Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, each year, funding for essential programs under this bill is drastically cut. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, the Community Oriented Policing Services, and the Public Telecommunications Facilities and Planning Account are all examples of successful and important programs that have been continually under-funded. While I have supported this appropriations bill in the past, the cumulative affect of these cuts has reached a point where I can no longer support the legislation.

I was heartened to see the Sanders amendment pass which will repeal some of the most dangerous provisions of the PATRIOT Act. This is a common sense step to restore some of our civil liberties. I was also pleased that the Committee did not include the Administration's proposed initiative under the Commerce Department, which would have obliterated Community Development Block Grants as well as other valuable community development programs.

These victories, however, are not enough to compensate for the unacceptable cuts to community policing programs, public broadcasting, and economic development programs, along with many other programs that positively contribute to the livability of our communities. I cannot support a bill that fails to support these basic needs of our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the debate on this issue is so limited. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) was unable to present the evidence that the teen use of marijuana, since the approval by the State of California, has gone down. And I would put this in the Record.

This is an opportunity for us to clarify that the 10 States, including my State of Oregon, which was approved by the voters, have the right to make sure that the 10,000 people who are using medical marijuana under the supervision of 1,700 doctors have that right. It is outrageous that the Federal Government would intervene over the rights of States like mine, like Arizona, like California where people are taking these steps. It is a sorry continuation of attempts by this Congress to try to criminalize Oregon's Death with Dignity law, the only State in the Union with end-of-life protection, and the sorry spectacle we had here on the floor where Congress was intervening with the Terry Schiavo family.

I strongly urge the approval of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.

I feel a certain irony that we are having this debate today in the aftermath of the final disclosure of the identity of Deep Throat who was part of an effort in the Federal Government to cover up illegal acts at the highest level of American government; and, in fact, Deep Throat was the number two member of the FBI caught up in the internal swirl of politics.

I would suggest that 9/11 was not so much a failure of secret access to our library records and to bookstores; but it was the fact that the FBI did not know how to talk to itself, how to listen to people who actually had information.

We do not need to extend this reach. We have tools available. The problem that we have seen over and over again is that the Federal Government has, in fact, abused the rights of American citizens, including in the FBI.

I would suggest that rather than drag our bookstores and our libraries into this ill-considered issue, that we would be far better off to approve the Sanders amendment, which is a small step towards sanity in this regard.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time to speak on the rule.

I favor the rule. It will enable us today later in the debate to consider an amendment that, if approved, will reduce by 6 percent the sugar subsidy that we have under our current system.

We will hear in the course of this debate how the current sugar subsidization is a serious misallocation of resources to a few large farmers and agribusiness interests when we are unable to meet the needs under the ag bill for America's small- and medium-sized farmers.

We will learn how the current policies damage the environment, especially in the Everglades. The Everglades are polluted from the practice of cane sugar production, threatening drinking water for south Florida, maritime habitat is seriously damaged, and makes the $8 billion down payment that we have made on the cleanup of the Everglades harder, larger and ultimately more expensive.

The current policies violate our own principles of free trade. Forty- one other sugar-producing countries cannot compete with the lavishly subsidized American market, where they are largely excluded, particularly for poor countries. It makes our free trade arguments hypocritical.

It is costing American consumers with this unjustified subsidy, forcing them to pay two or three times the world price for sugar. And it is costing jobs. There are seven times more businesses that use sugar than produce sugar and is forcing them, I see my colleague from Illinois here, where the confectionery industry in Illinois is being driven across the border to Canada because the raw material is so much cheaper.

There will be an opportunity, thankfully, to discuss this under an open rule, and I am hopeful that we will take this small step to put a little sanity in the way we treat sugar.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The United States sugar program is an archaic remnant of a Depression-era policy to artificially raise prices of sugar. Today, it harms American companies and consumers, while preventing developing nations from competing in the global market place. Everybody pays. U.S. consumers alone paid an additional 1 to $2 billion directly, and much more indirectly.

This is not a program that benefits our average family farmer. Under the 2002 farm bill, the sugar program has 42 percent of the sugar benefits going to the most profitable 1 percent of large corporate sugar farmers. This policy weakens our credibility for trade liberalization as it continues protection of sugar policies that restrict trade. These continuing subsidies are harming progress in the current Doha Round, a key component of which is to reduce unnecessary agricultural subsidies worldwide.

We saw an example in the discussion of the Australian Free Trade Agreement where, to keep our outrageous sugar subsidies in place, the United States acceded to Australia's position on maintaining monopolies for the export of wheat, barley and rice, therefore closing off export opportunities to United States farmers producing these crops.

It is, I think, outrageous in current American free trade CAFTA, where we are watching the door barely open over the next 15 years. If it were to pass, these countries would be able to export only 1.7 percent of the U.S. consumption.

This policy of supporting high-cost producers and limiting imports through quotas deprives more low, cost-efficient producers in developing nations. These protectionist policies in developed countries have deprived poor, desperately poor countries like Ethiopia, Mozambique and Malawi of $238 million in sales since 2001.

The current U.S. sugar program emphasis on overproduction has caused environmental degradation in environmentally sensitive areas, particularly the Florida Everglades and the Mississippi Delta wetlands. The down payment on cleaning up the Everglades that are significantly damaged by sugar production is nearly $8 billion.

Mr. Chairman, the impact on jobs in the United States is also unfortunate. The number of employees in sugar-using industries, an estimated 724,000 jobs, is 12 times the 61,000 sugar production jobs in the United States. It produces a loss of jobs as sugar-intensive industries like confectionery move to Canada and other low-cost areas. This is an opportunity today to correct that.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), but the fact is that the people who are involved with sugar are not going broke. The point I made is that the top 1 percent get 42 percent of the benefits.

We do not have a problem of sugar production in this country. First of all, we produce so much sugar and if it falls below the target level they just turn the sugar over to the government and walk away from the loans. In 2002, we were paying more than a million dollars a month just to store the surplus sugar, just to store the surplus sugar.

We have 41 other countries around the world that are ready, willing and able to go into the United States market, but are not able to do so. Some of us say we believe in free trade, but we will not allow free trade when it comes to sugar because it is so intensely protected.

I have here and include for the Record an open letter to the United States Congress and the President signed by 50 prominent academicians, consumer experts, trade advocates, taxpayer advocates, and people who care about the environment that talk about what an outrage it is to continue this pattern.

Mr. Chairman, we just heard ``people are not asking the government to take care of this.'' Wait a minute, the government absolutely is taking care of the sugar industry in this country.

I am not talking about the problems that genuinely affect family farms. If we were doing the right thing instead of lavishing subsidy on people who do not need it and funding the promise of the agriculture bill for things like environmental cleanup, we could help those family farmers. I think it is about time to get this in perspective and not confuse lavish sugar benefits with helping ordinary family farmers.

March 15, 2005.

Open Letter to The President and the U.S. Congress

Sour Subsidies--U.S. sugar policy is unfair to American consumers and

to poor countries; harms the environment

Summary: The current sugar policy in the United States--a

system of price supports and import restrictions--cannot be

justified on economic or humanitarian grounds. It imposes

high costs on U.S. consumers and taxpayers and causes job

losses in the U.S. In addition, the sugar program causes

enironmental damage and blights economic opportunities for

many small farmers in poor countries, primarily for the

benefit of a small group of well-off producers.

The U.S. sugar policy started 70 years ago during the Great

Depression as a temporary support program for U.S. growers.

The system of price supports and import restrictions allows

growers in the U.S. to charge consumers and other users

artificially high prices for sugar and other sweeteners,

currently more than two to three times the world market

price. During those 70 years, 18 presidential elections have

taken place, and still consumers and taxpayers are paying to

support sugar beet and sugar cane growers.

The sugar program is a transfer of wealth from those who

often can least afford it to a smalll group of sugar

producers. The American public transfers about $1.3 billion

each year to support the sugar beet and cane growers in the

U.S. The primary beneficiaries of the program are a few large

corporations rather than small family farm operations, as was

originally intended.

The disadvantaged lose the most when food prices are

manipulated to support sugar producers. American consumers

are forced to pay two to three times the world market price

for sugar. Because sugar is a key ingredient in many foods,

including whole grain breads, high-fiber cereals, and fruit

preserves, the higher prices have a disproportionate impact

on those families, who pay a larger percentage of their

income on food. As a result, families with children and

people on low and fixed incomes are hit the hardest by the

U.S. sugar program. Sugar reform would give American families

a real break for their food budget.

The miguided support policy destroys precious natural

habitats. The current sugar policy's incentives for

overproduction have caused environmental degradation in

ecologically sensitive areas, including the Florida

Everglades and the Mississippi Delta wetlands. The impact is

particularly acute in the Everglades, as the U.S. grows much

of its cane sugar in Florida, resulting in the diversion of

sorely-needed water from the country's most famous and

endangered wetland. Sugar producers are seriously polluting

these valuable wetlands to produce sugar that could be

produced with less cost and pollution in a number of other

countries. In addition, the U.S. is growing sugar beets with

high costs and poor sugar yields per acre on land that could

readily be shifted to crops with higher comparative

advantage, such as feedstuffs.

Domestic sugar policy has contributed to the loss of jobs

in the sugar-using industry. The number of employees in the

sugar-using industry--an estimated 724,000--vastly outnumbers

the 61,000 sugar production jobs in the United States. The

artificially inflated domestic sugar price increases the

costs of production for sugar-using industries, which has led

to some companies moving their facilities to other countries

and has added to U.S. job losses in these industries.

Sugar producers in developing countries bear the brunt of

rich countries' support programs. Domestic subsidies and

protectionism distort the price of sugar on the world market.

Poor farmers in developing countries--no matter how

efficient--cannot compete with sugar unloaded on the world

market by rich countries' subsidized producers, and a

valuable opportunity for achieving higher living standards is

lost.

The United States undermines its global leadership role in

promoting open trade by insisting on indefensible sugar

protectionism. While the U.S. promotes open trade in many

venues, it is one of the worst offenders in distorting world

sugar markets. The United States' exemption of sugar from

recent trade negotiations has undermined the country's

ability to negotiate and achieve more open trade with other

nations. This special protection of sugar has cost other U.S.

producers broader export opportunities and U.S. consumers the

chance to benefit from more open trade with these countries.

The U.S. sugar policy affects other economic and policy

objectives besides trade. Reforming one of the most

protectionist agricultural programs could contribute to

economic growth and stability in other parts of the world and

demonstrate U.S. willingness to embrace broader international

cooperation.

As a group of non-profit organizations representing

consumers, citizens, and taxpayers, we support a fundamental

reform of the United States' sugar policy.

Removing protectionist barriers to sugar around the world

could lower the price for U.S. consumers by 25 percent from

current, artificially high levels.

Reducing support in the U.S. could save consumers and

taxpayers up to $1.3 billion per year.

The net loss to the U.S. economy due to the sugar support

program in 1998, the most recent year for which analysis is

available, is about $900 million, according to the U.S.

General Accounting Office.

Reducing sugar cane production in Florida could improve

environmental quality as water-retention capacity in the

Florida Everglades watershed could be increased.

Lowering sugar overproduction can help reduce the impact of

pesticide and fertilizer usage on the environment.

Reducing costs for sugar-using industries could help retain

workers.

The benefits for developing countries would also be

substantial:

If rich countries' sugar subsidies and trade barriers were

eliminated, it is estimated that the world market price of

sugar could rise by almost 40 percent, providing valuable

economic opportunities. At the same time, consumers in

heavily protected markets such as the U.S. would still enjoy

an overall benefit of a reduction in prices of about 25

percent.

If the U.S. is serious about helping poorer countries, it

has to open up its markets for those countries' products,

which would help U.S. consumers and create employment not

only in poor countries but also in the large sugar-using

sectors in the U.S.

The undersigned urge our public and political

representatives to debate the need for reforming this

destructive policy that hurts consumers and taxpayers in the

United States, harms the environment, and holds back further

ecommic development in many poor countries around the world.

Frances B. Smith--Consumer Alert; Barbara Rippel--

Consumer Alert; Rhoda

Karpatkin--Consumers Union; Mark Silbergeld--Consumer

Federation of America; Pam Slater--Consumers for World

Trade; John Frydenlund--Citizens Against Government

Waste; Dennis Avery--Hudson Institute--Center for

Global Food Issues; Alex Avery--Hudson Institute--

Center for Global Food Issues; Greg Conko--Competitive

Enterprise Institute; Fred Smith--Competitive

Enterprise Institute; Fred Oladeinde--The Foundation

for Democracy in Aftica; Tad DeHaven--National

Taxpayers Union; Chad Dobson--Oxfam America; Philip D.

Harvey--DKT Liberty Project; Phil Kerpen--Free

Enterprise Fund;

Clayton Yeutter--Former U.S. Trade Representative and

former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture; Nathaniel P.

Reed--Chairman Emeritus, 1000 Friends of Florida and

former Assistant Secretary of the Interior; Professor

William L. Anderson--Dept. of Economics, Frostburg

State University; Professor James T. Bennett--Dept. of

Economics, George Mason University; Sam Bostaph,

Ph.D.--Associate Professor and Chairman, Dept. of

Economics, University of Dallas; Donald J. Boudreaux--

Chairman, Dept. of Economics, George Mason University;

John Bratland, Ph.D.--Economist, U.S. Department of the

Interior;

Peter T. Calcagno, Ph.D.--Assistant Professor of

Economics, Department of Economics and Finance, College

of Charleston; Professor Lloyd Cohen--School of Law,

George Mason University; Professor John P. Cochran--

Metropolitan State College of Denver; James Rolph

Edwards, Ph.D.--Professor of Economics, Montana State

University-Northern; Professor Kenneth G. Elzinga--

Robert C. Taylor Professor of Economics, Dept. of

Economics, University of Virginia; Professor William P.

Field--Dept. of Economics (emeritus), Nicholls State

University; Professor Gary Galles--Professor of

Economics, Pepperdine University; S. D. Garthoff--

Adjunct Faculty, Dept. of Economics, Summit College--

The University of Akron;

Professor Robin Hanson--George Mason University; David R.

Henderson--Research Fellow, Hoover Institution; Robert

Higgs, Ph.D.--The Independent Institute; Professor

Steven Horwitz--Professor of Economics, Associate Dean

of the First Year, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY;

Professor Daniel Klein--Dept. of Economics, Santa Clara

University; Professor Laurence Iannaccone--Dept. of

Economics, George Mason University; Dr. Arnold Kling--

www.econlog.org; Professor Dwight R. Lee--Ramsey

Professor of Economics, University of Georgia;

Professor Leonard P. Liggio--Atlas Economic Research

Foundation; Professor Roger Meiners--University of

Texas at Arlington;

Professor Andrew Morriss--School of Law and Dept. of

Economics, Case Western Reserve University; Professor

Svetozar Pejovich--Dept. of Economics (emeritus), Texas

A&M University; Dr. William H. Peterson--Independent

economist, Washington, DC; Professor Adam Pritchard--

University of Michigan; Professor Gary Quinlivan--Dean

of the Alex G. McKenna School, St. Vincent College;

Professor Charles K. Rowley--General Director, The

Locke Institute; Karen Vaughn, Ph.D--Professor of

Economics (ret.), George Mason University; Professor

John T. Wenders--Dept. of Economics, University of

Idaho; Bart Wilson--Associate Professor, Dept. of

Economics, George Mason University; Professor William

Woolsey--Dept. of Economics, The Citadel.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the coauthor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I have great respect for my friend from Florida, but I have three brief observations. First of all, the notion that there is no cost to the taxpayer is just simply not the case. Consumers in this country by all independent estimates are paying between $1 billion and $2 billion a year extra in the price that they pay for sugar and sugar-related products. Second, there is never a good time to consider this. This amendment is not pulling the rug out from underneath sugar producers. It would be a 6 percent reduction in the lavish Federal subsidy. This will be a good signal for people to get serious about making a change.

I heard my friend from Virginia talk about the problem under CAFTA. That is an example of how hard-nosed and extreme the sugar interests are. Getting 1.7 percent of the market over 15 years is such that they consider it being tantamount to World War III. I think that is an example of the mind-set of this industry, how intransigent they are and why we need to address it today.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. No one has more respect for the gentleman from Idaho than I have, but the dynamic that is going on here is that we provide the most lavish support for sugar production in the world. These other countries cannot compete with us. I have mentioned and I have entered into the Record areas where countries like Mozambique and Malawi, where they are losing business, they cannot compete in terms of what the United States does with our dramatically subsidized sugar.

Were we to stop this program, and bear in mind I am not suggesting stopping it, everybody is exercised because we are talking about a 6 percent reduction, but if we were to go to a world market price we would find that the world price would increase but we would find that prices in the United States would decrease, and we would save damage to the environment and to United States production. I think it is a win- win situation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is a fascinating debate that we are having. I appreciate the spirited nature, and I hope that it leads to a broader discussion, because I hope each and every Member does his or her own individual research and considers some

of the fantastic claims that have been made here.

I had one of my colleagues say, ``We have the most open market in the world for sugar in the United States.'' Let us take a step back and have people examine that, because no expert that I have heard suggests that that is remotely the case.

``Sugar does not receive any special benefits or treatment''? Not true. Sugar alone has this system of keeping out production from 41 other countries except under tightly controlled circumstances and providing lavish guarantees to many large sugar producers.

The point I made earlier, was not that somebody couldn't cite a poor sugar farmer that he or she may know someplace. The point I made is that if the Members care about poor farmers and other areas of agriculture, take a look at this program. Forty-two percent of the benefit goes to the top 1 percent of the producers. It is outrageous. It is how they are able to become the top agricultural contributors to political campaigns in the United States Congress, even though sugar farmers are only 1 percent of our farm production.

I heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) say he did not care about people in Mozambique. It was about jobs in Belle Glade, FL. That is an interesting quotation to come from him as a champion of open trade and a member of our Committee on Ways and Means. I will look forward to hearing his saying something like that when it comes to CAFTA or the next trade legislation. That is completely contrary to what I have understood his position to be in the past.

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to lavish support for the sugar industry, we turn a blind eye, either for politics or for sentimentality, but the fact is that we are consistently, consistently, paying raw sugar prices two to three times the world price. Do not take my word for it. Go to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that we rely upon or, as I mentioned, the experts that I am putting in the Record.

We consistently, consistently in this country pay more. That is why we are taking $1 to $2 billion out of the pockets of the consumer and into the hands of the sugar industry, and that is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the costs.

I mentioned Florida. We would not be putting 450,000 acres in sugarcane production in Florida draining into the Everglades if it were not for this lavish program. But we are as a Congress because of the legacy of the explosive growth.

I will wrap up by saying there is a lot to say. I urge colleagues to examine it and to approve the Blumenauer-Flake amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention ``America's Nurse,'' an op-ed highlighting the importance of nurses in our country that was published in the New York Times written by Teri Mills, a constituent of mine.

[From the New York Times, May 20, 2005]

America's Nurse

(By Teri Mills)

So, national nurses' week has come and gone and what

happened? Nothing, despite estimates that by 2020 there will

be 400,000 fewer nurses than are needed in this country.

Drastic action is required. And here's the action I suggest:

dethrone the surgeon general and appoint a National Nurse.

Here's why. Prevention is the best way to lower health care

costs. If people take care of themselves and don't get sick .

. . well, you know the rest. And who better to educate

Americans on how to take better care of themselves than

nurses?

After all, nurses are considered the most honest and

ethical professionals, according to a recent Gallup poll.

It's the nurse whom the patient trusts to explain the

treatment ordered by a doctor. It is the nurse who teaches

new parents how to care for their newborn. It is the nurse

who explains to the family how to comfort a dying loved one.

1Meanwhile, the surgeon general, the nation's head doctor,

is all but invisible. If you went to a supermarket and asked

10 people the surgeon general's name or to describe his or

her role, it's unlikely that you would find anyone who could.

(It's Richard H. Carmona, by the way.)

Now, I'm not saying that a National Nurse will become a

household name immediately. But given all that's at stake--

the health of a nation--and given the surgeon

general's inability to connect with Americans, it seems to

me that we should at least give nurses a try.

Here's what I'd have the National Nurse do. She or he would

highlight health care education through 15-minute weekly

broadcasts that would also be available on the Internet. The

emphasis would be on prevention: how to have a healthy heart;

how to raise your teenagers without going crazy; how to avoid

being swept into the growing tide of obesity.

The Office of the National Nurse would yield benefits in a

multitude of ways. The informational programs would decrease

dependence on a health care system that is not only expensive

but at times inaccessible, especially for those who lack

insurance or live in rural areas. Through the office, nurses

could sign up for a National Nurse Corps that would organize

activities to enhance health in their communities. A National

Nurse would give public recognition to the valuable work that

nurses perform each day; if we're lucky, the National Nurse

would help stem the nursing shortage by attracting people to

the profession.

A National Nurse won't solve all of our country's health

care problems, but one would definitely improve the

situation. America has a history of honoring great nurses--

from Clara Barton to Susie Walking Bear Yellowtail. Isn't it

time we did so again?

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

I, too, am pleased with the establishment of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. This is an important new development to be able to look holistically at the needs of our military.

I also appreciate the great leadership that this subcommittee has with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). These are people who have proven their commitments to our veterans and who understand the intricacies of the appropriations process, are willing to get into the details and work hard. I commend their leadership, and look forward to ultimately supporting this bill today.

I certainly support the open rule that has been granted, as is customary for an appropriations bill, particularly because it will allow for the first time in at least 10 years, and perhaps longer, for us to have a specific vote on the opportunity to have money dedicated to the cleanup of unexploded ordnance and military pollution.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the great hidden issues surrounding military quality of life. Unexploded ordnance and military toxins pollute an area we anticipate is larger than the States of Maryland and Massachusetts combined. Let me repeat that. We face military pollution of over 200 years of military activity in this country that is suspected to pollute an area larger than the combined States of Maryland and Massachusetts.

This is an area that is taking billions of dollars, we do not know how much, frankly, and we are on a path, given the current patterns of expenditure, that it will take not dozens of years, not decades, but it could take centuries to clean up.

Now, military quality of life is threatened by exposure to unexploded ordnance and military toxins. My good friend from Massachusetts knows well the problem with the Massachusetts Military Reservation, where groundwater contamination is threatening the water supply of Martha's Vineyard, and there were 8,000 shells that have been discovered already, some within half a mile of an elementary school. We have the opportunity under this bill to be able to dedicate funds to meaningfully accelerate the cleanup.

I am shocked as a Member of Congress that we are talking about the fifth round of base closures, the fifth round of base closures, threatening upset for communities across the country and job loss, and we have not yet cleaned up bases that were closed in the 1988 round.

I will be offering amendments to remedy this situation and deal with the unexploded ordnance and the military toxins. I would suggest that this is an opportunity that will not only protect the people in these communities that lost military facilities and were not cleaned up, but it will accelerate the development of technology that will save lives for our military around the world. Because the sooner we can figure out whether it is a hubcap or a shell that is buried, it is not just going to make a difference in Massachusetts or in Georgia, where you have unexploded ordnance, or in my State, but it will make a difference in Iraq, Afghanistan and for innocent people that are dying in former battlefields every day around the world.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, am pleased that we have the creation of a Military Quality of Life committee. It is hard to imagine more capable leadership than that that will be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and there is tremendous potential to look holistically at the problems and opportunities dealing with military quality of life.

I am particularly pleased because it will give for the first time a true focus to look at what is a serious, hidden issue of military quality of life, and that is military cleanup. For too long, this Congress has been missing in action. It has never given priority to the vast stretches of the United States in every State of the Union, an area the size of the States of Maryland and Massachusetts combined, to deal with the cleanup of past military activities.

It impacts our troops and their families on the bases, their neighbors past and present, and it has significant financial impacts, although if we do this job right, we have the opportunity to dramatically reduce the cost. I am impressed over the last 7 years working on this issue that the military, the men and women in the ranks, want to do this job right. They have sensitivity to the environment and they know that they are in trouble if they are exposed unnecessarily to pollution and unexploded ordnance.

Cleanup gives the military many advantages. There are less hazards to fighting men and women. There will be more area to train. There are better relationships with the surrounding area. Most important, it will develop tools and techniques that will save American lives. It will give the military long-term security with these new techniques and technologies.

Every day people die unnecessarily from land mines and UXO around the world. I am going to offer some amendments because, frankly, as much respect as I have for the new subcommittee and the fact it is new, they are looking at a whole new range of areas.

We are looking at allocating over $1.5 billion to the 2005 base closure rounds, and we have not yet cleaned up after the very first round of military closures. That is unacceptable. It is time for Congress to no longer be missing in action. We need to step up, provide the guidance, and clean up these areas.

It is unacceptable after 17 years that we will tell the people in Sacramento that their base might be cleaned up in the year 2072. The money is available. The Congress just needs to find the will to allocate it and support the Military Quality of Life Subcommittee in its important work to make sure that we protect military families and the military environment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciated what we just heard a moment ago from the chairman and my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). And I appreciate the gentleman's long involvement with this issue and sensitizing us to it.

I am deeply concerned that the parameters that the gentleman from California outlined are such that we are going to have to take a serious step back and do something this Congress. I mentioned earlier, I know that the new subcommittee's configuration gave it broad scope with lots to do. But it is time for us to take a step back and give proper focus to the problem of military cleanup on bases that have been realigned and closed.

My amendment would simply say, before we start the fifth round of base closure, the fifth round, that we ought to take some of that money that has been designated for the fifth round and instead keep faith with the 17 communities that are waiting, now since 1988, to have their problems solved.

We are all aware of the trauma that can take place in communities when bases close, how they lose jobs. They are upset. But to compound it by leaving people with a toxic white elephant is absolutely unacceptable.

I have before me here a list of the 1988 BRAC installations and the estimated date of the cleanup. At the top of the list, in no particular order, in Sacramento, California. They are going to have to wait till the year 2072 to be able to fully clean this up.

As we go down the list, it is absolutely unacceptable. It is one of the reasons that we find such apprehension regarding the BRAC process, although there is the promise of redevelopment. There are opportunities that we have seen, for example, in Lowry Air Force Base in Denver. Where it is done right, bases can be cleaned up, it can add economic vitality to communities. The sorry fact is that we have not kept faith with the communities that have suffered base closure.

I strongly urge that each and every Member of Congress take a step back. To the best of my knowledge, we have not voted specifically to put money in the cleanup process in at least the 9 years that I have been in Congress, and I have not been able to identify a specific vote before that.

The fact is that Congress is missing in action. There are people in the Department of Defense who are skilled, eager and interested to go. There is a significant private sector range of activities, businesses that are ready to do their job in base cleanup.

What is missing is that Congress has never made it a funding priority. And at the top, at the Pentagon, despite having some great people through the last two administrations who understand this problem, it has never been a top priority of the Pentagon, until we come around again talking about base closures.

I am strongly suggesting that we step forward, that we allocate this $351 million, put it here, so that we are keeping faith with these people. The fact is that if we were to approve this amendment, it would still be only a third of what is necessary, less than a third of what is necessary to deal with prior base closures. And frankly, that is just the tip of the iceberg because there are 2,307 formerly used defense sites in every State of the Union that are littered with unexploded ordnance and military toxins.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to bring this amendment forward. I appreciate the opportunity of working with this subcommittee in the future, but I want to make clear that it is time for Congress to no longer be missing in action and to take this small step to keep faith with these people who have been waiting for 17 years for the Pentagon and Congress to do the cleanup job that faces them.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is my intention not to unduly delay this effort. I will withdraw this amendment at the end, but I want to finish the thought because I deeply appreciate what my colleagues have mentioned referencing the unexploded ordnance issue.

I want to agree with what the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) said, the Department of Defense is making tremendous progress dealing with cleanup of unexploded ordnance.

This is a representative sample of the problem. I will tell you that this picture could have been taken at any of dozens of sites around the country. What is most distressing is that we do not know the full extent of all of the unexploded ordnance that is our responsibility.

A couple of years ago, I led a tour with my colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), to the campus of American University where the toxic residue of World War I was still being cleaned up after three efforts. The child care center was closed down. An athletic field was denied access to athletes, and over the fence, the back yard of the $10 million little bungalow of the Korean ambassador was all dug up because they were trying to complete what they hoped might be the final cleanup of this site within the boundaries of the District of Columbia. There are 2,307 sites around the country were formally used sites.

It is true that these amendments, as the chairman says, may take a little money away from the fifth round. It may slow it. I would be prepared to argue that in good faith that it is not going to slow it, but frankly, if we cannot keep faith with the people 18 years ago, maybe we should slow it down before we go to the districts in Georgia and Connecticut and elsewhere around the country. But, in fact, I do not think that will be the case.

This program has been plagued by an on-again off-again effort. We have not geared it up. We have not turned loose the expertise in the military and in the private sector, people who could solve these problems if we had a guaranteed stream of funding.

If we did the research, we would find that more people would be in the business, the cost of the bids would go down, we would develop the technology, and not only would we remove unexploded ordnance that is in every State of the Union, but we would develop technology that would make our fighting men and women safer in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would make civilians safer in Southeast Asia and in Africa and the Balkans.

This is our responsibility, and we have been missing in action too long as a Congress.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) talks about the complexity of being able to survey large areas. It takes time. But there is new technology that can speed it up. I have been working with another subcommittee to get funding for what is called Wide Area Assessment. The Defense Science Board says if we would spend a billion dollars over the next 5 years, we could probably identify 8 million acres or more that was not contaminated. We could return it to be wildlife or redeveloped, or it could even be used for other military purposes. It is an example of where, if we do our job, we will save money, we will save lives, we will advance technology, and it will move forward.

I deeply appreciate the time that has been taken this afternoon for this discussion. I appreciate the chairman and ranking member for their engagement in this, for providing feedback to me and my staff and others, for the assurances that in conference we will try to move some of this money around, that the El Toro money that could be used for additional naval cleanup. All this is great, but it is a drop in the bucket of the overall problem. It is less than half of our obligation just for things that we have already closed.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, I am going to withdraw this amendment. I appreciate being able to make the point. I look forward to working with the gentleman, but I would hope that our colleagues will take this seriously because it can have vast implications for military readiness, for the environment, and keeping faith with our communities who expect that we will do our job. Today I hope we will take a step in doing just that.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time to speak on his motion to instruct.

And I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I join in the gentleman's assessment of the capacity of the chairman of our committee, who will be chairing the conference committee; and we know

there will be no cell phones that will violate the sanctity of the conference committee activity. Would that it would set the tone for the entire Congress.

I take modest exception to my friend from Florida, because I think the spirit with which this is offered is to, in fact, strengthen the foundation upon which the chairman and the members of our conference committee will go into this discussion. It is an opportunity for us to present a united front in the House.

I think it is quite clear, based on the work that has gone on in the course of the last 2\1/2\ years, that there is strong, strong interest and understanding and appreciation of what robust means. This is an opportunity for us to demonstrate once again the breadth of support that our chairman and our leadership take into this conference committee.

It is truly the broadest base of support for a transportation infrastructure bill that we have ever seen. It represents from coast to coast, rural and urban, small State, suburb, not just highway, of which we are deeply concerned, but our chairman and ranking member are deeply appreciative of the relationship of all the transportation modes and many of the smaller projects that are within the ambit of the ISTEA legislation.

This vote on the motion to instruct will clearly strengthen the hand of the Chair and of the House. It is a point of departure. I am willing to follow them forward if we can expand the boundaries here to capture the spirit and the interest and the concern not just of our committee, but the people that we represent at home and the Members in the House.

With all due respect, I would suggest that the offer with which I think this is offered and that I will support is to strengthen the hand of the chairman and ranking member, strengthen the hand of the House, and capture the broad base of support so we can be successful in this important deliberation.

Mr. Speaker, when the Military Quality of Life Appropriations bill comes to the floor, I intend to offer two amendments to increase funding for the Base Realignment and Closure 1990 Account. One, at $351 million, would provide the funding to complete all environmental remediation on bases closed during the 1988 BRAC round. The second, at $55 million, would provide the funding necessary to complete all unexploded ordnance cleanup on bases closed during the 1988 BRAC round. The offset for these increases come from a corresponding decrease in the Base Realignment and Closure 2005 Account.

Madam Speaker, one item the House will not debate today in the Defense authorization is the hidden issue behind base closure: the Pentagon's inability and Congress' unwillingness to have the military clean up after itself.

Incredibly, we are starting the fifth round of base closures when we have 17 bases and thousands of acres that remain from the 1988 round that have not been cleaned up. No wonder people are concerned about BRAC. This footdragging is bad for the environment, it is bad for local economies, and it gives the military a reputation for being a poor partner.

Congress should no longer be missing in action in this critical area, and it is time for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to stop trying to sidestep environmental responsibility and make sure that the military cleans up after itself. The public demands and deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me time.

This restrictive rule is unfortunate and unnecessary. We have heard from my colleagues today, talking about huge issues and deep concerns. It is unfortunate that one additional casualty in the short-circuiting of this process is that we will not discuss the hidden issue surrounding base closures, and that is the cleanup of the mess the military leaves behind.

I offered a modest amendment that would have at least required that the 17 bases from the 1988 round of base closures be dealt with by the Department of Defense with a framework. But even as we move into a fifth round of base closures, that problem remains unaddressed.

To date, the Pentagon has been dragging its feet and Congress has been missing in action. Due to this unnecessarily restrictive rule, the bill is another lost opportunity to treat communities with closed bases fairly, and for Congress to continue to be absent without leave.

Mr. Chairman, I voted against this bill because, at its core, it gives too much money to the wrong people to do the wrong things, while missing out on important priorities for the safety and wellbeing of our troops and our nation. This budget provides $3.4 billion--$170 million more than the President's request--for an untested and unproven national missile defense system and continues to fund the unnecessary FA/22 Raptor and the C-130J cargo plane, which even Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has tried to kill. At a time when we are at war, the United States can hardly afford to waste billions of our defense dollars on programs that don't work or address the new threats we face.

I'm disappointed that an amendment I intended to offer was not allowed to be debated, which would have delayed the 2005 BRAC round until the Pentagon had a strategy, including expected funding, to cleanup the bases closed in the 1988 BRAC round. At the same time, in addition to missing the opportunity to deal with issues of unexploded ordnance and environmental cleanup at BRAC sites, this bill doesn't include TRICARE for our reservists or address the threat of nuclear proliferation by sufficiently funding the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

A glaring omission is the lack of any meaningful provisions dealing with torture and prison abuse by our country. The failure to hold anyone up the chain of command responsible for documented gross violations of human rights is appalling. Placing the blame entirely on a few low-level enlisted personnel is shameful. It sends the wrong message to our fighting forces and to the rest of the world, with dangerous consequences for the United States.

I opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning because this administration had inadequate preparation for the war and never had a plan for winning the peace. Nothing in this bill solves this most pressing problem for our troops. We still lack a plan to win the peace in Iraq.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 2: Page 9, line 22, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $351,000,000)''.

Page 10, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $351,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 3: Page 9, line 22, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $55,000,000)''.

Page 10, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $55,000,000)''.