review of projects and better cost benefit analyses. That bill was scheduled to come up just prior to this legislation under suspension of the rules which would have been opposed on this side by the minority, and I am pleased to see that the bill has been pulled, but, hopefully, it has only been pulled to be brought up later in the week during regular order with amendments allowed from Members on this side of the aisle who have expressed concerns regarding, again, the peer review and independent analysis of projects. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill. I had hoped to offer amendments, as did others, that are not being allowed to improve this legislation and deal realistically with this problem. Even if we believe the preemption of the laws of the 50 States with tort reform, something the Republicans, of course, the States rights party, does not normally believe in, would resolve this problem, we have to question, why is the pharmaceutical industry in this bill? Are they buying malpractice insurance? No. This is an incredible gift to the pharmaceutical industry. Why is the HMO industry in this bill? Why are the nursing homes in this bill? Guess what? It is all about campaign fundraising on that side of the aisle. They know this bill is so radical, and is not a solution. It is not going anywhere in the Senate, but they want to bring it up today with no amendments and no attempt to really resolve this. No savings are required to be passed on to the doctors in their premiums. In fact, the insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings. That is the American Insurance Association. That is a quote from them. The premiums are excessive. Are they excessive because of a cyclical change in settlements? No. We have had four crises in 20 years. Guess what, there have not been four up-and-down cycles in settlements in lawsuits and malpractice; there have been four cycles in the investment losses of the insurance industry, bad underwriting, and bad accounting on their practice. This is another corporate bailout by the Republicans, plain and simple. This is not going to help my docs. My docs really want a solution. They are desperate. Some of them are even biting on this stuff they are shoveling out. They are going to do nothing to resolve this problem long-term in this country.