Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 658, supporting the goals and ideals of World Water Day, which I introduced with Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, the Ranking Member on our Water Resources and the Environment Subcommittee.

Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is critical to promoting good health, fighting

poverty, protecting the environment, empowering women and promoting economic growth around the world. These were the goals of the ``Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act,'' which I introduced last year. This legislation, which was signed into law on December 1st, establishes water and sanitation as a cornerstone of United States foreign assistance efforts.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, concerned organizations, and the administration to help ensure that the United States is a leader on global water issues and works hard to make the goals and ideals of World Water Day a reality for over a billion people around the world in need.

Mr. Speaker, I opposed the Renzi amendment because, while we all oppose leaks in our intelligence community, we have learned more about the illegal wiretapping program, the use of torture and extraordinary rendition, and the situation in Iraq from leaks to media outlets than we have from the administration. While we should do our best to prevent intelligence leaks, we must also ensure that we aren't being complicit in the cover-up of illegal activities or the manipulation of intelligence.

I also voted against final passage of the Intelligence Authorization bill because, while it is a fine bill, it represents a missed opportunity. Democrats have tried to address the series of intelligence scandals, yet were prevented from doing so by continued abuses of the legislative process by the Republican majority.

Mr. Speaker, there is no small amount of irony that Republicans are now rushing to investigate high gas prices and professing themselves to be on the side of the consumer.

What is important is not what they have said in the last couple of days, but what they have done for the entire time they have been in power here in Washington, D.C. It is outrageous that the same people who are now decrying high gas prices were lavishing billions of dollars in subsidies on the same oil industry a few months ago, despite already bloated profits.

In the 1990s the Republicans even passed legislation that forbade the Department of Transportation to even study higher fuel efficiency, something that would significantly reduce demand today.

And they have expressed no outrage that the American taxpayer is being cheated out of fair payment for the oil and gas that is being taken from public lands by these same large companies.

There are real solutions. Invest in conservation, the only way to reduce immediate dependence on expensive foreign oil now. Shift the billions of dollars in oil and gas companies to renewable and alternative energy sources, and insist that the American taxpayer be given full value for the billions of dollars of oil and gas taken from public lands.

Madam Speaker, last week Oregonians were saddened by the sudden death of Richard ``Dick'' Kohnstamm.

He was a visionary leader who conceived and then for half a century led the Kohnstamm family crusade to restore the jewel that is Timberline Lodge. This historic structure, a Depression-era public works project on Oregon's majestic Mt. Hood, is today an artistic and historic treasure.

Dick was not just a leader in alpine sports, an innovator in year- round skiing, but also a force in recreation and tourism at the national level as well. His passions ranged from historic preservation to, notably, public broadcasting leadership. He was a pioneer in creative ways to fashion public and private partnerships before the buzz word became popular.

He will be sorely missed but leaves a vision, a committed family, and a State that is grateful for over half a century of leadership.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this resolution.

One of the reasons, Madam Speaker, that I argued against our invasion of Iraq long before the war began was because I felt we needed to face far more serious threats like the danger posed by Iran. In the 3 years since that attack, the threat from Iran has grown, and our capacity to meet that threat has diminished. Now Iran has a President who exploits Iranian national grievances to consolidate power and has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Our troops are bogged down in Iraq, placing them at risk should Iran launch a new wave of terrorism.

We have done nothing to break our dependency on oil, the control of which gives Iran its greatest ability now to blackmail us and other countries.

I appreciate the leadership of my good friend Mr. Lantos and others bringing the resolution forward to spotlight the problems with Iran. I appreciate their working with us to improve the bill.

For instance, now the bill will not allow us to deal with terrorist groups on our own watch list. I think that is very, very important. Unfortunately, this legislation does not provide solutions. Instead it limits the administration's flexibility to pursue diplomacy without providing any new tools not already at their disposal.

We need allies and partners to address the Iranian threat. We need the cooperation of the European Union, of China and, yes, Russia, since we have no more unilateral sanctions to place on Iran.

Our global standing is at a low point. Yet this bill sanctions not Iran, but the very countries we need for a strong diplomatic effort. This bill tragically gives equal weight to overthrowing the Iranian Government as it does to the immediate threat of nuclear proliferation.

Now, I am strongly opposed to this regime, but preventing them from developing nuclear weapons capacity must be our first priority, not prioritizing behavior change over regime change. We pull the rug out from underneath anybody in the current Iranian leadership who values survival over the nuclear program, and it clearly works to eliminate incentives for diplomatic solutions.

I have a sense of deja vu when I think back to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which did not explicitly authorize the use of force, but certainly got the ball rolling that led to the tragedy of this Iraq war. Knowing what they know today, how many Members of this House would have voted differently 8 years ago?

I am very worried about where all this ends. We have heard reports from the Pentagon of plans to attack Iran, indeed plans for a nuclear strike on Iran, the repercussions of which should make us all recoil with horror. Now, the administration dismisses these news reports, but the American people

and this Congress got better information about what happened in Iraq from reporters like Seymour Hirsch than it got from, sadly, the President, Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Rice.

I do not pretend to imagine the horrific things that Iran would do with nuclear weapons. We are all opposed to that. That is why we need a strong, smart, constructive diplomatic strategy. This bill does not provide it.

For over half a century, Madam Speaker, we have made a series of mistakes regarding Iran, starting in 1953 when the United States led the charge to overthrow the democratically elected Government of Iran and replace them with a dictatorship in the person of the Shah. Our support for that dictatorship and its repressive policies fueled the reaction that led to the Iranian revolution. It was part of what happened with the hostage crisis in Iran.

More recently there are very credible reports that diplomatic feelers extended by the Iranian Government were dismissed by this administration 2 and 3 years ago. I sincerely hope that we do not overwhelmingly and unthinkingly pass a resolution today that makes us feel good because we all hate this regime, but instead sets in motion a process that actually is destabilizing and makes the peaceful future that we all seek harder.

Madam Speaker, I do think this is an important conversation for us to have on this floor. I am pleased that the debate time was extended, and I hope our colleagues will take the time to scroll through the information that is available and think of the consequences.

For instance, I would enter into the record, a letter from Under Secretary of State Nick Burns to Chairman Hyde. I will just quote a little and then insert the rest in the Record.

We have enormous concerns about this proposed legislation,

particularly title II. These provisions would impair our

ability to continue working closely and successfully with our

allies to deal with the threat that Iran poses.

Nobody here, nobody here, apologizes for this regime. And my good friend from Indiana is correct, there is a lot of shared interest and deep concern. The notion that this despotic regime would have control of nuclear weapons is terrifying, absolutely terrifying.

We long for the day that the Iranian people are free, in no small measure because the United States' history with the Iranian people over more than half a century is one where we have not always been on the side of democracy for the Iranian people, overthrowing their democratically elected regime in 1953. That was not a proud moment in our history when we helped install a dictator, but we called him the Shah.

We are united in our commitment to deal meaningfully with this problem. This legislation, as the administration has made clear, falls short of the mark. It is not tightening our sanctions against Iran.

We have done that.

There have been administrations, both Republican and Democrat, who have maybe not been as zealous in implementing those sanctions; but that is on the books. We have done it.

What this talks about doing is extending sanctions against the very people whose cooperation we need to solve this problem. We are confusing our goals. Is it more important to threaten a regime change and thereby consolidate it? This Government of Iran by all indications is not monolithic. There are people who disagree with the sad and repulsive face of the current leader. There are a vast number of young people in Iran who are not at this point violently anti-American. They are pro-Western. There is interest in the United States. If we misplay this, we can end up turning another generation against us in Iran.

We have had empty threats against North Korea that did not stop them from going full speed ahead developing nuclear weapons, in fact, we are probably less safe today because we have not been focused and effective.

I do strongly identify with the words of my friend, the gentleman from Iowa

(Mr. Leach). I have been one who has been somewhat critical of this administration in its actions in the past. I would find it absolutely inappropriate to not reinforce when I think they are trying to reposition themselves vis-a-vis Iran. There are many people on our side of the aisle who were against the rush to war in Iraq and many more who have found that it was a mistake to do so. We have supported more diplomatic initiatives, and this is the opportunity we have now.

This legislation is not each-handed. It is not focused. The administration does not want it. It sanctions our allies. I strongly urge that we do things that are coming down the pike now that we in Congress can do that will make a difference in Iran. Think about how we deal with India and nuclear weapons. This is a decision that is looming ahead of us that will make a difference for China and other countries that have nuclear technology about how we treat them in that situation.

And for heaven's sake, when people have suddenly discovered $3-a- gallon gasoline and that we are addicted to foreign oil, which is part of Iran's strength right now, maybe we in Congress can forget the goofy energy bill we passed and get serious about conservation, alternative energy, increasing fuel standards and giving full value to the American public for our oil and gas resources. These are things that we can do now that will make a difference. Let the administration do its job diplomatically; provide oversight, but do not go over the edge with this legislation.

Department of State,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of

Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to comment on HR 282, the

``Iran Freedom Support Act of 2005,'' that currently is

pending before your Committee.

We have serious concerns about this proposed legislation,

particularly Title II, which would amend the Iran and Libya

Sanctions Act (ILSA). These provisions would impair our

ability to continue working closely and successfully with our

allies to deal with the threat that Iran poses.

The Iran issue is sensitive and critically important. The

September 24 IAEA resolution, tabled by the EU-3 (Germany,

the UK, and France), was an important step forward. We are

going to have to continue working with our international

partners to isolate Iran and to build and maintain an

international coalition to ensure that Iran does not acquire

a nuclear weapons capability. In doing so, the President

needs the flexibility that HR 282 would impede.

I note that one portion of the bill, Title IV, regarding

support for democracy in Iran, could, with relatively minor

modifications, make a positive contribution to our Iran

objectives, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with

Congress in developing this approach.

Sincerely,

R. Nicholas Burns,

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I would like to include the following article, which I referenced on the floor, in the Record of the debate on H.R. 282, the ``Iran Freedom Support Act.''

[From the Asia Times, March 30, 2006]

Neo-Con Cabal Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks

(By Gareth Porter)

Washington.--The George W. Bush administration failed to

enter into negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program in

May 2003 because neo-conservatives who advocated

destabilization and regime change were able to block any

serious diplomatic engagement with Tehran, according to

former administration officials.

The same neo-conservative veto power also prevented the

administration from adopting any official policy statement on

Iran, those same officials said.

Lawrence Wilkerson, then chief of staff to secretary of

state Colin Powell, said the failure to adopt a formal Iran

policy in 2002-03 was the result of obstruction by a ``secret

cabal'' of neo-conservatives in the administration, led by

Vice President Dick Cheney.

``The secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations with

Tehran,'' Wilkerson wrote in an e-mail to Inter Press Service

(IPS). The Iranian negotiating offer, transmitted to the

State Department in early May 2003 by the Swiss ambassador in

Tehran, acknowledged that Iran would have to address U.S.

concerns about its nuclear program, although it made no

specific concession in advance of the talks, according to

Flynt Leverett, then the National Security Council's senior

director for Middle East Affairs.

Iran's offer also raised the possibility of cutting off

Iran's support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad and converting

Hezbollah into a purely socio-political organization,

according to Leverett. That was an explicit response to

Powell's demand in late March that Iran ``end its support for

terrorism''.

In return, Leverett recalls, the Iranians wanted the U.S.

to address security questions, the lifting of economic

sanctions and normalization of relations, including support

for Iran's integration into the global economic order.

Leverett also recalls that the Iranian offer was drafted

with the blessing of all the major political players in the

Iranian regime, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali

Khomeini.

Realists, led by Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage,

were inclined to respond positively to the Iranian offer.

Nevertheless, within a few days of its receipt, the State

Department had rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed

on the offer.

Exactly how the decision was made is not known. ``As with

many of these issues of national security decision-making,

there are no fingerprints,'' Wilkerson told IPS. ``But I

would guess Dick Cheney with the blessing of George W.

Bush.''

As Wilkerson observes, however, the mysterious death of

what became known among Iran specialists as Iran's ``grand

bargain'' initiative was a result of the administration's

inability to agree on a policy toward Tehran.

A draft National Security Policy Directive (NSPD) on Iran

calling for diplomatic engagement had been in the process of

interagency coordination for more than a year, according to a

source who asked to remain unidentified.

But it was impossible to get formal agreement on the NSPD,

the source recalled, because officials in Cheney's office and

in under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's

Office of Special Plans wanted a policy of regime change and

kept trying to amend it.

Opponents of the neo-conservative policy line blame

Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, for the

failure of the administration to override the extremists in

the administration. The statutory policymaker process on

Iran, Wilkerson told IPS in an e-mail, was ``managed by a

national security adviser incapable of standing up to the

cabal . . .''

In the absence of an Iran policy, the two contending camps

struggled in 2003 over a proposal by realists in the

administration to reopen the Geneva channel with Iran that

had been used successfully on Afghanistan in 2001-02. They

believed Iran could be helpful in stabilizing postconflict

Iraq, because the Iraqi Shi'ite militants whom they expected

to return from Iran after Saddam Hussein's overthrow owed

some degree of allegiance to Iran.

The neo-conservatives tried to block those meetings on

tactical policy grounds, according to Leverett. ``They were

saying we didn't want to engage with Iran because we didn't

want to owe them,'' he recalled.

Nevertheless, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay

Khalilzad (now envoy in Iraq) was authorized to begin meeting

secretly in Geneva with Iranian officials to discuss Iraq.

The neo-conservatives then tried to sandbag the talks by

introducing a demand for full information on any high-ranking

al-Oaeda cadres who might be detained by the Iranians.

Iran regarded that information as a bargaining chip to be

given up only for a quid pro quo from Washington. The Bush

administration, however, had adopted a policy in early 2002

of refusing to share any information with Iran on al-Oaeda or

other terrorist organizations.

On May 3,2003, as the Iranian ``grand bargain'' proposal

was on its way to Washington, Tehran's representative in

Geneva, Javad Zarif, offered a compromise on the issue,

according to Leverett: if the U.S. gave Iran the names of the

cadres of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) who were being held by

U.S. forces in Iraq, Iran would give the U.S. the names of

the al-Oaeda operatives they had detained.

The MEK had carried out armed attacks against Iran from

Iraqi territory during the Hussein regime and had been named

a terrorist organization by the U.S. But it had capitulated

to U.S. forces after the invasion, and the neo-conservatives

now saw the MEK as a potential asset in an effort to

destabilize the Iranian regime.

The MEK had already become a key element in the alternative

draft NSPD drawn up by neo-conservatives in the

administration.

The indictment of Iran analyst Larry Franklin on Feith's

staff last year revealed that, by February 2003, Franklin had

begun sharing a draft NSPD that he knew would be to the

liking of the Israeli Embassy.

(Franklin eventually pleaded guilty to passing classified

information to two employees of an influential pro-Israel

lobbying group and was sentenced to 12 and a half years in

prison.)

Reflecting the substance of that draft policy, ABC News

reported on May 30, 2003, that the Pentagon was calling for

the destabilization of the Iranian government by ``using all

available points of pressure on the Iranian regime, including

backing armed Iranian dissidents and employing the services

of the Mujahideen-e Khalq . . .''

Nevertheless, Bush apparently initially saw nothing wrong

with trading information on MEK, despite arguments that MEK

should not be repatriated to Iran. ``I have it on good

authority,'' Leverett told IPS, ``that Bush's initial

reaction was, `But we say there is no such thing as a good

terrorist.' '' Nevertheless, Bush finally rejected the

Iranian proposal.

By the end of May, the neo-conservatives had succeeded in

closing down the Geneva channel for good. They had hoped to

push through their own NSPD on Iran, but according to the

Franklin indictment, Franklin told an Israeli Embassy officer

in October that work on the NSPD had been stopped.

But the damage had been done. With no direct diplomatic

contact between Iran and the U.S., the neo-conservatives had

a clear path to raising tensions and building political

support for regarding Iran as the primary enemy of the United

States.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Military Range Legacy Act of 2006.'' This bill strengthens military base clean- up programs through the use and development of new technologies, better programmatic organization, and a greater attention to the needs of the communities impacted by base closures.

I am proud that the United States has the best trained military in the world. Yet, as a result of this training, over 3,000 sites on former military ranges are contaminated with unexploded ordnance, UXO discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents. These sites, littered with still-dangerous explosives and harmful contaminants, pose health and safety risks to our communities while preventing the redevelopment of closed bases and limiting opportunities for job creation and economic growth. By passing the Military Range Legacy Act or including provisions of it in the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act and providing the necessary funding, we can achieve real progress towards making our former defense communities safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome this morning the University of Portland Women's Soccer Team to our Capitol and congratulate them for their undefeated season, winning the 2005 NCAA Champion Division I Title, their second championship in 4 years. Even the team's dedicated fans have set a new NCAA attendance record for any soccer season, men or women.

I want to congratulate University President, Father Bill Beauchamp, Head Coach Garrett Smith, and the entire university community as the Pilots carried on the legacy of the late legendary coach Clive Charles.

Most of all, I congratulate these women whose combination of athletic and academic excellence is an inspiration for young people everywhere, especially today's young women.

There is much to celebrate ``Up on the Bluff.'' The women's soccer team is a great example of excellence at the University of Portland. I welcome them to the Capitol and their White House ceremony later today.

Mr. Speaker, throughout my career, I have consistently and strongly supported sensible campaign finance reform. As introduced, H.R. 513, the 527 Reform Act, was a measure I could have supported. In the long run, it would have been politically neutral; not giving an advantage to either Republicans or Democrats.

However, with the changes that have been made to the bill by the Republican leadership, this bill would needlessly allow unlimited contributions from party committees to coordinate with campaigns and thereby dramatically raising the amount of money spent on elections, not reduce it. This provision alone would dramatically undermine the campaign finance reforms we worked so hard to put in place in 2002. The bill is neither necessary nor fair and would increase the role of money in campaigns and elections.

Mr. Speaker, more than 87 million Americans tune into public television each week and 30 million listen to public radio. And they depend on this Congress to provide some of the economic resources so that in every community across the country people can listen to those thousand public radio and television stations for programs that inform and inspire.

For help with reading, job training, for the latest digital services, for local news and information, for dozens of other reasons. These stations around the country determine their own program schedules. They often produce their own programming. We, in Oregon, are immensely proud of Oregon Public Broadcasting for its award winning programming. They respond to community needs and leverage local support that is so important.

While the Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes its annual appropriations from Congress in accordance to a statutory formula for which almost 72 percent of the funds go directly to local public radio and television stations, the Federal appropriations while it only accounts for 15 percent of the entire costs, it leverages critical investments from State and local governments, from universities, businesses and foundations, and most important, from millions of viewers and listeners of public television and radio. They add their dollars to this core vital Federal support, writing checks to allow the public broadcasting to continue. However, we have faced issues of major reduction in this funding which would have immediate and severe impacts on our community and constituents.

Last month, 126 bipartisan Members signed a letter in support for $430 million in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This is a modest amount by reckoning of the vast sums that are thrown around here in Washington, DC, but it has a critical impact. It is going to be essential that we provide the core funding for the Corporation For Public Broadcasting and hopefully retain the practice of advanced funding which costs the Treasury nothing but gives public broadcasting certainty over time so that they can plan on allowing for the changes and development that they need.

There has been a modest request that has been suggested, $30 million above the fiscal 2006 funding. This is going to not even cover the additional electricity costs that public television must bear to operate both a digital and analogue transmitter. That transition to digital technology is also important for Congress to focus on. It is not cheap.

Public broadcasting has led the way. They have raised more than $1.1 billion from all sources for this purpose. We are asking for a little additional money, an increase of $10 million this year. This can have a critical impact, not just on the clarity of the broadcast that is received by people in their homes, but there is also an opportunity to replace and update the television interconnection system, known as the Next Generation Interconnection System, that the Department of Homeland Security has been testing as a foundation for a new digital emergency alert system. Not just better service for people at home, but an important potential addition to our homeland security.

Last but by no means least deals with educational technology. In the No Child Left Behind legislation passed in 2001, Congress authorized two programs, Ready to Learn and Ready to Teach. Ready to Learn harnesses television's universal reach to improve early childhood learning, while Ready to Teach uses technology to develop more highly- qualified teachers to measurably increase student standards. It is important to make sure that we support Ready to Learn, which received a small increase last year, focused on literacy and teacher professional development. Ready to Teach last year actually sustained a cut. It is requested that funding for both programs be increased in fiscal 2007 to $32 million for Ready to Learn and $15 million for Ready to Teach.

Last year we had to come to the floor with a strong bipartisan vote where 87 Republicans joined with every single Democrat to restore Draconian cuts to public broadcasting. This year it is more important than ever for education, for the Public Broadcasting Service, and for national security that we not have to go through that effort.

I urge my colleagues to look carefully at the requests that have been made for public broadcasting and join with us this year in assuring a strong funding base that will leverage hundreds of millions of dollars across America and provide the services Americans deserve.

Mr. Chairman, at a time when the global economy demands a highly trained, educated workforce, Congress is making it more difficult for our students to succeed. The Higher Education Reauthorization Act represents a missed opportunity at a critical time for improving education.

All across America, communities are struggling to deal with education funding for preschools through high schools. Many of these communities are recovering from difficult economic times and have financially stressed the local education systems. Many states have responded to budget crunches by reducing their support for postsecondary education at a time when we need to be desperately training students for their own as well as the country's future. It is expected by 2020, the U.S. will experience a shortage of up to 12 million college-educated workers. We are providing less support as a percentage of overall educational costs than ever before.

In part, it is because of a tragic decision of the Republican majority to sacrifice education for $70 billion in tax benefits for America's wealthiest individuals. This has made the funding problem even worse than it needs to be. There are opportunities to simplify financial aide forms, to increase access to higher education and to improve higher education, but instead that focus is lost. Had a truly bipartisan approach been taken by Congress a much better bill would have been possible.

Tuition and fees have already climbed by 46 percent at four-year public colleges since 2001, nearly six times faster than Pell Grant Scholarships. Students are taking on record high loan debt and working longer hours in order to attend college. There are over 90,000 Oregonians borrowing money to attend college. While costs are going up and burdens on families are greater, there is less federal support.

Many of the higher education professionals that I have worked with suggests they would rather have another extension of the current law than this reauthorization, quite an indictment and a signal of what we should be doing. I am hopeful that as this bill works its way through the legislative process that logic and the needs of students, families and our society for a well educated citizenry will prevail. Although, I am pleased the bill includes the bipartisan Blumenauer-Ehlers-Wu amendment to convene a summit of higher education experts working in the area of sustainable operations and programs, we can make this bill better and until that happens I cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, last week President Bush said that we were going to bring our troops home, but it is going to be a problem for the next President.

This is not a strategy to win the peace; it is just running out the clock and letting the next coach play sudden death. His flawed premise got us into this war ill prepared. He was wrong when he famously declared 1,061 days ago, ``Mission accomplished,'' but his worst calculation is just holding on.

It is time to start bringing the troops home according to a plan. As we phase down, it is important to increase Iraq's role in its own future. It is immoral to just pass this on to the next President, and shame on us if we let President Bush do that.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of my colleagues, Congressman Ehlers and Congressman Wu, that would bring about a national summit on sustainability.

There is a quiet revolution that is occurring in communities across the country. Hospitals, businesses, local governments, many educational institutions are all involved with pioneering efforts to promote sustainable development, energy efficiency.

There is local produce that is being used by businesses and universities in their cafeterias. People are more sensitive to landscaping, carpet supplies, transportation alternatives. Time does not allow me to even list the programs in just my community, at Portland State University, the University of Portland, Lewis & Clark College, Nike, Intel, Kaiser Permanente. These institutions are putting into practice groundbreaking procedures that allow us to live more lightly on the land.

This is a great opportunity for the Department of Education to spotlight these best practices around the country, ways to save money, ways to live and practice our environmental values. And one wonders whether there is any better way for students to learn than to actually explore ways to put these elements into practice. I am confident that ultimately this process can help lead to more leadership, more investment, and stronger policies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's comments and his spotlighting Portland State University.

Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is adopted, no later than May of next year, the Secretary of Education is to convene a summit of higher education experts working in these areas. We have a vast array of people available around the country.

As my colleague pointed out, this is cost effective. This is what America needs to do to face its energy challenges, clean air, clean water. And what better way than to have higher education lead and being able to model and employ some of the best practices that we see in local communities, in the business community, and in the pioneering leadership on behalf of students themselves?

Mr. Chairman, we respectfully hope that the House will not only adopt this amendment, but that we will find ways in other legislative vehicles to advance the principles that are involved here, not just for higher education. One longs for the day when the Federal Government itself models those important principles.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the accomplishments of PECO Inc., a company that operates in Oregon's 3rd Congressional District and has been in business for nearly 70 years.

PECO Inc. has received Boeing's ``Supplier of the Year'' honor for the Interiors category. This distinguished award highlights the value of efficient, professional companies with long histories in this region.

PECO Inc. employs more than 200 people, and has previously won the Boeing President's Award in 1988 and the Outstanding Performance Award in 1994, as well as similar awards from IBM, Raytheon, Control Data, Varian, and Storage Technology. The employees at PECO Inc., have earned a high honor for the region.

Mr. Speaker, there is no place more sacred for me than the Vietnam Memorial. A close second is the Lincoln Memorial. I visit and run by these poignant places on our National Mall on a nearly daily basis when Congress is in session.

When changes to the Mall are planned it is critical to have a process in place to protect the integrity of the memorials that honor our history. I'm appalled that a bill such as this is coming before Congress, which short circuits the well-functioning process currently in place.

This isn't about bureaucracy and the environment. This is about respect for two sacred places.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 1: At the end of title IX of the Amendment

add the following new section: