Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in yielding me this time.

I heard the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules talk about how this is an easy issue to be a demagogue. Well, I would suggest what we heard from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) was the antithesis of demagoguery. It does not require an emotional or irrational appeal to prejudice. They have been direct and straightforward in telling the consequences of the Republican approach to debt management and spending.

I should amend that. It is not the Republican approach, because the gentlemen I just referred to from South Carolina and from Texas represent many Republicans, like I do back in Oregon, that do not subscribe to this; and it insults them to suggest this is the Republican approach to budgeting.

The distinguished Committee on Rules member from New York talked about the mandate. Well, I would think the Republicans and the President would have a mandate if they had ever talked about this. I did not hear a single Republican talk about increasing the debt. I did not hear them talk about reckless spending on programs for special interests, divorcing it from reality. In fact, they employed tactics to disguise the fact that we had exceeded the debt limit. They have been borrowing from retirement and disability funds, for instance, we expired in October.

No, if they had talked about this directly and honestly to the American public, I would accept the notion there is a mandate. And in fact I would suggest if they had done that with their plans, they would not have had a mandate, because they would not have won the election.

The fact is we are incurring more debt than is necessary for weapons that do not add to security, for handouts to special interests that do not need them, and tax cuts for people who need them least, making them permanent regardless of the fiscal consequences.

We are given a program from the majority party and the President that, if we approved it, would almost double this problem over the next 10 years. I, for one, cannot go back home to campuses and look these young men and women in the eye and suggest that I was a part of approving it.

I long for the day when we have a bipartisan effort to reduce the deficit and to deal meaningfully with our spending priorities. But unless and until that happens, I will vote ``no'' as the one way I have of protesting this bizarre divorce from reality, of the fiscal reality that all of us are going to have to live with.

Mr. Speaker, would that their rosy scenarios come to pass. In some respects, I hope that they will. I do not wish ill on our country. But the fact is, the policies and the practices are leading us down a path that we will regret for years to come.

Mr. Chairman, there are all sorts of problems along the United States-Mexican border, but to take a sensitive area that, as my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), has pointed out, where there are serious issues relating to native Americans. We are working on areas here, in terms of the massive amount of fill that would be involved, twice the size of the Hoover Dam, is something that people need to take a pause, a deep breath, and take a careful look. There is a lot of environmental damage that can be done.

We cannot keep people, illegal aliens, from crossing the border. It is porous, we know it. To move forward with this massive project now, suspending environmental regulations, extends a precedent that I think is chilling.

Our Capitol is a monument to our inability to get things right in terms of things that all of us know are not going to retard terrorists but make our Capitol into sort of a fortress. We are spending money, trying to make people feel good. Suspending environmental regulations in a way that is not going to have any long-term impact. I urge its rejection.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this rule and the underlying bill. I think there is much that is desirable to be found in it. Certainly it is important to meet the needs of our Armed Forces in this difficult time, especially in Iraq.

However, the bill continues to spend too much money on the wrong things. One of the most graphic examples is an 11 percent increase for missile defense, over $10 billion, that is critically needed now in areas of homeland security and defense activities.

There are also important elements for protecting our communities that are underserved in this legislation. With almost $446 billion, we ought to be able to have the Department of Defense clean up after itself. What this bill does not address is literally a ticking time bomb.

I have come to the floor in the past talking about the millions of acres around the country that are contaminated with military contamination, unexploded ordnance, or UXO, the military waste and unexploded bombs left over from former military sites. The estimates range from 10 million to 40 million contaminated acres. I noted a moment ago my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, was here. They are having subdivisions creeping out to the Lowry Air Force Base, a former bombing range, where soon people will be living near areas where we fear there are unexploded ordnance. I note the gentleman from Texas is here. He is near an area in Arlington where there were people out Rototilling their backyards in a new subdivision literally turning up an unexploded bomb.

The Department of Defense estimates that identifying, assessing, and cleaning up contamination from military munitions will cost in the area of $8 billion to $35 billion, but most experts say it is going to cost far more. But we are spending at a rate of only $106 million annually. According to GAO, it will take 75 to 330 years to clean up these unexploded ordnance on already closed sites, and it does not include all the new contamination that we are creating.

Leaving this toxic legacy does no favor to the Department of Defense. In the long run it is going to cost more to clean it up, because clean it up we must. It is going to threaten the environment, and we have seen situations like the Massachusetts military reservation that is creating serious ground water pollution; it endangers our military and their families.

I sincerely hope this is the last such piece of legislation that does not appropriately address the problem of unexploded ordnance and military contamination.

Mr. Speaker, as an ethical cloud hovers over the House of Representatives, as the fog of misrepresentation on the war in Iraq is slowly lifting, homeland security should be one thing that unites this country. But sadly, the greatest failure of the Republican leadership is the inability to bring us together around this issue.

The squabbling on a flawed bill later this morning is just one more example. It is not just its bad provisions; it ducks entirely the issue of unifying our fractured intelligence service. The 9/11 Commission under Governor Kean and Lee Hamilton did their job in a bipartisan manner. The Senate, working together with every, every Republican supporting it, did theirs. The tragedy for the House and the American people is that the House Republican leadership is unable to do their job with this critical task. The good news is the Senate and the 9/11 Commission did their job.

Mr. Speaker, it is more important than ever that the American people do their job on Election Day.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy for yielding me this time, and his leadership.

Indeed, following on the heels of my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), our distinguished ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation, with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) and with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), we know in our committee how to work together to solve problems. We should be celebrating today what should be the ultimate expression of bipartisan support to make America safer.

Sadly, as has been chronicled by my friend, the gentleman from Oregon and others, that is not what we are doing today. We bypassed these opportunities and, instead, we have inserted in this bill provisions that would allow the deportation of suspects to countries where they can be tortured, enshrining a bizarre and despicable practice, even after the debacle at Abu Ghraib. It is not just immoral and in violation of treaties we have signed; it is a terrible risk to American lives.

If we were working together the way we know we can in our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we would not have provisions like this. We would have been able to work through the Commission recommendations, not leaving out 14 that are incomplete and 16 not included at all, but the way the other body has done, supported by the administration.

We would not have failed to take action to strengthen nuclear counter proliferation efforts. We would find a way

to provide additional security assistance in Afghanistan, and we would not be in a situation where we failed to bring together, to give the National Intelligence Director sufficient authority over the budget and personnel of all of the intelligence agencies. We still have not remedied a fundamental flaw in our system that was made so evident in the report from the 9-11 Commission, what every Member of this House who has looked at it has discovered, that the FBI and the CIA could not communicate with each other, let alone with people within their chain of command.

Mr. Chairman, we can do better. The America public deserves better. We need to reject this proposal, adopt the Menendez amendment, and use that as a point of departure to give the American public the security they need, want, and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4520 illustrates what is wrong with how we're operating in the House. In seeking a legislative solution to a relatively minor requirement to correct a problem that made our Tax Code for manufacturers conflict with our international trade obligations, the Republican leadership pushed aside a no-cost, bipartisan solution for a special-interest loaded bill that is much more expensive and complex.

The argument that H.R. 4520 is revenue-neutral is fiction. The actual cost that taxpayers will pay are hidden by delaying the starting date of some provisions and scheduling others to unrealistically end. It is certainly the intention of the sponsors of this bill to fully extend these tax cuts, which will add billions more dollars to years of projected deficits.

To compensate for its deficiencies, this bill was laden with targeted tax provisions that will secure the votes of those who represent various interests ranging from tobacco farmers to race track owners to manufacturers of bows and arrows. This has resulted in a bill with 700 pages of additional Tax-Code complexity, making it more difficult to enforce and creating a compliance nightmare for taxpayers.

This is not the way to craft tax policy. It erodes the confidence of the public, adding to their distrust of the political system and their belief that they are not being fairly treated.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. I rise in support of it. Our hearts again go out to the victims of natural disasters like the hurricane in the Southeast, but I would, with all due respect, suggest that we ought to start thinking about how we can do more.

This is the second time we have done this in 2 months, but it is not just a once-in-a-century occurrence in Florida. In 2003, President Bush issued 56 major disaster declarations. So far this year he has already issued 46. During the 8 years I have been in Congress there have been at least 10 disaster supplementals, and we have appropriated over $20 billion in disaster relief funding in supplementals.

CRS has testified that there is no systematic accounting of disaster relief funding, even just the Federal cost. Now these bills are popular and they are important. They make us feel better; they help people. But always acting after the fact we create a wider hole for the taxpayers, and we keep putting people in harm's way.

I remember in 1999, where we had supplemental funding that put hog lagoons back in a flood plain. Now, we should not just continue to clean up after these tragedies and these messes.

Congress has an opportunity to make a real difference to prevent some of the future damage when we have major legislation like this. Whether it is flooding, fires, hurricanes, drought or earthquakes, we can make a difference ahead of time.

I look at what happened in California with the recent wildfires that we have seen earlier in this Congress. We saw in Ventura County and Los Angeles County, Stevenson Ranch, where people did some thoughtful planning before the fact and the losses were dramatically reduced.

We should at a minimum create a comprehensive national strategy for responding to and preparing for recurrent natural hazards. It ought to include consistent Federal policies. We should shift some of our Federal investments to prevention and protection. We should provide technical and financial assistance to support State and local mitigation efforts like in the State of Florida, hazard mapping, land use planning, building standards, retrofitting existing structures. We should use our Federal facilities in States like Florida to model the best practice in terms of location and safe construction.

Now, earlier this year, we stepped in this direction, reforming the flood insurance program. The funding in this bill will save the Federal Government millions of dollars in avoided flood damage, such as we are currently seeing in Florida, and it will reduce losses in the future and take people out of harm's way. Unfortunately, this bill, authorized, has not been funded.

I sincerely hope we pass this bill today, and I look forward to seeing what the chairman and the ranking member can work out to do it in a comprehensive way to make sure that people are not left in the lurch.

But when my colleagues are adding more in, please consider doing a little bit to help people in Florida and other areas avoid danger in the future. Fund the flood insurance reform that does not cost any general fund money. It simply takes some that is already there in that fund and allows it to be used. And let us not put people back in harm's way; let us give them a helping hand, as well as assistance.

Mr. Speaker, the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act is a step in the right direction in promoting profitable agri-business in the United States that incorporates responsible land use and levels the playing field for producers.

Specialty Crop production is big business in Oregon, accounting for $905 million a year in revenue for the State of Oregon. There are over 30,000 producers of specialty crops in Oregon, dozens of processing/ packing companies, and over 250 vineyards.

These specialty crops, which are not currently subsidized by the Federal Government, stand in stark contrast to sugar, cotton, and the other major crops that cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year and hamper the economies of developing nations.

Oregon has been a pioneer in maintaining an urban growth boundary that preserves valuable farmland that can be used to raise these niche climate crops that have a growing demand, both domestically and internationally, Not only does this benefit the Oregon economy, but our world famous pears, wines, berries, hazelnuts, and other specialty crops bring communities together in farmers market settings that benefit 64 communities in Oregon.

I urge my colleagues to usher in a new era of responsible crop production and vote for H.R. 3242.

Mr. Speaker, the good news is that Congress is again showing bi-partisan leadership in addressing the ongoing genocide in Darfur. The bad news is that there is much more to be done.

I thank my friends, Mr. Tancredo and Mr. Payne, for continuing to ensure that this issue is in front of us. It is important that tonight we are taking specific action to pressure the Government of Sudan to end the genocide.

This bill will place sanctions on Khartoum and on companies that continue to do business with this genocidal regime and authorizes assistance to address the humanitarian crisis. The Scope of that crisis is vast: 50,000 Darfurians have already been murdered, a million and a half people have been internally displaced, hundreds of thousands have sought refuge in Chad and close to 1 million people are still beyond the reach of relief agencies. International aid agencies such as MercyCorps and CARE are actively working to provide emergency lifesaving assistance in Darfur and deserve our highest gratitude.

However, this crisis goes beyond the humanitarian. This genocide has a political basis and will require a political solution--either diplomatic or military or, more likely, a combination of both.

The President should move the international community to action, supporting international efforts at sanctions, and ensuring that the African Union mission has the mandate and logistical support they will need to be effective at protecting the civilians in Darfur. I strongly support H.R. 5061, the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act, and am proud to have been a co-sponsor of it.

Madam Speaker, I must correct the record. I am not a sponsor of the bill. It was introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), though; but I do celebrate the spirit in which it is offered to recognize the contributions in terms of memorializing the notion of making sure our youth are physically fit and active and expressing the sense of Congress that National Take a Kid Mountain Biking Day should be established in Mr. Doub's honor.

I think it is important for us to move in this direction in part to take someone who loved the spirit, the challenge, the physical activity of cycling and to translate that to promote and encourage children of all ages to learn to ride and lead a physically active lifestyle.

This is serious business. The committee has been working throughout this session of Congress, focusing on the needs of fitness for our youth. The notion of childhood obesity, the rates have nearly tripled in adolescents in the United States since 1980, and we know the research indicates that overweight adolescents have a 70 percent chance of becoming overweight or obese as adults and the range of physical problems that are associated with it.

That is why the Surgeon General and the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports recommend regular physical activity, including bicycling, for the prevention of overweight and obesity, as well as general health promotion.

Mountain biking is a growing activity around the United States. In my State of Oregon, over 400,000 people participated in mountain biking last year. Bike Magazine identified the area around Hood River, Oregon, just to the east of my district, as some of the finest singletrack in the mountain bike universe, lying within an 80-mile radius of Hood River, incorporating all of the area that I represent.

It is important not just to fitness and recreation. It is also important to the economy.

Overall, bicycling and mountain bike tourism is important to local and State economies. We are finding across the country cycling activities are gathering tourists for organized rides, for touring and for mountain biking. In our State, tourism is a $6.1 billion industry, and we are watching as bicycling is becoming an ever-increasing part of that effort, programs like Cycle Oregon that bring together 2,000 people from around the country every year.

It also is the source of a growing industry just in terms of cycle manufacturing and sales. There are thousands of small businesses across America that are part of the bicycling industry and specifically mountain biking. We just found this last year in Oregon the Chris King Precision Components relocated from California to Oregon because of the local support for mountain biking.

And they join one of dozens of companies that are a part of that effort, creating a critical mass in terms of the component, manufacturing, sales and service.

For all of these reasons, in terms of celebrating the spirit of mountain biking, the importance of promoting fitness, particularly among our youth, because it is so important in areas like tourism and small businesses, I rise in support of this resolution and urge my colleagues not just to support it, but find ways that they can translate this back home to their communities to make a difference.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that neither the administration nor the Republican leadership in Congress is willing to face the facts. The reckless rush to war in Iraq without being prepared to win the peace has put our troops seriously at risk. We have a situation that continues to deteriorate on the ground in Iraq. We are forcing young men and women to stay in the military and are exerting inordinate pressure to extend their enlistments. Finally, we are reducing the qualifications of new recruits into the military. This is all a desperate attempt to maintain our inadequate troop strength levels.

Rather than acknowledge the problems and deal with responsible proposals that have been offered by a number of our colleagues, the Republican leadership has instead advanced to the floor legislation to reinstate the draft which they do not even support.

It is time to stop playing games with the welfare of the young men and women that are serving us in Iraq and around the world. They deserve better. They deserve proper equipment and an increase in our overall troop level. They need leadership in the White House and in Congress to help stabilize and reverse the perilous situation into which they have been thrust, against the best advice of uniformed leadership.

I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and to provide a responsible alternative to increasing the troop level and increasing the range and nature of support from other countries. Sadly, it appears that this White House, the current Secretary of Defense and the Republican leadership in Congress are not equal to the task at hand. Hopefully, after November we will be given a new opportunity to address these critical issues.

Mr. Speaker, as the damage, pain, and suffering of the recent hurricanes slowly recede in the memories of most Americans, we would do well to remember that this is but a small taste of what is likely to occur given the increase in global warming.

A recent study by the Commerce Department's Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Lab in Princeton University, the most extensive to date, indicated that global warming is going to make it a lot worse. The typical hurricane is going to be one-half step greater on the 5-step scale, rainfall up to 60 miles away will be up to 20 percent more intense, and even if the number of storms remains the same, which is not at all

clear, there will be much increased potential for damage, and the rising sea levels will create more flooding from the storm surges.

It is time for the United States to work with other developed countries to recognize the threat of global climate warming, to cooperate on solutions to reduce greenhouse gases. Future generations will be grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the explanation of my friend, the gentleman from New York, and I agree with a number of the things he said. There will be a large, bipartisan majority supporting this extension, but the notion that somehow there are not problems associated with the repeated failure of Congress to pass, despite what my friend from New York says, what should be one of the easiest bills. We can take the bill that passed the Senate and put it on the floor of the House, and I am quite confident that it would pass with an overwhelming majority. It passed the other body with some 72 or 73 votes. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure offered up an approach to the Floor of the House that was substantially above that level. We have assembled the broadest coalition in the history of infrastructure legislation. We have interests ranging from the Sierra Club to the Chamber of Commerce, from the Women's Federation Garden Club of America to the cyclists, to the people who put down asphalt, who all agree on the basic structure of this legislation.

There has been a lot of hard work on behalf of the gentleman from Alaska and the gentleman from Minnesota to try and craft a piece of legislation that is acceptable. I see on the floor here my friends, the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Illinois, who have been working, chairing the subcommittee, trying to put something forward underneath these artificial restrictions.

But the point is that it is not a failure of agreement between the Members of the two bodies of Congress. We are substantially in agreement, and we are in agreement with the vast majority of the American public. And the failure to allow that agreement to be fully and fairly debated on this floor and enacted means that we are holding in suspense important transportation priorities.

Yes, we are going to allow the spigot to be opened, or rather, we will avoid slamming the spigot closed at midnight tonight. I do not think anybody in their right mind thinks that we would or should do that. But that does not mean that there are not negative problems associated with it. We have projects in the Pacific Northwest that were slated to go forward that are multiyear in nature, and because of the uncertainty, these are on hold; significant problems that speak to economic development, that speak to environmental protection, to reducing congestion. And it is not just in the northwest. It is New York. It is in Massachusetts. It is Florida and Texas.

If we talk to any of the transportation officials, they will tell us that we are not well served having to repeatedly come to the floor with a short-term extension. But I am going to argue in support of this 8- month extension because, frankly, it is better to kick the can down the road past the election. We have shown that we are not really capable of doing that in an election year. With a new Congress, maybe with a new administration, without the pre-election posturing, I think we will, in fact, have a better piece of legislation. Were we to enact a flawed piece of legislation, it would not just be a problem for today or tomorrow; we would be crippling our transportation initiatives for the entire 6-year period of the authorization, and it would establish an artificially low standard for subsequent reauthorizations. We would be severely penalizing transportation for a generation to come.

I hope that, in the course of the next 8 months, but particularly in the course of the next 5 weeks, the American public takes the time to pin down the politicians in the House, in the Senate, running for President, about where they stand on transportation infrastructure. This is the most important transportation piece of legislation for the next 6 years. It is also the most important economic development legislation, and done right, it is the most important environmental legislation.

This should have been the easiest piece of legislation for this Congress to pass. Sadly, we are seeing today that it has proven that we are not up to the challenge. I hope we can take these next 8 months and do better by the American public.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's notion about having the funds flow.

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking not to debate. I was just trying to establish a context for a question.

Is it not true that, in both the House and the Senate version of the transportation reauthorization, there are a vast number of specific projects, new starts, that are multiyear in nature and that cannot proceed in the absence of their being reauthorized, and that this extension has no bearing on those longer-term, complex, important projects in the gentleman's State and in mine?

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this afternoon about children and activist judges, because that is how the focus groups suggest this debate should be framed.

My children have been raised around people in committed same-sex marriages, relationships in some cases which have included children. They, and most of us, have seen neighbors, relatives, and friends in dysfunctional heterosexual marriages. It is not their sexual orientation, it is people's behavior. My children and most American young people know that marriage is not under attack, and activist judges do not prevent citizens in States from making their own decisions, like we will in Oregon in November.

It is shameful to play politics with the personal lives of millions of Americans who are not just gay, but elderly, and for whatever reason are not married but are in a committed relationship. Luckily, because my children and the vast majority of America's youth disagree with the world view of the

supporters of this amendment, it will not only fail today, but it certainly does not represent the future.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in firm opposition to this legislation, which aims to repeal Washington, DC's local gun ban. I find it troubling and illogical that the House is repealing a ban on handguns and assault weapons in a city where the Federal Government has invested millions of dollars to increase and improve security. It is foolhardy for Congress to counter these actions by allowing loaded assault weapons to be carried

around this city, putting officers as well as citizens and visitors in danger.

Washington, DC has made great strides to reduce its crime rate-- homicide has decreased by 25 percent over the past year and it has decreased by 55 percent since the passage of the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. Despite these improvements, violence remains a serious problem in the District of Columbia. Sixteen children have been killed by gunfire in DC so far this year. These numbers are not going to improve if we allow loaded assault weapons to be carried within the city.

Not only is this legislation ill conceived and dangerous, it is a local matter that should not be within Congress's jurisdiction. The District of Columbia City Council and Mayor passed this ban during its first session in 1976. No laws have been passed locally to repeal the law and the courts have maintained its constitutionality. Now, this body, which does not even grant over half a million United States citizens living in the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress, is trying to further strip rights to these citizens by taking away a self-imposed law to protect their safety.