Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of an important national debate on environmental protection, particularly in light of over 300 Bush administration environmental rollbacks. Yesterday was perhaps the most important announcement from this administration as they have opened up 60 million acres in national forests that were previously protected after extensive rulemaking throughout the Clinton administration. They now propose to turn that on its head and to abrogate Federal responsibility for our Federal land. The forests will be opened unless every State moves to protect, without national standards or safeguards.

It is unrealistic to expect every State to withstand extreme pressures from the special interests. History shows us that. The reason that every major environmental law was enacted at the Federal level was because we needed uniform national standards, and State stewardship was not adequate. The public knows that environmental protection to avoid a sad patchwork in our national forests requires that the Federal Government and this administration exercise full partnership. Sadly, the administration does not understand or support that concept.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I rise in support of this rule and in support of the agreement. This will, in fact, enhance an important relationship with Australia, a country where we already do enjoy, the record is clear, a trade surplus. It is important nationally. It is important to the State that I represent, not just for the technology industry, our number one source of export from our economy. It is going to make a difference of $4,000 per truck that is manufactured in my hometown by union machinists, painters, and Teamsters and exported to Australia.

I note that Australia has strong labor protections. One would only wish that the United States labor provisions were enforced and would provide the same level of protection to American workers to be able to organize as they see fit.

I appreciate the comment of my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, referencing the importance to build a bipartisan consensus on trade in the global economy. This is a very important discussion, one that we have already enjoyed here today. I think it is making us move down a path where future and more contentious issues can be dealt with in a thoughtful fashion.

I appreciate the warning that was issued by my good friend, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), about the needless addition in this trade agreement of an unfortunate precedent dealing with our health policy. It is not going to affect drug reimportation now because of restrictions in Australian law, but it is not a good precedent in terms of what the majority of the House is seeking to do with prescription drugs in this country.

But I must also mention another precedent that I find equally troubling, which deals with the treatment of sugar.

It is still the policy of the United States government to penalize United States consumers, forcing them to pay far more than the world price. It discriminates against sugar-based industries in the United States, driving confectionery factories from Illinois across the border to Canada. It is troubling that we see agreements take the sugar issue off the table in a concession to that powerful interest.

This is bad for our ultimate posture on trade, because it shows us to be hypocritical. It is bad for United States consumers. It is bad for the environment. It is bad for poor people around the world who could work their way out of poverty.

I will support the rule and the agreement, but I certainly hope that this is the last provision we have that enshrines protectionist treatment for the sugar interests in this country.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 8: In title III, in the item relating to

``foreign military financing

program'', after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

In title IV, in the item relating to ``global environment

facility'', after the dollar amount, insert the following:

``(increased by $13,177,734)''.

Mr. Speaker, I was sorry that I was unable to join my colleagues last Thursday in saluting our departing Member, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). He is everybody's model legislator. He is quiet and thoughtful, a serious man but with a light touch that sometimes one has to scratch the surface to reveal.

But he is, first and foremost, a policy maker, a policy maker by training, with a temperament and commitment to make things better within the limits and responsibilities of government. He represents a very exclusive cohort, he has graduate degrees from both the Harvard Graduate School of Design and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, who over 30 years ago was working in the heartland dealing with planning and promoting economic development for the State of Nebraska.

I think of him still as an intelligence officer with an insatiable quest for information and direct contact. He is a tireless worker on his various committees, always a full participant whether it is the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on International Relations, or Committee on Financial Services, or some of the other activities that related to his work like the American Parliamentary Union. The list has been as extensive as it is impressive and important.

The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) has always been someone in this chamber who understands how to make things happen, whether it is as a junior or a senior Member of this body, whether in the majority or the minority, he understood what it took to be an effective Member of Congress. He would push against political currents, willing to debate those who are more interested in ideology and politics than they are in understanding and representing the unique interests of the broad public.

He was willing to be unpopular with some in the political class but he struck a resonant chord for both Houses of Congress, in the media, with staff, and with Americans everywhere, but, most of all, election after election, in his home state of Nebraska.

It is also important to note that he understood how to work with the outstanding men and women who are of his staff who make things happen. For over 26 years in his office, committees, interns and fellows, he helped launch hundreds of the best and brightest into careers in and out of government.

For 6 years it was my pleasure to work with him on a particular issue, reforming our Federal flood insurance program. Some may think it somewhat esoteric, but it had profound effects in terms of the Federal budget, the environment, and in the lives and livelihood of people who were unnecessarily at risk.

I must confess that I think I learned more about the legislative process working with the gentleman from Nebraska on this single bill than I did previously in law school and my own experience as a policy maker before coming to Congress. He is a master at his craft which is making public policy and bringing people together.

One of my colleagues referenced my notion that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) is the glue that helps hold Congress together in occasionally fractious times.

One cannot reflect on his career without mentioning his spouse Louise, herself an educator and artist, in addition to playing the valuable role of congressional spouse.

It was my privilege to travel and share experiences with the Bereuters. I came to appreciate their insights into what a critical role is played by a congressional family. A life partner plays a critical role at home, with children, dealing with politics, providing their partner with insights and, generally, contributing to the well- being of this body.

We in Congress will miss them both, but our loss is good news for many because he and Louise relocate to the West Coast and look forward to assuming a new position as president of the Asia Foundation in September.

I know we all join in wishing them well and look forward to working with

them in this new chapter in their lives. In the meantime, we thank them for enriching ours lives for over two decades.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this; and I, too, rise in support of the amendment. I think it exemplifies the type of leadership we have had on our committee. I appreciate the chairman of the Committee on International Relations bringing it forward.

Doug Bereuter, I mentioned earlier on the floor during a special order this morning, what a difference he has made for me and all who serve with him. This identifies Doug as being a legislator, with his fingerprints on a wide variety of legislation.

I am pleased that we have had items brought forward that enshrine his name on legislation and on programs. I hope that we will be mindful of the many other contributions that he has made that few know about unless they had the pleasure of serving with him and watching him in action. I think it is a testimony to his insight, his patience and his hard work that he has been able to inspire this confidence on both sides of the aisle.

I am pleased that we have this as an additional expression of our support as he moves forward into a new career.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to understand, there are a number of us who would like to speak to this. I would like to know on the time allocation, if we were to approve the gentleman's request, when the time allocation would begin and how much time would be available to speak to the amendment.

Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

We have three people who have been waiting here, patiently watching. I know some people are cranky, and I am going to object unless there is at least 10 minutes that is allocated for the three of us. We are willing to work with you to cut it down, but that is my objection.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I will not take the full 5 minutes, in the spirit of trying to move this forward, but I am concerned about the sense of urgency of the problem dealing with sudden oak death. I appreciate my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), highlighting the problem as it relates to our State.

The nursery industry is an important part of our agricultural base. Just 1 percent of Oregon farm land devoted to the nursery industry produces 20 percent of total crop value.

This is not just an Oregon problem. We are involved with massive amounts of transfer of plant material around the country, and if we are not able to move quickly to deal with sudden oak death, we risk not just crippling the nursery business in Oregon but it is going to have consequences for people throughout the country as this disease makes its way through the system.

I hope that we would in fact approve this amendment. It is a modest amount of money to make a difference to a $14 billion national industry and prevent much more serious steps that will need to be taken in the future.

So, with due respect to the chair of the subcommittee, I would hope that my colleagues would approve the amendment to exercise the foresight to avoid a problem in our State, in our region, in the West to avoid becoming truly a national disaster.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I am happy to expedite this issue. I rise to offer this amendment in collaboration with my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), to provide an additional $1.2 million to improve the enforcement of Federal animal fighting laws. This is a perennial problem that the Federal Government has a critical role to solve.

Last year, the House passed an amendment to increase funding by $800,000, and I am appreciative for the approval by the body of that legislation and appreciate the growing support to combat these dangerous activities that threaten the health and well-being of both humans and animals and threaten the prosperity of our agricultural industry.

We have had earlier this year over 130 representatives and 47 members of the other body requesting this $1.2 million increase for animal fighting enforcement in letters to the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. This broad bipartisan support reflects our constituents' concern for meaningful enforcement of the Federal animal law, but, despite this broad bipartisan support, there are no additional funds designated within the account specifically for this task.

This amendment would provide $1.2 million for the Office of Inspector General, the chief law enforcement arm of the USDA, to focus on animal fighting cases, working closely with State and local enforcement personnel to complement their efforts.

This funding does not take money away from any other programs. It simply removes funds from the Office of Inspector General, places them back into the same account to designate the $1.2 million for enforcement of animal fighting laws.

Now, while the Inspector General did receive an increase in funding this year, it was to compensate for salary and cost increases and was not specifically providing funding for the enforcement of animal fighting.

Even though dog fighting is banned in 50 States and cockfighting is banned in 48, the Federal Government, as I mentioned earlier, must be involved because participants in animal fights often come together from several States at a time and animals are routinely moved across State lines.

Make no mistake, this is not some innocent pastime. Dogfighting and cockfighting are barbaric activities in which animals are given drugs to make them hyperaggressive, drugs to clot their blood more quickly so they can keep fighting longer. They are forced by their handlers to keep fighting even after they have suffered grievous injuries such as pierced lungs and gouged eyes. Dogfights and cockfights do not only involve deplorable animal abuse but they are inevitably, without question, involved with illegal gambling, often drug traffic and violence to people.

It is well-documented that animal fighters often bring their children to these spectacles, sending a terrible message to them about animal cruelty and violence and subjecting them to the aforementioned illegal activities.

Some dogfighters even steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs. Some abandon the fighting animals, leaving them to roam neighborhoods and wreak havoc. Any dog bred and trained to fight poses a public safety risk, and there have been numerous tragic examples, many involving children.

Animal fighting also poses a severe threat to the stability of our Nation's agricultural economy. This is something we brought to the floor in the past and I feel has not been given the attention that it needs.

Secretary of Agriculture Veneman indicated in a letter from January that cockfighting has been implicated in the introduction and spread of exotic Newcastle Disease in California in years 2002 and 2003 which cost United States taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate and cost the United States poultry industry many millions more in lost export markets.

``We believe,'' the Secretary says, ``that tougher penalties and prosecution will help deter illegal movement of birds as well as the inhumane practice of cockfighting itself.''

It has also been implicated in the deaths of at least two children in Asia this year who were exposed through cockfighting activities to bird flu. This is why the National Chicken Council, which represents 95 percent of U.S. poultry producers and processors, has stated that they are ``concerned that the nationwide traffic in game birds creates a continuing hazard for the dissemination of animal diseases.''

Surely, Mr. Chairman, spending this $1.2 million to crack down on illegal animal fighting is a wise investment to prevent the spread of costly future diseases. Animal fighting is no longer simply an animal welfare issue, although it certainly is that. It is an epidemic that costs taxpayers millions of dollars. It threatens our food supply and destroys the hard work of American farmers, promoting illegal gambling and drug activities and putting the public at risk.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, the remaining time is?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and let me conclude by saying that I appreciate the expressions of interest and concern on the part of my friend, the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee. The point is, after having worked on this issue now for over 3 years in this Congress, I find that this is extraordinarily elusive. And the reason it is elusive, and the reason that animal fighting continues in this country to be a problem, is because Congress does not step forward to stop it.

The gentleman mentioned the problem, that it is a misdemeanor. So people do not want to deal with enforcement. That was a tactical decision that was made by the people who apologize for this interest. There are, make no mistake about it, lobbyists here for illegal game- fighting birds, for example, who ply their trade here behind closed doors in Congress, and who have successfully fought to keep the criminal provisions as low as they can so that they can use the excuse, when the issue comes forward, well, we really cannot enforce it because the penalty provisions are not strong enough.

It is time for us to say enough to illegal animal fighting for dogs and game birds. My distinguished friend from Ohio points out that there are opportunities to recover money if we were aggressive about it and to stop using the excuse that because we, Congress, refuse to increase the penalties, well, then, we are not going to mess with it. I would strongly suggest that we stop hiding behind this smoke screen and stop serving as an apologist for a despicable industry.

I look forward to working with my friend to increase the penalties. But in the meantime, approve this amendment and send a signal that we want what we have to be enforced.

Mr. Chairman, while H.R. 4766, the fiscal year 2005 Agriculture Appropriations bill, is far from perfect, I vote in support of this bill that contains key programs for Oregon and important amendments that made this a better bill.

I am pleased that my amendment to designate $1.2 million of the funds within the Office of Inspector General to be used to enforce animal fighting laws passed, reflecting Congress' continuing attention to the inhumane, cruel, and economically devastating problem of animal fighting. I was also pleased to see the passage of Representative Hooley's amendment that increases funding for programs to eradicate Sudden Oak Death, a serious plant disease that threatens a nursery industry responsible for $700 million of annual production in Oregon and $14 billion nationally.

I am disappointed to see the failure of an amendment offered by Ranking Member Kaptur that would increase funding for Farmers Markets. I would hope the committee can work to improve funding for these programs that connect local farmers with their communities. I am also deeply dissatisfied in the funding levels for conservation programs that were a key component to the passage of the 2002 farm bill. Continual funding cuts to these programs have shown that these commitments

were, in actuality, empty promises. I will continue to work to strengthen funding for these programs that help farmers, and improve the environment and our communities.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 13: Page 8, line 6, after the first dollar

amount insert the following: ``(reduced by $1,200,000)

(increased by $1,200,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the House, we are often involved with contentious, hard political choices. Many of the sharpest disagreements deal with the environment. We look forward in the fall to a spirited debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry about their rhetoric and their actions in protecting our environment.

But one critical area that actually brings us together is on exhibit a short 10 minutes away from this House Chamber, down the hill at the National Botanical Gardens. This exhibit deals with the tens of thousands of threatened pollinators who make possible our quality of life, our agricultural bounty, things that range from fresh fruits and chocolate, flowers, even Tequila and other exotic items. These key species, from honey bees, fruit bats, butterflies, are, in fact, at risk. We in Congress, we as the American public, need to be aware of this. This is one of the environmental issues that is not that contentious, it is not that expensive, and, in fact, brings us together. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of the pollinator exhibit at the Botanical Gardens.

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit surreal for Congress to pass a Resolution congratulating a peaceful Iraqi transition on one of the bloodiest days of the insurgency movement. This Resolution seems more an exercise in self deception. I am hopeful that in the coming days, Congress and this administration will focus instead on how to stem the violence that continues to escalate, and to address the deep questions about our policies and management.

Congressional oversight is needed to examine the long term costs and consequences, and to determine what went wrong and how to fix it. It is critical to improving the safety of our soldiers and the people of Iraq who are struggling to rebuild their country.

Until we can be honest with our soldiers, the American public and the Iraqi people I think it is decidedly inappropriate to continue with resolutions of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Higher Education Sustainability Act of 2004,'' which would authorize $50 million for six Sustainability Education Centers across the country to develop and implement integrated environmental, economic, and social sustainability programs. Each Sustainability Center will focus on multidisciplinary research, education, and outreach at institutions of higher education.

Sustainable development practices are being advanced by hundreds of U.S. cities and companies and through a variety of international agencies including the United Nations and the world Business Council for Sustainable Development. As population growth, urban development and extreme weather incidents place great stress on ecosystems around the globe, the need for developing innovative and successful sustainable development practices becomes critical to sustaining our economic competitiveness, improving our environmental health and creating more livable communities.

In my home State of Oregon, we have many great examples of sustainable development and livable communities. Portland State University, located in my hometown, provides an excellent example of how to incorporate sustainability throughout the curriculum. Faculty from the departments of social sciences, life sciences, physical sciences, humanities, as well as the professional schools have been working to incorporate sustainability principles in their coursework and research. PSU has developed several new initiatives developed, including a Certificate in Sustainability Program focusing on PSU's partnerships with Asia and Europe.

Portland State University's Sustainability Initiative has placed a high priority on Green Buildings that use smart technology to improve operational performance and produce significant energy savings. Their green Stephen Epler Residence Hall, opened this fall, uses harvested rainwater in restrooms and features low-flow water fixtures for showers and toilets. Its integrated energy design is projected to produce an expected $29,000 a year in annual energy cost savings. PSU will save an additional $275,000 in energy cost across the campus this year simply by installing energy-efficient equipment and lighting fixtures and adjusting temperature settings. These savings translate into the tuition costs for nearly for nearly 80 students--a significant figure, given the rising cost of college today!

These innovations are just a few among many that are already underway in colleges and universities across the nation. This legislation will ensure that we can extend these innovations to all our institutions of higher learning. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and make a commitment to making our educational communities more sustainable and livable.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 685 is an alternative to the Republican leadership's failed economic policies. Unbalanced priorities, escalating spending, and three rounds of tax cuts have led to the highest budget deficits in history while shortchanging our children, seniors, and our troops and veterans. Before ``borrowing'' from the Social Security trust fund, this year's deficit is expected to total $638 billion.

This resolution is a small but significant step to reverse the unfortunate trend of the last three years. By limiting tax reductions for those earning over $1 million annually, we can help fund promises this Congress made to the American public, to make our country safer, improve our schools, and provide real healthcare benefits to those who need it the most.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate his leadership.

We have another extension, another opportunity to do it right for America. We need to send signals to the vast team that builds, maintains, and repairs our infrastructure, to say nothing of the American people who own it and who use it and who depend upon it every day.

The bill in question goes far beyond bridges, bikes, and buses. It includes historic preservation, key environmental and economic revitalization for cities large and small, for suburbs and rural areas.

I hope that our conference committee will reject the White House insistence on somehow using this bill to atone for their budget problems and the sea of red ink that we are faced with with the deficit.

The $318 billion that was the bill funding level from the other body is a start to keep faith with the American public's needs and aspirations. I would hope that our conference committee, in the course of this next month, will hold strong, to set the level for what America needs, the bill that was so effectively championed by our committee chairman and ranking member. The $375 billion, after all, was not plucked out of the air. This was the figure that the administration's own Department of Transportation set as the needed level.

There is, I suppose, an opportunity for some sort of mechanism of a reopener. It may well be that we reach a point where these demands between the White House and what America needs and what various constituencies within this House require, that maybe we just decide that we kick the can down the road until after the election. But this is one area that we cannot afford to fail.

We are not just talking about the next 6 years of reauthorization. We are talking about a funding level, if we are not careful, that will establish a floor for the next generation where we will be playing catch-up.

I appreciate the leadership of the chairman, of the ranking member, and the conference committee. I wish them well, and I hope that when we come back next that we will have the bill that America deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support an end to terror and violence in the Middle East, so I voted for resolution supporting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, and American engagement.

At the same time, this resolution does not tell the whole story. It rightfully holds the Palestinians to their commitments, but says nothing about the commitments made by Israel to freeze all settlement growth and remove illegal outposts in the West Bank. It rightfully supports the withdrawal of Israeli settlements and

military installations from the Gaza Strip, but says nothing about the need for a return to negotiations.

The ultimate resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the preservation of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and security for Israel can only come through a negotiated solution, the outline of which has been known for years. President Bush has diminished America's leadership role, despite backtracking only a week later in discussions with King Abdullah of Jordan.

American leadership is needed now more than ever to re-engage with regional allies and the Palestinian Authority to make the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza a success and to ensure that leaving Gaza is the first step towards peace. Helping Israel and the Palestinians to live up to their previous commitments and renewing negotiations can bring security to Israel, independence to the Palestinians, and peace to the region. An expression of support for Israel would be more effective if it dealt with the entire picture.

Mr. Chairman, I voted against the amendment because while the Abu Ghraib prison abuses should not be part of the United States' policy, the evidence is not clear that it was not part of the policy of the Bush administration. Given the disturbing documents that are coming to light, this amendment seemed to be partisan wishful thinking rather than a clear expression of policy supported by objective analysis.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

For the last 230 years, the United States has evolved from a ragtag collection of determined colonials who were able to meet the most powerful military in the world to today being the most powerful Nation. There are many chapters to that story. It was achieved at tremendous cost in human life and sacrifice, many lessons that we have learned, sometimes painfully.

This long, rich, varied history created the power that is the United States today and is, frankly, too little understood. We have tallied and documented the casualties, the missing and the maimed; but it does not tell the full story.

Our Nation's military history has a footprint that extends across the country and across the globe. Our military is the largest user of energy in the world. It is the largest manager of infrastructure, but 250 years of fighting and training around the country and around the world has produced a toxic legacy today.

People have forgotten about the unexploded bombs used in training, the discarded munitions, particularly in times past when our country appeared so large, the installation so remote, and the challenges we faced so dire. The cleanup of our toxic legacy has always been left to the future. It is my hope today that Congress will send a signal that when it comes to the toxic legacy of the past, the future is now; we will no longer avoid our responsibilities and look the other way.

There are many reasons for addressing the cleanup other than just the arguments of the environmentalists. There are clear and conservative, fiscal and military imperatives. These problems do not go away. We have millions of acres that are off limits and potentially contaminated. There are vast challenges from yesterday's legacy. Until these dangers are cleaned up, the longer we wait, the greater the cost to the taxpayer through escalating costs, as munitions decompose, toxins migrate in the groundwater and memories fade as to where the bombs might be. Cleanup delayed inevitably makes cleanup more expensive as the problems get worse and inflation drives the prices higher.

Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I was seeking to offer that would do something about it, to be able to enable us to do a better job. The first thing we ought to have done was put one person in charge. My amendment would have established a separate line item for cleanup of UXO in the Defense appropriation bill, entitled ``Military Munitions Response Program,'' separating UXO from the hazardous waste cleanup to provide the focus that the UXO efforts needed.

The amendment would also have established an assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Military Munitions Response to the Deputy Under Secretary for Defense Installations and Environment at the Department of Defense. I have been trying for the last 5 years to be able to help us get a handle on this by having one person in charge and be able to know exactly what the status is. Unfortunately, despite working through both the authorizing and the Committee on Appropriations, we still face the situation today where it is fractured, where no one person is in charge. I hope that our failure to act on this toxic legacy can be reversed.

I will not offer the amendment because I know that it would be ruled out of order, but I wanted to make the point as we are dealing with this massive bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's kind words. I appreciate the difficult task that his subcommittee has.

As I think of the challenges that we face, I cannot think of anybody with a more difficult challenge today, and my heart goes out to the difficulty my colleague has in terms of providing for the needs of our constituents that are overseas.

But, as I say, I will not offer this amendment because I think it would be ruled out of order. I want to make the point that nobody in the Department of Defense to this day is in charge. There is no separate account that enables an appropriate accounting; and in the course of the debate this afternoon, I look forward to offering up some alternatives that may, in a small way, help my distinguished friends on this subcommittee who have what I truly believe is a difficult task; but I want Congress to no longer be missing in action on unexploded ordnance and military toxins that pollute millions of acres around this country. In fact, nobody knows how many are polluted.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, earlier I had mentioned my concerns about Congress no longer being missing in action when it comes time to clean up unexploded ordnance.

It is astounding to me how little awareness there is on the part of most of my colleagues how dire the situation is and how serious it is around the country. I have here one chart, Mr. Chairman, that speaks to the sites that we have, number of properties in various States and the territories around the country. One can see that it is every State in the union, every territory, and we are having a serious situation now, Mr. Chairman, in terms of losing ground. We have 2,300 sites, and we are still counting. At today's rate, it will take between 75 and 300 years in order to clean these up.

There have been references to our doing the best we can, and I agree. There are lots of efforts that have been undertaken to try and deal with this problem, but how it breaks out in terms of these 2,300 sites around the country, we are dealing here with only $204 million total in proposed budget for 2005. That is less than we had in 2003 by a substantial margin, barely more than we had last year. Even though inflation continues, the costs go up.

If I can put it in perspective, in terms of where we are spending the money, I have a chart here in terms of how much we are spending. We have 52 of these sites where we are spending $.5 million. Basically, it is kind of hold your own. It is kind of a maintenance effort. There are less than 2 dozen sites that are funded for over $1 million. And, Mr. Chairman, if this chart was to scale, the number of sites that we are spending nothing on would go from the bottom all the way to the ceiling, over 1,400 sites.

This is serious business. In Southern California, there were two 8- year-old boys who were injured after discovering a live shell in Terra Sana, a northern San Diego neighborhood. Following the tragedy, the Navy swept 300 acres and discovered 184 shells. This was, sadly, 20 years ago, the tragedy that killed those two boys. When I took to the floor yesterday, I talked about a situation in North Carolina, right now at Fort Butner, where a family is forced to move out of their home when they find a bomb in the front yard, a year and a half later they cannot live in it, they cannot sell it, and they are on the verge of bankruptcy.

There are thousands of acres around there that are now in private hands and are being sold where there will be liability in the future.

Here in Washington, D.C., a 30-minute bicycle ride from where we are standing right now, on the campus of American University, is the site of where we manufactured and tested chemical weapons during World War I. They are still working on it. Three times they thought they were done. They just recently extended the deadline between 2008 and 2010. And you know what, they are stopping work this year because there is not enough money to finish the job. The child care center at American University is still vacant because of the arsenic levels. It has not been fully cleared to be used. And they are working in home after home in some of the most expensive neighborhoods in our Nation's Capital.

I could go on at great length, going over the problems that are here that we are not addressing. I would offer up an amendment that would permit us to move in the direction of being able to have some wide area assessment so that we can go out and at least clear some of these properties so that they will no longer have to be off limits.

I invite you to look at some of the material that is being put out by the Corps of Engineers: Coloring books for children telling them not to pick up unexploded ordnance. Now, I am sorry, Larry the Lizard is a great guy, but he is no substitute for Congress stepping up and putting money behind the cleanup on our public lands.

Three times since I have been in Congress, we have had to pull firefighters out of the forests because the heat has exploded bombs around them. From New York to Arizona to Alaska. I would respectfully suggest the adoption of this amendment so that we can have some opportunity to clear millions of acres so that at least we will not have to have Larry the Lizard telling our children what they have to do when they visit our Nation's parks.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, what I am suggesting in this regard is to redirect a mere $5 million from the research account to be able to deal with the wide area assessment. This is one of the numerous studies. This was done by the Defense Science Board task force on unexploded ordnance. This is for the Department of Defense itself. They have been looking under the direction of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, what do you do with the 10 or 15 million acres? Remember a few minutes ago I talked about ``Larry the Lizard,'' the coloring book to try and tell children not to pick up exploded ordnance. There is a way that we can find out where the problems exist and what the unexploded ordnance report for the Defense Science Board concluded was having a wide area assessment.

What they recommended was to do $200 million a year. With $200 million a year over 5 years, we could assess 10 million acres. That would not tell us what type of ordnance is under the acres that are polluted, but what it would do would tell us areas that there is not ordnance. Their estimate is that by doing this simple billion dollars over 5 years, $200 million a year, we could open up 8 million acres that could be used safely. We would not have to be telling kids through Larry the Lizard. Or I have a great one here that tells people when they go to the park in the Jefferson proving area in Indiana that you have to sign a waiver to use the park because of exploded ordnance, and they tell you if you find unexploded ordnance on the trail, do not use your cell phone because it might detonate it, in our Nation's parks.

With all due respect, I would suggest that by starting with a simple assessment, not $200 million but merely $5 million, so my colleagues would actually see that it works, that we can have an opportunity to start eliminating, because $5 million, frankly, is a scandal in my judgment, out of over $400 billion, we can protect our children, we can protect our forest rangers, our firefighters and be able to do an assessment that would take it all.

Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request the adoption of this amendment to have $5 million for the pilot study on the wide area assessment. But I hope that this minimal initial step is something that will encourage the House of Representatives to start taking this seriously and not consign Larry the Lizard to take care of our children or wait a quarter of a millennium or more to do what we should be doing today.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the point I was trying to make earlier, with all due respect, is that the couple of hundred million dollars that we have here leaves the vast majority of sites with no expenditure whatsoever. Over 1,400, no expenditure. I just mentioned on the floor that we are having to suspend the work on the campus of American University and in Spring Valley because they are running out of money.

My question is, why should we be continuing to play this sort of shell game when for a reasonable expenditure of funds we could clear 8 million acres or more from having this signage and having this risk?

If the gentleman will yield further, I have four studies here now from 2001 that detail the deficiencies and inadequacies of the program. I am wondering what the gentleman expects to be accomplished by one more study that has not been already highlighted, documented and discussed with the gentleman and the committee over the course of the last 4 years?

The amount of money that is required according to the Defense Science Board to be able to do the 10 million acres which could free up an estimated 8 million is $200 million a year. The $5 million that I was talking about was a pilot study that would maybe demonstrate to people the effectiveness of it. It is not going to solve the problem at all, but it would move us in a direction so that maybe we could demonstrate to people the effectiveness and we could get to the point where we are spending serious money. My colleagues know what serious money is. They spend billions. They spend billions on things that are controversial even within defense experts. I am trying to get a little bit of money, serious money but small in the scheme of things, that would actually make a difference. I do not know if that is responsive.

I appreciate the gentleman's offer of help.

Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to get at is to not be at the same place next year that we are now. Last year we were trying to get a little money for research, but we were trying to focus some attention so we would do more. Where I see the problem is that we are actually spending less than we did 2 years ago, that we have reasonable proposals from the Department of Defense for doing something about it, and now I am back here hearing that here is $5 million for a pilot project and we will have a study and come back next year.

I wanted to explain what I hope to accomplish. My goal is to be in a situation where we can actually make some significant progress for expenditures to solve the problem, not to continue to study it or to do tests.

I appreciate the courtesy that has been offered by the Chair and ranking member to try to help out for 5 million. I am trying to respond to this question about what I am trying to achieve. I do not want to be back here next year and see the funding level going down, the cost going up, needs unmet, and people looking at me like it is hard to understand what I am trying to achieve. That is what I am trying to do.

Mr. Chairman, I will seek to work with the committee, but my ironclad commitment is to help make sure that there is a way that we focus on the floor so we are not back here with another study and a pilot project, no increase in funding and a problem that continues to get worse year after year after year.

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