Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this week, with the consideration of the defense authorization legislation and the military quality of life appropriation, Congress should deal with the hidden issue behind base closure: The toxic legacy of unexploded bombs and hazardous pollution left behind on our military bases.

This is part of a much larger problem. The Defense Science Board has reported that unexploded bombs contaminate an area bigger than the States of Maryland, and Massachusetts combined.

One out of ten Americans live within 10 miles of a former or current military site that contains hazardous waste identified for clean-up under the Federal Super Fund programs. Indeed, 34 bases shut down since 1988 are still on the EPA Super Fund lists of worst toxic waste sites.

Ten of these sites have groundwater mitigation contaminants that are not fully under control. One of the worst examples that comes to mind is the Massachusetts Military Reservation, a source of perchlorate, a toxic chemical, has contaminated 70 percent of Cape Cod's water supply, and more than 1,000 unexploded bombs have been discovered, some less than a half a mile from an elementary school.

Former military installations with unexploded bombs are located in hundreds of communities across the country. And this has serious consequences. The most tragic example was an unexploded bomb that killed two 8-year-old boys and injured a 12-year-old friend while they were playing in their San Diego neighborhood, the site of the former 32,000 acre Camp Elliot, used as a training site during World War II.

In Texas, South Carolina, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and even here in Washington D.C., developers have built residential and business projects on land that has not been fully cleared of unexploded bombs.

Since I have been in Congress, three times fire fighters have had to be pulled out of the woods, in Alaska, Texas and Colorado, because the heat from the forest fire was detonating bombs.

Now, closed military bases can present significant opportunities for community assets. The former Lowry Air Force Base in Denver has generated an estimated $4 billion in economic activity for that region.

With careful planning, the facility made the successful transition to civilian use, including 4,500 new homes and more than a square acre of park land, two community colleges and other schools.

Glenview, Illinois, which lost its Naval Air Station in 1993, is another example that is now home to office space, retail stores, residences, golf course, park land and a train station. That has created 5,000 jobs and put another $1.5 billion into that local economy.

Yet the reality for communities facing BRAC now, according to the GAO, is that more than a quarter of the bases previously closed have not been cleaned up and transferred. And the main impediment is the bombs and chemical pollution.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to no longer be missing in action. When we look at like Fort Ord, closed in 1991, and after a decade of redevelopment only 25 percent of its transformation plan has been completed, in large measure because it has not been able to deal with the clean-up of the site.

So far the Army has cleared just 5 percent of the base's firing range. And they have already unearthed 8,000 live shells, in a job at this rate that could take 20 years.

Our communities deserve better. It is time for us in Congress to no longer be missing in action. We should do two things this week. First we should not pass the defense authorization bill without amending it to require that the military plan and budget to clean up the military bases that it has already closed, before starting a new round of BRAC.

Second, in the military quality of life bill, we should allocate funds to clean up unexploded bombs and dangerous pollution. To clean up the unexploded bombs just in the 1988 round would cost $69 million, clearly within our capacity. Indeed, I would argue that we

ought to allocate the full $626 million to clean up all of the unexploded bombs and dangerous pollution in these sites.

We have an obligation to make sure that we follow through on the pledges to these commitments for the military to clean up after itself, and it is Congress's job to make sure it happens.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy of yielding me this time.

I have been touched by the personal stories that we have heard here today. I think people are genuinely speaking from the heart.

But the issue remains that we have embryonic stem cells that are either going to be thrown away for largely theological reasons, or they will be used for research to save lives. This research is going to take place in the United States and around the world. The question is, how rapidly? The question is whether the United States Government's official policy will remain frozen in place, or whether we will exert the same type of leadership that we have exerted in other areas of research, technology, and dealing with human health.

For the sake of life, for the sake of health, for the sake of our families, I hope that this legislation passes, that we will be able to make sure that the Federal Government exerts its appropriate role in making sure that we have the resources, the direction, and the control to do this successfully.

Mr. Speaker, one reason there is so much opposition to the BRAC base closing process is that people do not know what they are going to get stuck with when their base closes. Seventeen bases from the 1988 round are still contaminated and have not been transferred back to the benefit of local communities. Over 140,000 acres on closed or realigned bases have not been cleaned up.

I am offering an amendment to the defense authorization legislation tomorrow that would delay the implementation of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round until the Secretary of Defense submits a strategy including an estimate of the amount of funds necessary to complete unexploded ordinance clean up and environmental remediation of the bases closed during the 1988 round. Not trying to stop the BRAC, just getting plans in place that are 17 years overdue.

At a time when we are asking communities to bear the trauma of the BRAC process, it is unacceptable that we have not finished cleaning up the first round.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing seven bills that will waive tariffs for specialty bike parts not produced domestically.

The bicycle industry is an important part of our economy. There are over 6,000 bicycle shops and 2,000 companies that deal with bicycle manufacturing with tens of thousands of employees. These tariff waivers will reduce costs for the bicycle industry and will allow the savings to be passed onto the more than 57 million adult bicyclists across the country.

Similar bike components that are not produced in the United States are already exempt from tariffs in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Without a domestic producer of compatible components, bike companies should not be required to pay duties. This legislation will level the playing field for the industry which provides one of the cleanest, healthiest, most efficient, and environmentally friendly modes of transportation that exists.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's

courtesy in permitting me to speak on behalf of this bill.

The congressional consideration of the Interior appropriations bill should be one of the highlights of this congressional session, as it touches on things that are near and dear to people's hearts: clean water, vast open spaces, environmental protection, even opportunities to invest in the arts.

Sadly, what should be a positive expression of our values, our hopes, and our opportunities is instead in this bill a pattern of broken promises to our communities and to ourselves. Unfortunately, the bill represents lost opportunities and is a symbol of the inability of this Congress and this administration to match our priorities with those of our constituents and, most importantly, with the future of this country.

I agree that the dramatic underfunding in terms of the budget allocation put the chairman and the ranking member and the staff in a hole to begin with, and my heart goes out to them; but there is no reason that we, as a Congress, cannot use the billions of dollars that are set aside in a trust fund for the Land and Water Conservation Fund that have not been tapped as these resources are set aside expressly for this purpose of land conservation.

In the year 2000, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), my friend, mentioned, he was integral to fashioning an important compromise that gave flexibility to the Committee on Appropriations. We in Congress made a commitment to the public and an agreement amongst ourselves to fund this responsibility. It was something that then- Governor Bush sounded as one of his pledges when he was running for the White House. The promises of candidate Bush, President Bush and of Congress to our constituents and to ourselves is broken again by this budget.

Now, there are specific proposals to try and make an inadequate bill better. I will support and speak out strongly in support of working to stop the diluting of our commitment to clean water with an amendment to stop the administration's efforts to weaken water quality protections, putting more sewage into our rivers and streams and drinking water.

As a former commissioner of public works, I was responsible for the administration of sewage and water resource programs. I am not insensitive to the needs of many communities to occasionally blend water not completely treated. I recognize the need to do that in extreme weather events, an important tool for communities; but it is not something that we should be doing routinely. We should instead be reducing our use of this tool wherever possible rather than increasing it.

The EPA rule weakening the current policy would actually penalize communities like mine and yours around the country that have worked to upgrade and improve their systems.

In periods of extreme wet weather, blending will still often be necessary. It is legal under the current law, and it is not going to be changed with the amendment that will be offered. The anti-sewage dumping amendment would not change these existing blending standards, but they will prevent the EPA from lowering them to authorize routine sewage dumping.

Now is not the time to move backwards. Water bodies around the country are impaired. We need to make sure that we are not making it harder to ultimately meet these water quality standards.

I urge joining me in supporting the amendment and working with the members of this committee to try to craft this bill in a way that meets the needs of America's communities.

Mr. Speaker, today most recognize we are part of a global economy, probably no more so than in my home State of Oregon. Unfortunately, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, is not the step forward that new trade agreements should represent.

For me it is clear that CAFTA does not include adequate environmental and labor standards. It is time to put the dispute resolution process for labor on the same solid footing as we do for commercial issues. Most acknowledge that CAFTA countries lack the financial resources and technical expertise to enforce good labor and environmental practices, but we are not providing funding that could help overcome these obstacles.

Additionally, CAFTA would seriously harm these countries that rely heavily on their agricultural sectors. Our egregious farm bill has locked us into subsidies that do not promote free trade and have already caused much harm to other countries' farmers. We need to pay attention to the hard lessons NAFTA imposed on struggling Mexican farmers.

Couple these issues with our reluctance to help American workers hammered by trade and technological change, and CAFTA is not an agreement that I can support in its current form.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this bill, which includes critically important funding for Oregon and the rest of the country.

I especially appreciate funding for prevention measures to reduce the damage done by floods and other natural disasters, and I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for fully funding the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. The Act, which this House passed overwhelmingly last year, extends the authorization of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and provides new resources to address severe repetitive loss properties.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reports that repetitively flooded properties, which make up just 1 percent of the insured properties, account for 25 percent of NFIP claims dollars. Mitigating these properties will not only keep people out of harm's way, but will also save other flood insurance program policyholders thousands of dollars.

Fully funding the program this year would allow us to move more than 1000 families out of harm's way. It will also save the Federal government millions of dollars in money that would otherwise be spent on flood damages and disaster relief. FEMA reports that mitigation and building standards already in place have resulted in over $1 billion annually in reduced flood losses.

I appreciate the strong support of Financial Services Chairman Mike Oxley, Ranking Member Barney Frank, and their staff, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that the Flood Insurance Reform Act is implemented.

The Homeland Security bill also includes crucial local preparedness grants, which are an important part of the Federal government's responsibility to be a good partner to local communities. I am pleased that these grants will be distributed, after a state minimum guarantee, on the basis of risk, as the 9/11 Commission recommended.

However, I am disappointed that three and a half years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, our homeland security budget continues to under-fund some of our most pressing needs, from border security to infrastructure security to first responders. But this shortfall stems not from the appropriations bill, but from unfortunate budget choices and the resulting inadequate allocations.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that the United States should be doing more to reduce violent crimes, whether they are committed by gangs or individuals. I voted against the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005'' because it fails to address this problem and impairs our judicial system. H.R. 1279 increases penalties for non-violent crimes, while imposing mandatory minimum sentences and expanding the death penalty. These provisions do nothing to detour gang violence and limit judge's ability to impose sentences that fit the offense. Furthermore, the bill does not include early intervention programs or other preventative programs that could be successful in reducing gang violence. I am hopeful that Congress will work to pass legislation that addresses the core issues behind this serious problem.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution in support of National Bike Month. The League of American Bicyclists has celebrated every May since 1956 as National Bike Month. With this resolution, Congress will recognize the enormous role bicycling has in our lives. This month provides an opportunity to promote the benefits of cycling, appreciate those in the cycling community, and to encourage bicycle safety.

Bicycling is one of the cleanest, healthiest, most efficient, and environmentally friendly modes of transportation that exists. It is the most efficient form of urban transportation in history. There are over 57 million adult cyclists in the United States, 5 million of whom choose to commute to work by bike. This transportation choice helps ease congestion on our roads and reduce environmental pollution while allowing cyclists to incorporate exercise into their everyday lives. In an age of high energy prices, overcrowded roads, and a growing obesity epidemic, biking is more important to the well being of our communities than ever before.

Communities throughout the Nation have reaped the positive benefits of biking. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, bicycles are second only to cars as a preferred mode of transportation. National Bike Month provides the opportunity to recognize the significant impact of this noble invention and to inform others of the healthy, environmental, efficient, and neighborhood-friendly form of transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I am sad that a bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) worked so hard on, which contains $82 billion, would still be more an example of how not to do business.

First of all, it is a testimony to the lack of planning on behalf of this administration for conducting the war in Iraq. They still could not give us, after 3 years of planning and activity, could not give a reasonable number in advance, to be able to budget properly, instead of putting together a supplemental effort.

It continues to give, in my judgment, too much money to the wrong people to do the wrong things. And we have been slow to, despite the attention of this Congress, the lavish amount of money and expressions of concern by individual Members to protect our troops, we have still been slow to meet their needs on simple things like armoring their vehicles.

But one of the worst things for me in this supplemental is that we have grafted onto it the Real ID Act. This element that we debated here contains what I think is the worst single example of legislative precedent in the 10 years that I have been here, where in order to deal with a 3\1/2\ mile gap in constructing a fence. For 10 years Congress and the administration has been willing to provide waivers for specific problems, where two administrations have been circling it, where rather than deal with the specifics and solve the problem, this legislation incorporates section 102 which waives all rules and regulations along not just this 3\1/2\ mile gap, but along the entire 7,514 border with Canada and with Mexico.

It is not just an environmental problem. It waives all rules, all regulations, all Federal standards for an indeterminate width along 7,500 miles, and vests it in the hands of the Homeland Security Department, hardly a paragon of efficiency and sensitivity.

Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge my colleagues to take a hard look at this. You do not want to establish a precedent like this in Federal legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this appropriations bill contains much crucial funding, most importantly money to provide additional armor for our troops and vehicles in Iraq and electronic jammers to protect them from roadside bombs. While I strongly support this funding, I am disappointed that I must vote ``no'' on this bill.

We have a responsibility to the men and women who we send into harm's way as members of the United States Armed Forces. It is because of my desire to support our troops that I continue to insist that the administration develop a plan to win the peace in Iraq and, to the best of our capability, protect the troops as they go about their mission. I believe that Congress must hold the administration to the highest standards when the lives of our service personnel are at risk. A ``no'' vote is one of the few ways I have to protest the continued abdication of this responsibility by the highest levels of the Bush Administration.

One positive part of this legislation is an amendment that I offered during House consideration with Mr. Markey to prohibit funds for torture and for sending detainees to countries that practice torture, which was carried into this conference report. The use of torture and rendition is morally reprehensible, puts Americans at risk, is a poor way to obtain reliable information in our fight against terrorism, and sets back the cause of democracy. This is the very least that we can do as Congress continues to abdicate its responsibility to investigate this horrific aspect of administration policy.

Perhaps most disappointing, this legislation also continues to be burdened with all the flaws of H.R.418, the ``REAL ID Act,'' which, among other things, placed the entire 7,514 mile border completely outside all legal protections. This is perhaps the single most damaging precedent since I've been in Congress. Do we really want to be giving this responsibility to the Department of Homeland Security, which has not been a paragon of efficiency and sensitivity during its three years of existence? Some of the environmental laws waived by this provision include: the Noise Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the Farmland Protection Policy Act, and the Bald Eagle Act. This is not only bad public policy, it is unnecessary, as most of these laws have security exemptions already written into them. However, in addition to environmental laws, this provision would waive labor laws, safety standards, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Native American Graves Protection Act. If this provision were to become law, the Department of Homeland Security could build a road that has no safety standards, using l2-year-old laborers, through the site of a Native American burial ground, killing hundreds of bald eagles during construction, and polluting the drinking water of a nearby community. The proponents of this provision have given us no compelling reasons for why this broad exemption is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, again this year the repeat State champions from my neighborhood high school, U.S. Grant, has had another outstanding national contest finishing second against the 1,500 students competing in the ``We the People'' Constitutional contest.

The Grant High School performance has a simple formula for success: Hard work, dedicated teachers, outstanding students and parents all joined together in a creative program. They demonstrate year in and year out what works in education.

I am sad to note that for some inexplicable reason the national program that inspired such interest in learning about our Constitution is absent from the President's budget, eliminating $29.4 million in civic education from the Department of Education. I hope we will be able to correct that deficiency. This is exactly the type of program and the positive reinforcement that the champions from Grant High School and students from across America deserve.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal 2006 budget resolution is based on false economies and false promises. This budget provides tax cuts for the rich while adding to our national deficit, cutting billions from critical programs such as Medicare and shortchanging national priorities such as community development and housing, education, and environmental protection.

Cutting vital programs does nothing to solve our problems. Congressional leadership and the administration are simply not owning up to their responsibilities to the American public. I will not support any budget framework that pretends that we have more funding than we do while at the same time cutting programs that help our families and communities.

The administration's tax cuts give over $70 million in benefits to those who need them the least. Yet nothing is being done to address the long-term costs of fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax--a tax that continues to force middle-income families to pay higher taxes. This budget will put our country deeper into debt, mortgaging the future for our children and grandchildren. This is wrong.

This budget resolution also sets the stage for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which would be a travesty. Not only is this policy incredibly shortsighted in terms of the real energy needs of this country, it is unconscionable that Congress is making a decision of this magnitude in a budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Water for the Poor Act of 2005, with Representatives Clay Shaw, Tom Lantos, Jim Leach, George Miller, and Tom Tancredo as original cosponsors. The Water for the Poor Act complements legislation introduced by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, S. 492, the ``Safe Water: Currency for Peace Act.''

This bill highlights a pressing issue: up to 5 million people die each year from lack of access to clean water and sanitation, including 1 child every 15 seconds. One in six people in the world--over 1.1 billion people--lack access to clean water and one in three people-- over 2.3 billion people--don't have access to adequate sanitation. As half of the people in the developing world are sick at any given time from a water-related disease, water and sanitation access is a major barrier to fighting poverty and increasing economic productivity.

The Water for the Poor Act focuses American efforts to meet President Bush's commitment to cut in half the percentage of people without access to water and sanitation by 2015. This bill makes expanding access to clean water and sanitation a major objective for U.S. development efforts. It highlights innovative funding methods to increase the amount of public and private resources available and requires USAID to develop a strategy and measurable goals for increasing water access in an affordable and equitable way.

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing the ``Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' that would authorize $7.5 million for Friends of the Children to support local program operations at existing sites and to disseminate findings to policymakers and other youth-serving programs, Friends of the Children is the only program in the nation that provides carefully screened full-time professional mentors to at-risk children for 12 years starting at five years of age,

This innovative program began in Portland, Oregon, starting in 1993 with 3 ``Friends'', mentors serving 24 children. Today, Friends of the Children serves over 600 children in 11 communities across the nation. The young people who participate are truly the most defenseless--they are children of poverty; they have been in foster care, on welfare, and have parents who are incarcerated or are homeless.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and make a commitment to improving the lives of at-risk children.