Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides a clear lesson for the American public about how Congress and American politics operate today.

Make no mistake, this is not about what Terri Schiavo wants. It is clear from testimony of the family members who are fighting against Terri's husband that they would want the feeding tube reinserted no matter what Terri wants. Tom DeLay says he doesn't care what her husband wants. This is all about people who have chosen to use this poor woman as a political football. This legislative spectacle was an artful attempt to divert the public's attention.

But in your mind's eye, the face in the picture that you should be thinking about is not Terri Schiavo's: You should be worried about the face of you or your loved one in the middle of a media circus, or worse, denied the right to control your own fate.

This is not a narrow, specific bill about a single case. Their true intentions were revealed by H.R. 1332, the bill that Tom DeLay had the House pass last Wednesday. I led the debate against H.R. 1332 because it would have effectively overruled Oregon's Death with Dignity Act with language so broad and sweeping that it would call into question every living will and end of life directive. Anybody who wanted to force the issue, whether business partner, estranged family member, or friend could drag your loved ones into Federal court.

Make no mistake, the goal is to take away your choice in making end of life decisions, just as their agenda is to control your choices at the beginning of life, whether regarding contraception or a woman's right to choose.

The Schiavo case has received unbelievable attention and scrutiny by politicians and judges at every level in the State of Florida. For years, the battle has raged in a State that is controlled by Republicans and is governed by the President's brother. This is not about due process and letting the system work. Rather it is about some zealots who do not agree with the verdicts of the courts and the professional opinions of medical experts.

The hypocrisy of Tom DeLay and the Republican leadership in Congress is breathtaking. The only time they trust the Federal courts is when they are using them as a political tactic. This fall they passed in the House of Representatives, bills that declared the Federal courts incompetent to rule on cases involving the pledge of allegiance and same-sex marriage.

In a statement released early this morning, President Bush said he will ``continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans.'' But the facts make it hard to believe that the President is standing on principle. In 1999, then Governor Bush signed a law that ``allows hospitals to discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree.'' Just days ago the law permitted Texas Children's Hospital to remove the breathing tube from a 6-month-old boy named Sun Hudson. The law may soon be used to remove life support from Spiro Nikolouzos, a 68-year-old man. The President has not commented on either case.

Because of this media circus, attention is being diverted away from the seniors that will suffer and die in this country as a result of the Republican leadership's budget proposal to shortchange Medicaid. The very financial sources that have kept Terri alive for 15 years, Medicaid and her malpractice settlement, are under attack by the President and Tom Delay. For the time being, Republican leaders are succeeding in their effort to change the subject, and obscure this fact.

While Congress's involvement is another sad chapter in the fight against Terri's wishes, I'm glad that we forced them to narrow the reach of this bill, at least for the time being. It is still an unfortunate precedent of inappropriate Congressional intervention into a personal family matter.

In the final analysis, I'm pleased that the public was able to see what the stakes are and what some politicians and zealots are willing to do. Ultimately, it is this public awareness that will defeat efforts to take away the choice for each of us and of our families to control our own destinies.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget resolution is a body blow to Oregon and the country. I have heard from constituents, school teachers, local government officials, medical professionals, housing advocates and many others throughout the communities in my district, all with detailed stories about how this budget will have devastating impacts.

The budget cuts both ways. First, by exploding the federal deficit, adding $376 billion to the national debt and spending every penny of the $185 billion Social Security trust fund surplus coming in during the year. Then, by eliminating and reducing key domestic priorities, such as cutting $4.3 billion of education programs, slashing $1.5 billion for affordable housing and development programs, and underfunding veterans' programs by nearly $800 million.

How do we face both increased deficits and program cuts? By continuing to focus on tax cuts for those who need them the least. This is unnecessary and, frankly, dangerous as we continue to create an abyss between the haves and have-nots in society, and are putting our financial markets on edge by borrowing trillions from foreign investors. This is not a budget representative of the priorities and values of Oregonians.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly voted against this supplemental, not because there aren't many important items included in it, but because a ``no'' vote is one of the few things in my power to signal my deep opposition to the administration's policy in Iraq. At its core, this bill gives too much money to the wrong people to do the wrong thing. As I made clear from the beginning of this war the administration continues to have no plan for success in Iraq. They have no blueprint for winning the peace and have not even adequately protected our troops in harm's way.

I fully support the assistance to the tsunami-affected region, and hope it will be used wisely for recovery, reconstruction, and mitigation of future disasters. While we cannot prevent natural events such as floods, mudslides, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, or tsunamis, we can reduce or mitigate their devastating impacts by helping communities to rebuild in safer locations, construct sturdier dwellings, and enhance natural ecosystems that mitigate the impact of these natural disasters.

I am pleased to see that there is funding to provide additional armor for our troops and vehicles in Iraq. I hope that they will use the funding provided by Congress to give our troops the protection that they need.

An amendment that I offered with Mr. Markey to prohibit funds for torture and for sending detainees to countries that practice torture passed. 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.

Regardless of the merits, everyone should be troubled by the use of supplemental legislation to pay for regular military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Funding these operations outside of the regular budgeting process limits our ability for effective oversight and distorts the true budget picture.

The Rules Committee burdened this legislation 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 most damaging single precedent since I've been in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this resolution and his leadership in bringing it forward. I am going to support the resolution. I, too, am troubled by what we have seen with the Syrian government. I am heartened by some activities in the Middle East. I think there is some real progress. But I would step back for a moment and ask us to reflect on something that has been happening that does not reflect so well on our government.

Just moments ago, the House overwhelmingly approved an amendment advanced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and me that dealt with making sure that money that we approved in the supplemental was not used to torture suspects of terrorism. We have this sense, and it is one that the people I represent feel very strongly about, that we have a responsibility and an obligation as the world's oldest democracy to be upholding our standards of rule of law, of due process. We have made torture illegal not just because people are concerned that it is an immoral practice, we do so because it is not a good way to get useful information.

Dictatorships torture indiscriminately, but it is not a way, as the Intelligence Community well understands, that we get good information upon which to base activities that may put our men and women at risk and to protect United States interests. Furthermore, we do not torture suspects of terror because if we do so, then any information that is gathered from that process taints any potential case and we cannot bring people to justice in a court of law.

Last but not least, we do not torture because we want a standard established where we can use our moral authority to make sure that Americans abroad are protected, whether they are in uniform or they are civilians.

There are a variety of moral, practical reasons why we are against torture. Yet I would note that there are too many press accounts for us to ignore, too many reports from nongovernmental organizations that the United States is participating in and condoning torture on behalf of prisoners that we have taken to other countries. There is a famous case that now the Canadian government wants investigated where the United States kidnapped a Canadian citizen and rendered this person to Syria where he was tortured. We have called for this Congress to get on top of what is, I am afraid, an emerging scandal, where we use extraordinary rendition, where we kidnap and transport people, where there is not effective oversight, where Congress does not know what is going on, where there are people who are not being held accountable, where there are problems that we have seen with people who have been in custody of the CIA and some of the American prisons that we have had in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We, as a Congress, need to be doing our job because we do not believe in torture; it is illegal; it is against international conventions; it is against the interests of the United States. And I must re-emphasize the irony when we come forward with a resolution that points out the problems, legitimate problems, the abuses in Syria, and then it appears as though the United States is willing to offer up people to countries like Syria, where we thought they are in fact going to be tortured.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that Congress gets ahead of this issue, that Congress does its job to investigate these widespread reports that are coming through now our own legal system, that are coming through the media, that are coming from nongovernmental organizations, that we exercise our oversight to make sure that we have our own house in order. There should be no prospect that we are on one hand going to be a Congress that condemns torture and abuse of human rights in Syria, and on the other hand we are going to look the other way when we may be offering up people who are suspects, not convicted of anything, to be turned over to the hands of these same torturers.

I would sincerely hope that we will have activity on the part of all of us to make sure the many committees in Congress do their job to provide this oversight and that we are not relying on the media, nongovernmental organizations, and what trickles through the legal system to do a job that we should be doing.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for an opportunity to speak this evening, and I appreciate the work the gentleman has done to provide a balanced approach to meet our requirements in a fiscally responsible manner. I particularly appreciate the work done by the Democrats on the committee to deal with the environmental priorities of America.

I am saddened by a party-line vote that these proposals were rejected to be a part of the proposal brought forward by the majority. This budget is stunningly out of sync with where the typical American is in terms of protecting our environment and our natural resources. From oceans to brownfields, we have found environmental quality to be victim of the obsession of misplaced budget priorities and an obsession with more tax cuts.

In areas of clean water, every independent outside organization, and most of them within government, have identified that we have a serious problem with the Nation's aging water systems required to ensure safe drinking water; yet the President's budget and what we have here today reduces almost $700 million for water quality responsibilities.

In the land and water conservation fund, we are breaking the promise that was negotiated here in the year 2000 where the conservation trust fund was established that should by now by rights, as a result of this bipartisan, bicameral agreement be moving funds in the neighborhood of $2 billion for this fiscal year. But, unfortunately, this budget would turn its back on that responsibility.

Another important element is the land and water conservation fund authorized at almost $1 billion; yet this budget includes only $147 million for actual programs to help preserve parks, forests, wildlife refuges and open space, things that touch people where they live at home, garnering broad bipartisan support. This year the President and the Republicans go even further by eliminating the land and water conservation State grants programs which have provided critical funding to States and local communities to preserve open space and develop recreation facilities.

And one of the most significant broken promises is in the area of conservation in the agriculture sector. One of the elements that was negotiated as part of the farm bill, there were going to be investments in farm conservation; and yet this budget takes something that is so critical to America's farmers, particularly small and medium-sized operations, and cuts more than a half billion dollars from these vital farm bill conservation programs that unite rural America, conservation interests, people who care about natural resources.

There is currently over a $4 billion backlog of producers waiting to participate in these critical farm conservation programs. It is a travesty as far as the environment is concerned; and it is a sad, sad story for America's farmers who deserve better. I strongly urge the rejection of the majority proposal.

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

I must note in passing as I was listening to my colleague from Indiana I know speak from the heart, but I find irony that he talks about perceived inconsistencies by people on our side of the aisle.

I note that this is the same majority party that would seek to deny the Supreme Court the authority to be able to deal with matters that relate to marriage. They think that that is not appropriate for the Federal court. They do not trust the Supreme Court to deal with these personal issues. But if they are thinking that they can continue with efforts to have government interfere with some of the most painful, personal areas, then they are willing to cast aside consistency and move forward.

I have watched as a Member of this Chamber a consistent effort to try and

interpose some people's version of what they sincerely believe from the heart, and I respect that.

But I have watched, for instance, in my State, where citizens have struggled with these sensitive issues of end of life. I come from Oregon. I have watched Oregonians struggle with a question of profound significance of how we are going to deal with end-of-life questions; who is going to have control, where is government going to intervene and how far are we going to extend it.

I have watched for 4 years as the Bush administration has engaged in an assault against the decision of the voters of Oregon, not unelected bureaucrats, not unelected judges. Oregonians, not once, but twice, decided to be the first State in the Union that was going to try and deal with these sensitive personal issues openly and honestly. Because I will tell you that in every State of the Union, every day, decisions are made by physicians and families that end up shortening life, maybe even terminating life.

The difference is in Oregon, that is the first State where we decided we are actually going to have a legal framework that deals with this, that provides guidance. The assisted suicide that we have requires not one but two doctors to work with citizens, to be able to provide a framework, finding among other things that they are at the end of their life, the last 6 months, and that they are not doing this out of an act of desperation or depression.

In fact, there is pretty pervasive evidence that by having this framework and giving people control, there are probably fewer suicides, because people have a sense that they control their own destiny, and that armed with this and a prescription that would end their life, many of them choose not to move forward.

But we have watched the assault against the decision of Oregonians, approved by the voters, by the Bush administration through the courts, that to this point has been thwarted. We found people in this Chamber who have seen fit to criminalize the practice of medicine by injecting the decision of prosecutors to determine the intent of physicians in these most personal of matters. Thus far, at least, it has been resisted.

Well, Madam Speaker, the assault by ideologues and the intolerants who would impose government on these most personal decisions continues. We have seen it in Florida. This is a case in Florida we have all been following, where the politicians repeatedly have been seeking to intervene over the objection of the husband in this case.

The courts in Florida have seen fit to render judgment, but it is not good enough for folks. They want to go ahead over the objection of the parties involved, and they want to remove this to the Federal courts. As I pointed out, the same people that wanted to deny the authority of the Federal courts to deal with issues; for example, of marriage, to interfere with decisions with which they disagree.

You may not be from Oregon or Florida, but make no mistake, this is a drumbeat to take away the authority of citizens to deal with these most personal of matters. No one will be safe if we allow this path to continue. Families, local courts, voters, are going to be overruled by people in their zeal to tell others how to lead their lives.

I strongly urge that this misguided proposal be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, we come to the well of the House often to speak of weighty and contentious issues. This morning, I speak on an important but a lighter note, because this week we have hundreds of cyclists from all over America who are coming to Capitol Hill as part of the National Bicycle Summit.

Fifty-seven million Americans ride bicycles every year. Thirty-three million rode bikes in the last month. And on a daily basis there are approximately one-half million bicycle commuters.

The bicycle industry is an important part of our economy. There are over 6,000 bicycle shops, 2,000 companies that deal with bicycle manufacturing, and tens of thousands of employees. There is a large and emerging industry of bicycle tourism. Yet there is a significant area of difficulty that the cyclists will bring to Capitol Hill pleading their case. Half the Americans are not satisfied with their cycling environment. And although cycling makes up about 7 percent of the total trips, it represents a disproportionate number of the fatalities, and it receives less than 1 percent of Federal funding.

There are significant areas where bicycling could make a difference, not just in terms of transportation. We find in the area of increasing focus on our health habits a growing concern about obesity. Public health officials agree that everyone should have 30 minutes of physical activity every day, and children need an additional 20 minutes, at a minimum, of vigorous activity several times a week, yet 78 percent of our children fall short of this goal.

Well, those of us in Congress can give some good news to the bicycle advocates we will be meeting with. The near unanimous passage of the transportation legislation last year continues the legacy of transportation funding in enhancing the community infrastructure. We have seen, under the ISTEA and the most recent legislation, the overall funding raised from less than $5 million a year in 1988 to over $423 million in 2003.

There is an opportunity to enhance the cycling environment with the important Safe Routes to School program that will be able to fund and plan routes that allow our children to be able to walk and bike safely to school. There are other opportunities that we might talk to our friends about. I have introduced, with my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the Bicycle Commuter Act to extend transportation commuter benefits for those who bike to work. There is the Conserve by Bike program, wherein the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is seeking to explore additional ways to understand and communicate

the energy savings associated with promoting bicycling.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, our friends from around the country will be joining us this week for the Bicycle Summit. I would urge my colleagues who are not part of the over 160 members of the Congressional Bike Caucus to join this week, to get their official Bike Caucus membership pen, and to join us for a ride at 2 p.m. on Friday with the members of the Bike Caucus and the Bicycle Summit around Washington, D.C..

Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for us to do something in a very ``bike-partisan'' way that will make America healthier, make our families safer, and enhance economic security while we do something that enriches the life of us all.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I am troubled by the amendment that we have before us today. There is, I think, a wide range of opinion that is available for us to debate the merits of a wide range of things in this bill. And I appreciate that people are coming forward in good spirit. But I appreciate the comment of the gentleman from Arizona. It was, I want to say, I do not want to say it was my privilege, but I had the opportunity to spend time after the tsunami a couple of weeks after it hit with a bipartisan delegation led by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), Senator Brownback, touring the area.

I assure you that the testimony about the devastation is, if anything, understated. The pictures that we saw on CNN did not do justice. But I was struck by the impact of the generosity that was shown by Americans in uniform, civilian employees, members of NGOs who were there.

There was some bad publicity initially, surrounding what appeared to be a lack of compassion on the part of the United States with its initial response. But that never interfered in terms of the publicity with the work that was done by the United States and our agencies. We built amazing goodwill for this country while we helped these traumatized areas heal.

I think what has been offered by the President, by the committee, is the least that we can do. It will pay dividends many times over. I think that it would be unfortunate even to bring this proposal to a vote. It is sending the wrong signal about the United States' intention.

We are certainly, on a per capita basis, not giving more than Australia, Scandinavia, Germany. For us to indicate that there is a sense here could only be interpreted as our being callous and unfeeling, I think, is the wrong message to send to these people in these traumatized countries. I think it is the wrong thing to send to the international community.

I will say, Mr. Chairman, in the course of the visit, I had people who were Americans in business, people from the NGO communities, foreign parliamentarians, all talking about the damaged relationship that the United States has, the image that we have in this region, and how amazing they felt the progress was being made by the work that was being done by our country.

This amendment and any support for it, I think, is sending the wrong signal. And I strongly urge its rejection. I sincerely hope that it is rejected, if necessary, on a voice vote, if not withdrawn. But I hope people make no mistake about how people are watching our actions for the signals we send around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I appreciate his leadership on this issue, and I appreciate the chairman of the committee being willing to accept the restatement of existing law.

But I think it is important for this Chamber to acknowledge that there is a scandal brewing. The news accounts make clear what our committee system has not yet focused in on. There are, in fact, numerous cases that are being brought forth of torture and the horrendous practice of our sending people to other countries after we have kidnapped them knowing that these suspects are going to be tortured.

There are reasons that we are against torture. There are moral reasons. There are legal reasons. There is the fact that it is not a good way to get intelligence information and that it taints any legal proceedings that we may have against suspected terrorists. There is a selfish reason, that it puts Americans at risk. We do not want to show the world that it is acceptable treatment of civilians or people in the military that they be tortured.

We have been trying to get Congress to do its job in oversight in this area, to investigate, so that we do not have to rely on journalists and nongovernment organizations but that Congress steps forward, that we understand and are held accountable. Until Congress takes its responsibilities seriously to investigate what is going on and, if there are abuses, to hold people accountable, I join my colleague in supporting this amendment because it is the best we can do.

But I want to make clear that it is not good enough and that every Member of this assembly ought to be clamoring for the appropriate committees to exercise appropriate oversight to make sure that we are not complicit in the abuse and terror and torture of other people.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague permitting me to speak on this rule.

I am pleased to follow my friend from Southern California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, because of one of the areas of concern I have with this bill, and I am hopeful that there will be some amendments made in order, speak specifically to some of the problems of Southern California.

I flew over recently the Alameda Corridor and looked at the problems down there. I have supported it in the past. But the area the gentleman speaks to is currently getting back over a billion dollars a year less from the highway fund than it puts in. There are some serious imbalances currently under our system.

There is a potential that this bill may be hung up at some point over the donor/donee argument, and we will watch as this moves along through the legislative process. But there is a much more fundamental problem in the country in terms of the distribution of transportation money, and that is between our metropolitan area, like my friend from Southern California (Mr. Dreier), where there is a vast amount of money that they put in and they get back a much, much smaller portion.

Orlando, Florida, 58 cents on the dollar; Tucson, 57 cents on the dollar; Dallas, Ft. Worth, 75 cents on the dollar: this is an imbalance for the vast majority of metropolitan areas in the country.

There has been an effort to get an amendment made in order by my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), that would require some of the CMAQ funding that is used to solve air quality problems to be spent by the States. And currently some of the States like Texas are withholding this money, not spending it on the area to solve the air quality problem which is actually the source of the money.

I am hopeful before we are through we will be able to have this rule amended, to be able to make that in order, and that we look at this overall imbalance.

I am also deeply concerned about an element that is coming forward from my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). Last year he had an amendment that is out that would restrict the ability of toll revenues just to be used for new construction. This is a horrific proposal. There is no reason to restrict State and regional areas on how they spend that money. This would allow them to spend the money to expand the road system, but not use the same money to maintain the road system. Even worse than that, it would not allow San Diego, Houston, New York, Minneapolis, or other communities which are currently doing valued pricing to continue to do this.

This is a bad idea. It is opposed by most of the State and local authorities who are going to have to live with this bill.

Now, I for one hope that we will be able to continue in the bipartisan spirit from which it came from our committee. We have the broadest coalition supporting our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), assembled in the history of infrastructure that has been considered by this Congress, from the Chamber of Commerce to the environmental groups, from the bicyclists, to the asphalt folks, the Women's Federated Garden Club of America all are on board for this broad-based, bipartisan bill. I sincerely hope we do not have it hijacked by narrow special interests and that we are able to debate it fully, fairly, honestly to make it work best for the American people.

We have been in the infrastructure business for the Federal Government since the founding of the Republic. It is an important national issue. I hope we maintain it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I am pleased to rise in support of the bill. I think the Committee on Ways and Means is moving forward in a way that is reasonable with this. I personally am very pleased that the basic overall structural integrity of the bill has been maintained. It is a good bipartisan framework that builds on ISTEA. It has something for virtually every community in America.

I am particularly pleased that there is language in the bill that deals with small starts. I have had experience in my community with a street car development that is much less expensive; it is quick to build. It goes back and helps us reinvigorate the neighborhoods that were originally built around street cars decades, sometimes a century, ago. We have over 80 communities around the country that are interested in their opportunity to build a street car. The bill contains almost $1 billion over the next 5 years in projects that are termed ``small start,'' between $25 million and $75 million. It provides for an expedited process separate from the more expensive, more complex, more cumbersome new-starts provision.

I look forward to working with members on the committee to refine and move this forward. I hope we will have strong support from both sides of the aisle in conference to make sure that this is something that survives and is further enhanced.

And before I finish on the small-starts point, I would like to express deep appreciation to Joyce Rose and to Ken House for making it possible for this language to be there and to be as effective as it is.

I did want to make one brief reference to the donor-donee that my friend from Florida was talking about, that they are up to 85, 86 percent. I have some sympathy for that. But as I pointed out on this floor, the big donor-donee disparity is not between a few States that win or lose, it is between the metropolitan areas across the country that are systematically shortchanged in the allocation of transportation money. It may be that part of that is because the way that the structures go with the MPO and the flow of Federal dollars, that metropolitan areas have only a say over 6 percent of the funding flow. I see my friend from southern California. There is over a $1 billion net outflow from southern California in the metropolitan area to deal with its transportation needs. There are any number of cities in Florida that get less than 60 and 70 percent on the dollar. I see my friend from Dallas here. Her metropolitan area gets only 75 cents on the dollar. Of the 276 metropolitan areas, the vast majority of them are shortchanged, and in most instances, it is far more than the level that we are talking about between the donor and donee States.

This is something that Congress is going to have to spend some time focusing on. How do we guarantee that the needs of our metropolitan areas, where the vast majority of our population live, are met? Whether you are in a red State, a blue State, south, east, north or west, people live in these metropolitan areas; and in community after community after community, they are shortchanged. We have people come to the Floor supporting this excellent bill. I join them. And I am pleased that people are concerned to reduce the problems of congestion, of air pollution, of an inability to move freight in this country. But where is the air pollution, the congestion, the problems with freight? It is in the metropolitan areas. And unless we spend the money where it is needed, we are never going to improve the air quality, we are never going to be able to reduce the congestion that is strangling our communities. We are having a situation where it takes less time for freight to move from Portland, Oregon, or from Long Beach/LA to Chicago than it takes to move that freight through Chicago. Longer than it took to get there in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, there is no more important environmental or economic development legislation before this Congress. I like the direction that we are moving. I hope that we maintain the balance, the structure, a bipartisan effort to meet the needs of all America's communities. I hope that we are going to be looking towards the future, however, to make sure that we not only maintain that structure but we look for ways to get the money where it is most needed.

Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of the amendment.

Amo Houghton was a true gentleman of the House, of great depth and charm. He helped make this a better institution in the finest tradition of Congress. Amo made our lives richer, his State a better place, and our Nation stronger.

I support the amendment, but I would say my only suggestion for improving it would be if it had somehow added the name of Priscilla Dewey Houghton, an outstanding citizen in her own right, Amo's wife and helpmate and monster bicyclist.

It is my pleasure to support the amendment, and I hope that this will be a reflection for Amo of all that he has meant to us.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I want to make clear that I personally am open to the possibility of having more flexibility within the transportation fund: Value pricing and tolling have a role. They have had a role since the beginning of our freeway system. But this amendment is not the FAST-lane bill that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) introduced last year.

Despite the rhetoric that it is supported by every major highway user group, his amendment is opposed by almost every highway user group, including AASHTO. My colleague from Minnesota pointed out AGC, APTA, AMPO, and the International Bridge and Tunnel Turnpike Authority. They oppose this amendment.

Actually, there is correspondence that I will enter into the record that was actually signed against this from the Reason Foundation, Robert Poole.

Now, why is that? Well, first of all, there are a number of areas right now that this would severely restrict the ability of State DOTs and local governments to develop pricing systems that meet their local needs. No reason to do that. Almost every community currently using HOT lanes or value pricing has a portion of the revenue dedicated to transit and corridor improvements.

In fact, it has been proven time and time again that the support for value pricing actually increases if people can have a balanced approach. This is not balanced and the public does not support tolling on facilities without an equity element.

In fact, the Kennedy amendment assumes, or it asserts, and I talked to him again about this today, that it is not a problem for people to continue on. Well, in San Diego, New York, even Minneapolis, in his own State, where they are currently using HOT lanes, they would be restricted in the use of their revenues and could no longer use any of these funds to pay for transit investment in their corridor. That is why the local governments, transit agencies, AASHTO and road builders oppose this amendments.

Why would we dictate to them how they are going to design their use of toll revenues?

And adding a lane to a bridge or to a freeway is not just a single lane. If we are going to deal with congestion, which our chairman and the ranking member are concerned with, we need to do this in a comprehensive fashion. The adoption of this amendment will prohibit that. It limits it very narrowly, takes away the resources from people that have it, it prevents value pricing in any broader context.

Most fundamentally, there is no good reason to deny the flexibility to deal comprehensibly and comprehensively with our transportation needs. As a supporter of the use of tolls and value pricing where it is appropriate, where local governments want it, there is no reason why we should adopt this amendment and restrict provisions under the existing law. I think our chairman and the ranking member have proposed ways to explore moving forward, and we ought to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter I referred to earlier.

AASHTO, Environmental Defense Oppose Tolling Measure That Lacks

Flexibility

The American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which represents state

transportation departments, today joined with the group

Environmental Defense, the construction industry, and other

organizations to strongly oppose an amendment that would

cripple state and local ability to use tolling to meet

transportation needs and manage traffic problems.

Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN) proposes the amendment to H.R. 3,

the highway and transit reauthorization bill expected to come

to the House floor tomorrow. The proposed amendment would

further restrict states' and localities' current tolling

authority, restrict tolling on Interstates, limit tolling as

a revenue option, and eliminate funding for promising non-

highway transportation market incentive pilot projects that

help reduce traffic and pollution.

``We agree with the President that these decisions need to

be made on a state and local level,'' said AASHTO Executive

Director John Horsley.

``While AASHTO and Environmental Defense have frequently

differed on highway-related issues,'' Horsley said, ``the

limitations inherent in Rep. Kennedy's tolling bill would

needlessly restrict an important revenue and traffic-

management tool available to state departments of

transportation, as they seek to close the gap between

pressing transportation needs and available resources,''

Horsley said.

Tolling is being explored in several states, including New

York, California, and Texas, in combination with debt

financing as a way to advance sorely needed transportation

infrastructure projects. Horsley explained that AASHTO's

members believe state transportation officials should have

the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, where

tolling would be most productive and what projects should be

financed using toll revenues.

As submitted Tuesday afternoon to the Rules Committee, the

Kennedy legislation would allow for new tolls to be levied

only to fund additional lane construction or to convert high-

occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high-occupancy toll (HOT)

lanes. If used for new construction, tolls newly imposed

under the amendment would have to be lifted once debt-service

was paid and a reserve fund for maintenance and operations

had been established.

The Kennedy amendment continues to restrict toll revenues

for highway use only, denying agencies the opportunity to

fund new improved transit.

``The Kennedy amendment would reverse a growing trend in

which states are experimenting with tolls to cut congestion

and air pollution,'' said Michael Replogle, Transportation

Director for Environmental Defense. ``San Diego is using

tolls on the 1-15 corridor to pay for new express-bus

services. New York uses tolls to raise hundreds of millions

of dollars for bridges, tunnels and rapid rail transit.

Congress should give states the freedom to use these tools to

cut congestion and pollution and boost access--not take the

tools away.''

``Properly placed transit projects remove a great deal of

traffic from overcrowded roads,'' Horsley noted. ``We need to

be able to address the nation's transportation needs in a

holistic, multi-modal way, not piecemeal.''

Replogle said his group supports ``accountability and

transparency for toll-road projects to mitigate their

environmental impacts and traffic growth. We can minimize new

pavement by doing more to price and manage the pavement we've

already got,'' Replogle said.

Although AASHTO and Environmental Defense have found common

ground on the Kennedy language, Horsley noted that they

remain of two minds about a variety of issues within the

larger reauthorization bill, H.R. 3, being moved by House

transportation leaders.

The Kennedy approach to date has drawn the opposition of

the Tolling Coalition, which includes AASHTO, the American

Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), the

Associated General Contractors (AGC), the American Council of

Engineering Companies (ACEC), the National Asphalt Pavement

Association (NAPA), the National Stone, Sand and Gravel

Association, the International Bridge, Tunnel & Turnpike

Authority (IBTTA) and the National Council for Public-Private

Partnerships.

Other members of the Tolling Coalition include Koch

Performance Roads Inc., Peter Kiewit and Sons, Nossaman

Guthner Knox Elliott LLP, Parsons Brinckerhoff, the Bay Area

Council, the Ybarra Group, Ashland Inc., Secretary of

Transportation Whittington Clement of the Commonwealth of

Virginia, the Colorado Department of Transportation, the

Texas Department of Transportation, the Maryland Department

of Transportation, Gabriel Roth, and Robert W. Poole of the

Reason Public Policy Institute.

Environmental Defense, a nonprofit dedicated to

breakthrough solutions to environmental The Kennedy amendment

has drawn opposition as well from the Value Pricing Futures

Group, a coalition that includes Environmental Defense, a

400,000 member nonprofit group dedicated to innovative

solutions to environmental problems, and many other groups.

These include the American Public Transportation Association,

the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, the Miami-Dade

Expressway Authority, the Georgia State Road and Tollway

Authority, the San Diego Association of Governments, Portland

Metro in Oregon, the Alameda County Congestion Management

Agency, Wilbur Smith Associates, and the Surface

Transportation Policy Project.

Also, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Regional

Plan Association, the TriState Transportation Campaign, the

American Planning Association, the American Society of

Landscape Architects, the Independent Institute, the Central

Parking System of Orange County, California, HNTB Corp.,

Transportation Innovations, Inc., UrbanTrans Consultants,

City CarShare, the International Downtown Association, TIME/

to Improve Municipal Efficiency, Cofiroute USA, the Resource

Systems Group, CRSPE, Inc. of Cape Coral, Florida, Smart

Growth America, Friends of the Earth, Transportation

Alternatives of New York City, the Union of Concerned

Scientists, the Center for Neighborhood Technology in

Chicago, the Oregon Environmental Council, CYCLE-SAFE, INC.

of Grand Rapids, Michigan, the Thunderhead Alliance, the

Vermont Bicycle & Pedestrian Coalition and Lee County

Commissioner John Albion of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor to speak to the American public. Sometimes we come to speak to one another.

It is in that spirit of speaking to my fellow Members of Congress that I rise today. Like you, I was horrified when the pictures at the Abu Ghraib prison first came forward, and then the additional admission of abuse, mistreatment, indeed, torture at the hands of people that we were responsible for.

And it seems, Mr. Speaker, that this is not an isolated set of circumstances. Indeed, there are more stories coming out of torture and death of detainees, and of extraordinary rendition, where people the United States is concerned with, we allow them to be transported to other dictatorships where we know that they will be abused.

I have been horrified as the stories start to come out, broadly reported in the press; and from Amnesty International, and the Red Cross. I, like you, my fellow Members of Congress, am horrified that the United States would be lumped into the same categories as countries that we are trying to encourage to honor human rights. Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia look to be countries where we have allowed people or sent them to be tortured.

This took on a decidedly local flavor for me as press accounts came out that a shadow, perhaps illegal dummy, front company, Bayard Foreign Marketing, LLC, in my home town of Portland, Oregon, was used to transport these people.

It appears to have been this company, organized in violation of Oregon law, to hide the true nature and breadth of this extraordinary rendition program. It is important for us as Members of Congress to be clear. Torture is morally wrong. It is not just a quaint idea that some people feel that it is morally wrong, but it is immoral.

Additionally, torture is a bad idea for intelligence purposes. The experts tell us that if you attempt to drown, beat, shock, freeze people, deprive them of sleep long enough, they will admit to almost anything you want them to admit to, but it is not the soundest basis upon which to base our intelligence decisions.

Furthermore, when prisoners are tortured, it taints the case against them; makes it impossible to bring them to justice in a court of law; and, sadly, it puts Americans at risk. The reason that we obey these quaint notions against torture is not just because it is morally wrong but tactically it puts Americans at risk in uniform and not.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about how Congress can sit on the sidelines and let the press and human rights groups do our job. Well, actually, they can only do part of our job. They can get the truth out, and that ought to be something that each Member of Congress ought to be concerned about. But being able to fix abuses, to hold responsible parties accountable for violation of human rights, a United States policy and perhaps law, that is our job.

Mr. Speaker, in the history of this country perhaps a half billion Americans have lived; only 11,571 Americans have been privileged to be Members of Congress. Who do we represent in this matter? Yes, we listen to special interests, those with strong political voices. We listen to the voters. We listen to the press. But at the end of the day, the things that matter most to us, I am convinced, are our family, our friends, the outstanding men and women who work for us here on Capitol Hill, who are almost like family. How can we look them in the eye when such a cloud hangs over America's honor?

I strongly urge each of my colleagues to look deep into their hearts and think about what they are going to do to provide the answer to their friends, their family, their neighbors, their staff about what we are doing to protect America's honor and to protect the abuse of human rights wherever it may be.

Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy, speaking 44 years ago at the establishment of the Peace Corps, remarked that, ``The initial reactions to the Peace Corps proposal are convincing proof that we have, in this country, an immense reservoir of such men and women-- anxious to sacrifice their energies and time and toil to the cause of world peace and human progress.'' What was true in 1961 is true today; Peace Corps Volunteers are an outstanding group of men and women serving the cause of people everywhere.

During this National Peace Corps Week, I want to honor the service and commitment of the Peace Corps Volunteers from Oregon's 3rd Congressional District and express my pride in my fellow Oregonians who have chosen to devote years of their lives in service to others.

In particular, I want to recognize those Peace Corps Volunteers currently serving:

Adela Ardelean in Romania

McKean Banzer-Lausberg in Morocco

Melissa Barber in Mali

Danae Bayley in Kenya

Elizabeth Decker in Azerbaijan

Amad Dorotaj in Mexico

Jeannine Ferguson in Romania

Crista Gardner in Guatemala

Kortney Garrison in Suriname

Christian Gervasi in Azerbaijan

Marisa Heman in Cameroon

Shannon Lawler in El Salvador

Ken Meisel in Tanzania

Brett Meyer in Mali

Angela Newman in Kenya

Cory Owens in Senegal

Joshua Owens in Senegal

Elizabeth Peterson in Cameroon

Andrew Poundstone in Suriname

Kimberly Schneider in Burkina Faso

Amber Schulz in Romania

Hanna Seyl in Malawi

Cory Seig in Namibia

Adrianne Stach in Tanzania

Rebecca Tweed in Vanuatu

Joel Van Allen in East Timor

Jennifer Vomaske in Kenya

Luke White in Nicaragua

Eric Wiley in Bulgaria

Lucille Wilkinson in Guatemala

Brenda Wolsey in Albania

Corinne Wong in Gambia

Marta Young in Peru

Their work to empower people and communities in developing countries is a crucial contribution to creating a safe and prosperous world, building bridges between America and the world, and establishing a better future for people everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, one reason I came to Congress is to make the Federal government a better partner to communities. One of the simplest ways to achieve that objective does not require new rules or regulations for local or state governments, and it does not require massive outlays of our budget driving us even deeper into deficit. The simplest answer is for the Federal government to follow the same rules that all others must follow.

To this end, I am reintroducing the Post Office Community Partnership Act. This bill outlines minimum community contact procedures that the United States Postal Service must pursue for any proposed closing, consolidation, relocation, or construction of a post office. Simply put, the bill requires the Postal Service to comply with local zoning, planning, or other land use laws.

This legislation has had the bipartisan support of the majority of the House of Representatives and in past Congresses passed the Senate only to become the victim of the politics of postal reform. In recent sessions there

have been efforts at more comprehensive legislation that all include some variation of this bill as an enticement for passage. The pressure from our legislation has in fact encouraged some within the Postal Service to make significant progress. I've met with members of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commissioners, and the National League of Postmasters, and they have made progress. There are outstanding examples of where they have worked with the local community to make the post office an integral part of a downtown or main street.

It is time, however, to make this relationship something that every community can count on. It is time to make this relationship part of the Postal Service's regular activities. It should not be an exception, it should not require luck or extraordinary political action, and there should be no variation in the commitment to providing the finest examples of being a part of each and every community.

Last year, Congress failed on acting expediently to pass comprehensive postal legislation that included provisions from the Post Office Community Partnership Act. I am hopeful that this hesitation will not be repeated in the 109th Congress. Congress has the opportunity to set the tone for the Postal Service and federal government to become a full partner in the livability of our communities, leading by example so our families are safer, healthier, and more economically secure.