Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that my good friend from Arizona is concerned about those 23,000 residents of Arizona

who are likely to exhaust their State unemployment compensation. But I am a little, I am a little concerned that what we are having here today is a debate that sort of misses the fundamental point.

I do not think the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) would have chosen this vehicle and this approach if we were actually able, on the floor of the House, to have an honest debate on the simple act of extending the unemployment. We tried to do that repeatedly before the holidays, but the House does not operate that way anymore. We do not permit a bipartisan effort to come forward with major public policy issues that actually have broad bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle. That was never permitted to come forward.

I appreciate the gentleman from California's creativity at least in bringing forward an opportunity to spotlight the needs of these Americans who, with all due respect to my friend from Arizona, I do not think we encourage them by starving them off the rolls, by arbitrarily limiting it. I do not think that is compassion.

I come from a State that has had serious unemployment problems. We have been at the top 3 for most of the last 2 years; an uncomfortable portion of those 2 years at number one in the country. It is not that we have not been creative in terms of moving people off welfare. We were doing it far before the Federal Government was doing it over the course of the last 5 or 6 years. We are proud of that effort. We are proud of efforts at job retraining.

The simple fact is, this is a serious patch for the people in the Pacific Northwest, in Oregon, in Washington, in California. My friend from Arizona I think needs to take a look at what happened with that drop in unemployment. It was not that there were new jobs created; it is because people gave up. They were discouraged. There were not jobs available. And we are going to cut them off.

Well, I think if we are serious about creating jobs, we have a bipartisan bill in our committee, in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, that would actually put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work in a matter of weeks, rebuilding crumbling bridges, dealing with transit, dealing with roads. We are ready to go. But this administration is not interested. In fact, they have sent signals that if we even had this bipartisan bill that would put hundreds of thousands of people to work doing important things, if we brought it forward, they are threatening to veto it.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we need to stop, and my friends talk about hypocrisy. Well, I think there is some hypocrisy here. If we could actually legislate on the floor in a bipartisan fashion, we could deal with this directly and there would be an overwhelming vote to extend unemployment benefits. We ought to deal meaningfully with creation of job opportunities like transportation and infrastructure. We ought to move forward, not having the rhetoric of the President that he is concerned about job training and offer a few million dollars, and then have a budget that cuts job training even more. Today, in the Committee on International Relations, we had a hearing that dealt with the problems with people with the L-1 visas that are coming in and taking jobs of Americans and, in fact, having the indignity of Americans training their replacement from overseas in an abuse of that program.

I think we can stop the hypocrisy. We can move forward with simple, commonsense things that are supported by the American people that, if we were allowed to legislate, would get bipartisan support. We ought to start with the Miller amendment today. Hopefully, that will be a signal that we ought to stop the games. We ought to do it in a forthright fashion, and then follow up with transportation investments, follow up with meaningful tax reform like the alternative minimum tax that would take care of middle-class Americans, and do it in a system that I think men and women on this floor would like to do.

I sincerely hope that this vote in favor of the amendment today will be a signal to our friends in the Republican leadership to allow us to debate in a bipartisan way solving problems, extend unemployment, invest in America's future, and meaningful tax reform that will make a difference for American families.

Mr. Speaker, a drama is taking place about the future, not just of America's economy, but the global marketplace. A metaphor for this drama is the role that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, plays. Since its founding by Sam Walton in 1962, it has grown to be larger than the economies of 170 nations.

By rigorous cost containment and careful attention to detail, it has forced suppliers to be competitive and more effective. It has given Americans lower prices, and some experts even say has held down inflation. What could be wrong with this picture? Well, plenty.

First of all, there are the costs to communities. It appears that communities lose far more jobs with Wal-Mart than they gain. Depending upon that community and whether or not those jobs lost are unionized, the jobs that they do get are $2 to $10 an hour less than those destroyed. Much of the opposition is to the impact that Wal-Mart has on the fabric of the communities it operates in, often at the outskirts of town, drawing away from the vitality of the main street where businesses, slowly, are strangled.

The impact can even be devastating for its suppliers, as detailed in a cover story in this month's Fast Company magazine, discussing the impact on Huffy Bikes and Vlasic Pickles, where companies end up being squeezed and often cannibalizing themselves. Finally, there are grave questions about the treatment of workers in the factories around the world that supply Wal-Mart.

There appears to be a corrosive impact on Wal-Mart itself: It is not just anti-union, but blatantly so, firing workers who are sympathetic to unions. There is illegal coercion of their own employees who may be interested in unions, and illegal roadblocks to people who would organize.

Last June in the Wall Street Journal, there was a story about Wal- Mart firing workers earning $9.50/hour just because they were at the upper end of Wal-Mart's already low pay scale.

There is strong evidence that the corporate culture that knows every detail of its supply chain refuses to correct abuses that have been widely reported in its own operation.

Last year in Oregon, a jury found that company managers had coerced hundreds of employees to work overtime without compensation, as Wal- Mart managers were tampering with time cards, and forcing employees to work off the clock. This appears not to be an isolated example. Already Wal-Mart has settled overtime suits in Colorado and New Mexico, and there are more than 40 other cases pending across the country.

Equally as distressing was the raid this fall of 61 Wal-Mart stores where it appears they were contracting with companies to clean their stores who systematically used illegal immigrants. These employees were cheated out of overtime by these companies that often failed to pay their taxes. A systemic pattern by a company known for insisting on detailed, private financial information from its suppliers, but unable or unwilling to make sure that its own contractors follow the law. This raises huge questions about their 10,000 overseas contractors and subcontractors, about whether or not Wal-Mart has complied with its own vague code of conduct, especially since Wal-Mart is the only major retailer that refuses to allow independent auditing of its factories overseas.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Wal-Mart to open up to independent monitoring abroad, to stop cheating its employees at home, and to become a force to lift standards, to make our world a better place.

To help them, Congress ought to start now investigating the practices of America's largest retailer, particularly as it relates to labor and employment. Communities should help Wal-Mart by not cutting corners and cutting their own throats in competition for another store, and instead establish reasonable land use and planning regulations for Wal-Mart developments.

Most important, consumers should begin to consider whether the lowest price is worth any cost: to the poor of the world, to suppliers here at home, to the health of our main streets, and the abuse of Wal-Mart workers, and Americans denied basic organizing rights. There is a Wal- Mart Day of Action planned next month for January 14. This will give us all an opportunity to consider whether the lowest price, regardless of its cost, is worth it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad commentary on the performance of the Republican leadership who control the White House and both Houses of Congress that they still cannot get the appropriations work done on time. I voted against several of these measures as stand-alone bills. Rolling them together and adding special interest provisions has not made them any better.

Indeed, in several instances this bill represents a repudiation of the will of the public and express decisions of Congress. Examples include the fact that a bipartisan majority of Congress had already voted to prevent the Bush administration regulations that would deny overtime pay to 8 million employees. This bill strips the ban. Additionally, this bill abandons an overwhelming bipartisan agreement of both bodies of Congress to block Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations permitting broadcast networks to expand their reach and consolidate the industry.

This omnibus appropriations bill spends too much on the wrong things and shortchanges critical needs such as education, veterans' healthcare, and state and local law enforcement. It's made all the worse that this funding is borrowed money that will add to our budget deficit. I vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3181 the Predisaster Mitigation Reauthorization Act. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) pointed out, the purpose is to reauthorize predisaster mitigation which provides assistance on a competitive basis to States and localities to undertake hazard mitigation projects. It is absolutely incontrovertible that if we take steps early in the process, we will protect lives, we will protect property. There is an added benefit in keeping disaster costs down and insurance rates in check.

One way or another, we all pay for natural disaster events through Federal disaster relief and insurance premiums. Nationwide, annual homeowner insurance premiums have increased 42.2 percent since 1995. In the last 25 years, there have been almost 1,000 Presidential disasters declared, and the GAO has estimated that Federal disaster relief has increased fivefold in the course of the last decade. From 1998 to 2001, this is almost $40 billion.

Not only will this legislation help homeowners be whole again, but it will save taxpayers billions of dollars in disaster assistance in the long haul.

One of the concerns I and a number of Members had when we had the Federal Emergency Management Agency with its long history of helping our Nation deal with natural disasters moved into the Department of Homeland Security was the concern that the focus on the day-to-day disaster preparedness and emergency response, I would be lost in that large bureaucracy. I am hopeful that in the course of our heightened homeland security concerns, that we do not allow the focus of that agency to become blurred. Maintaining the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is an essential part of maintaining that focus.

By funding mitigation projects after disasters at the time when communities are most closely focused on the benefits of mitigation and protecting families from future loss, we are able to invent resources and make a difference. Sadly, there are already stories in the newspapers in southern California after, the disastrous fires and the testimony to inadequate planning and enforcement even of local regulations, the people are talking about moving back into harm's way.

The Predisaster Mitigation Program Reauthorization Act we bring to the floor today provides the balance between the predisaster program and reaffirming our support for postmitigation.

The pilot project, as has been referenced would provide for the distribution of grants to carry out disaster mitigation programs, was created to promote appropriate mitigation efforts without having to wait for a disaster to trigger the availability of funds in the future.

Even though authorized to start in 1999, it only began this calendar year, and the competitive grants have yet to be received or awarded. Even though we want to evaluate the effectiveness of the program, and the CBO cannot yet compete its mandate due to the lack of substantive information, it is appropriate for us to reauthorize for 3 years to make sure we get the evidence.

We ought to be very clear that we want to have the facts and figures to support being able to do more in the future. I deeply appreciate the work of our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the work of the chairman of the subcommittee, the

gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). They provide continuing focus on this important area that too often fail to get the attention it deserves. If we do our job right, we will make a difference for people all across the country: taxpayers, homeowners, and the people who have the tough jobs working in the trenches.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the problem of forest fires in the West that are aggravated, in some cases caused, by human mismanagement has been a problem as long as I have been in Congress. I am pleased that with the work of Oregonians Representative Peter DeFazio, Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Greg Walden, the bill that's moving forward is better than the bill I voted against in the past.

I wish I could vote for H.R. 1904 in good conscience, but it still has three fundamental problems. First, the procedural fix far exceeds any procedural problem. This bill would undermine the National Environmental Protection Act, the judicial process, and the system of administrative appeals to fix a perceived problem of too many projects being tied up in environmental litigation. However, the Government Accounting Office estimates that only 1 percent of forest management projects have been tied up in litigation. This type of sweeping procedural change is unnecessary.

Second, the bill opens up our forests to much broader timber harvest. This should be debated on its own merits and not under the guise of forest health and fire prevention. If we want to substantially increase timber harvest on Federal lands we ought to be clear and deal with it directly.

Last, and most troubling of all for me, is that this bill does not adequately protect families whose lives and property are at risk because of forest fire hazard. This bill does not focus our resources on the interface between residential properties and forest land, in what we are coming to know as the ``flame zone.'' Focused hazardous fuel reduction around communities could substantially reduce the risk of fire damage by providing a buffer to help slow and stop advancing fires.

This is a better bill than before but it is still a missed opportunity. To adequately protect families and businesses we need to take a few, simple, proactive steps. We need to strengthen building codes and insurance requirements for ``firewise'' construction and ``defensible space'' landscaping. According to Forest Service scientists, these precautions can increase a home's ability to survive a wildfire by more than 90 percent. We need to educate homeowners of the dangers before wildfires start so they can adequately prepare, and make informed choices on where to live. We need to implement smart land-use planning that guides development away from fire-prone areas. And, we need to provide affordable, livable housing options for families away from danger.

Mr. Speaker, our senior citizens need help with spiraling drug costs. It is outrageous that moderate income seniors pay the highest prescription drug prices in the world. The idea was to fix this problem, but somewhere along the line, the bill was hijacked by the Republican leadership for other purposes. I can't remember how many of my Republican colleagues have told me that they think this is a bad bill. From the Wall Street Journal to consumer advocates, thoughtful conservatives to people who classify themselves as very liberal, all find this bill deeply flawed.

Spending what's claimed to be $400 billion, but will actually entail far more cost to the

Treasury, and the unprecedented pressure and advertising may pass this bill. The fascinating reversal of position by the leadership of the AARP gives a public relations boost, but that move has already been attacked by its own members.

The authors of this bill are putting something in for almost everybody: not just the drug companies, but doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and so on, but ignoring the fundamental needs of senior citizens. As over a thousand pages come into focus, details leak out and are investigated by outside groups, the press, even Members of Congress, it is clear the bill still does not meet the needs of our seniors. After all the dust settles, our senior citizens will still pay out of their pockets the highest drug prices in the world.

There's something wrong when the only people who appear to be happy with the Medicare Prescription Drug bill are the drug companies. They were able to strip out provisions that would have allowed reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada. It will be illegal for the government to negotiate lower prices for Medicare recipients. Future price increases will not be indexed to inflation, but to the rate of runaway drug costs, ensuring that spending will continue to spiral out of control.

For the drug companies, the holidays may come a little early this year. Sadly, deserving senior citizens who need help won't even get this inadequate drug plan until 2006. Told that even in 2006, they will have to pay $4,000 of their first $5,100 of drug costs, they'll feel that they didn't get a present. I will vote against the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, and I appreciate the leadership that has been shown by the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the principal lead sponsor the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) who has been working on this for a number of years.

I am afraid the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) fundamentally misses the point for why we have a flood insurance program. I find no small amount of irony that it was the late Hale Boggs who was one of the first three sponsors of the flood insurance program in 1968 precisely because the people in Louisiana needed a program like this. I have encouraged my friends from Louisiana who were skeptical to maybe look at the facts. It is the people in Louisiana who are actually paying more money, and I wish the

gentleman from Louisiana was still here so that we could engage in a little bit of a colloquy at some point, but they have paid more than $200 million in premiums above what they have gotten back. There are a few of the Cajuns who are part of the 10,000 people who are flooded repeatedly, in many cases being paid more than the price of the property value. This bill would help these people. We have in our files correspondence from people who are trapped because of the repetitive flood loss. They cannot sell their property.

This bill, contrary to what my friend from Louisiana says, would not force anybody to sell their property. It would, for the first time, provide adequate mitigation on an ongoing basis so that they would have a choice. They could floodproof the property, raise it if it is cost- effective or they could relocate. Thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), there is extra provision to make sure that some of these low-income properties are dealt with. One of the problems is that under this program, other people in Louisiana would be paying much higher rates over time to pay for a few repetitive flood loss properties.

Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is coming at exactly the right time. We are going to be able to take care of the 1 percent of the property that is costing thousands of policyholders in Louisiana more than they are putting in, and if we would take the approach of my friend from Louisiana, unfortunately, they would be paying even more in premium while other people are trapped in this repetitive flood loss cycle. This bill signals a higher profile and greater interest in a commonsense solution.

One of the reasons the business community is so interested in it is because it will help make sure that the properties here can be financed. It will make sure that we cut down the long-term burden for 4.5 million policyholders across the country who are paying year after year more money. It is not just the people in Louisiana that are being disadvantaged, but millions of policyholders around the country who are paying higher premiums than are necessary. If we are able under this program to defer just one 10 percent premium increase, it will mean a savings for policyholders across the country of $165 million each and every year on into the future. And there are tax dollars involved here, because there are countless times where the Federal Government steps in with disaster relief. With this program and its mitigation, we will be spending fewer of these tax dollars.

Mr. Speaker, this is sound environmentally, it is sound in terms of economic development, it is sound in terms of helping these people in harm's way, and it sends the right pricing signals. It does not force them out of their home but it says if you are going to stay there, you are going to start paying a little bit more so that the rest of the people in Louisiana and Mississippi and Missouri and Oregon, God forbid, do not have to pay a disproportionate amount unnecessarily. But part of the advantage of this bill cannot have a price put on it. It is going to save lives.

Looking in today's paper, there were three people killed yesterday in Maryland. I do not know what the loss is in Louisiana or Mississippi or Oregon. We have seen them time and time again. This is a proposal that is going to help get these people out of being trapped and I think not just save money but it is going to stop the disruption of business and it is going to save lives. It is right for the environment, it is right for the economy, it is right for the Federal taxpayers and it is right even for my colleague's Cajun friends who are going to end up being out of this flooding cycle and more people in Louisiana are going to save in premium dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment briefly because it is hard to get through things very quickly, but one of the things that was in my notes that I wanted to acknowledge was that this bill is a very different bill because of the contribution the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) made. I personally learned a lot about the flood insurance program in a broader context in terms of some of the history, in terms of some of the dynamics and some of the perceptions that we need to build. My good friend from Nebraska mentioned the name change. It is not just symbolic. I think it is something that really reflects a better approach, and it would not have happened without the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), and I appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following votes on November 17, 2003, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote 620; I would have voted ``yea'' on S.J. Res. 22, recognizing the Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture for 50 years of service to the Nation.

Rollcall vote 621; I would have voted ``yea'' on S.J. Res. 18, commending the Inspectors General for their efforts to prevent and detect waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, and to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the Federal Government during the past 25 years.

Rollcall vote 622; I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 299, honoring Mr. Sargent Shriver for his dedication and service to the United States of America.

Rollcall vote 623; I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to change the hour of meeting.

Mr. Speaker, today on the suspension calendar H.R. 253, the Two Floods bill, is an opportunity to reauthorize and reform America's flood insurance program. It is a great opportunity to build on the legacy of the late Hale Boggs from Louisiana who helped create the program because he understood how important it was to a State like his.

The bill passed out of the Committee on Financial Services with a unanimous vote, broad support from bankers, realtors, environmentalists. With the help of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), we assure that the special needs of flood-prone areas are met, that we help people move their homes out of harm's way, that there is more assistance for the States with the biggest problems, and it will reduce the premium pressure, saving money for 4\1/2\ million policyholders. Last, but by no means least, these reforms will ultimately mean significant savings in disaster relief costs for the Federal Government.

One percent of the property should not require 25 percent of the loss costs for the entire country. This Bill is a win-win for the economy, for people moved out of harm's way, and for the environment. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider it as it comes forward later today.

Mr. Speaker, I support the reauthorization of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the important role it plays in assisting emerging markets in developing countries and promoting U.S. exports, which creates jobs here at home. OPIC's operations and activities have supported over 250,000 U.S. jobs and produced $64 billion of U.S. exports.

With this important role comes a responsibility to ensure that projects promoted by OPIC uphold adequate environmental, labor, and human rights standards, I am pleased that OPIC is taking steps to ensure this responsibility is upheld. The Report accompanying this legislation outlines the International Relations Committee's expectation that OPIC continue its work towards implementing an ``accountability mechanism'' and ``transparency initiative.''

The accountability mechanism should be in the form of an independent position within OPIC that evaluates and reports on environmental, social, labor and human rights impacts. The transparency initiative should make certain that interested stakeholders have appropriate access to information concerning OPIC's projects. This level of transparency will strengthen OPIC's programs and policies.

I expect this Congress and the International Relations Committee to monitor OPIC's progress towards these initiatives through hearings and reports. I look forward to continued dialogue with OPIC on these issues to strengthen the link between economic development, and environmental and social progress.

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

Whether it has been 3 years or 6 years, the fact is the Committee has produced a comprehensive bill. You do not have a comprehensive energy policy. $138 billion in total costs may buy support, but it is not going to buy energy independence. It avoids meaningful energy conservation that would have permanent savings for every American every year. It avoids meaningful investment in renewables. Simply defining nuclear energy as a ``renewable energy source'' is not an adequate alternative.

The $138 billion pales in comparison to the hidden cost to our environment, to our air, our water, and increased global warming. It will extend our dependence on fossil fuels for decades to come. Three years, 6 years, 12 years, and hidden Republican only conference meetings produced a huge, special interest driven bill. What you have lost is an opportunity to have a comprehensive energy policy that would make this country safer, cleaner and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke against this bill when it was on the House Floor and, unbelievably, it's gotten worse in Conference. I am frustrated that on the week before Veterans Day, the conference report keeps moving further away from what the military, veterans, and Americans need. The most fundamental function of our national government is the defense of our nation. Today, this function is more important, and we are spending more on national defense than ever before. The conference report that we are debating this morning carries a $401.3 billion price tag, which means that the United States will be spending over a billion dollars a day, and more on our military than do the next 25 nations combined. This bill certainly spends enough to do the job, however it is full of provisions that not only waste tax dollars, but even threaten Americans' health and safety.

I am pleased that the Defense Authorization bill starts to reduce the tax on disabled Veterans, which is long overdue. However, I am disappointed that the bill would only partially end the tax--leaving out two-thirds of military retirees affected by the tax and forcing those covered to wait 10 years for full benefits.

I am also extremely disappointed that the conferees chose to eliminate the 1993 ban on low-yield nuclear weapons. The House bill allowed research but maintained the ban on development activities that could lead to the production of a destabilizing and unnecessary new low-yield nuclear weapon. However, conferees accepted the Senate language that also allowed research but eliminated the ban. Fortunately, Congressional approval is required before these dangerous weapons can be produced, and I hope that this never occurs. Producing a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons increases the likelihood they will be used in conflict, breaking a taboo that has been in place since World War II. Developing new types of nuclear weapons sends the wrong message to other nations. America must lead by example if the threat of nuclear weapons is going to be eliminated.

This bill is missed opportunity to focus on real priorities. The anti-environmental provisions in this bill are especially frustrating. Instead of addressing real threats to readiness,

the administration and the Republicans in Congress are taking on an easier target, dolphins. Using defense as cover, they are proposing changes to environmental laws that have nothing to do with defense readiness.

As the largest owner of infrastructure in the world and also the biggest polluter, the Department of Defense should be setting the best example, not getting permission from Congress to cut corners on the protection of the environment and the health of our communities.

The Conference Report includes modified House language that would prohibit designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act if the Secretary of the Interior determines that the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan prepared by the Secretary of Defense will provide ``a benefit'' for endangered and threatened species on military lands. However, there is no definition of ``benefit.''

We have seen that critical habitat designation is not the problem on military lands. This conference report misses the real threat to military readiness: encroachment of development around bases. This is the same sprawl and unplanned growth that threatens our farms and forestlands, pollutes our air and water, and congests our roadways, and this is the real threat to our ability to train and maintain the world's mightiest fighting force.

Across the country, from Ft. Stewart, Georgia, to Camp Pendleton, California, development is threatening the armed forces' ability to fly planes, maneuver and conduct other readiness activities. This has led the State of California to pass their Senate bill 1468 which recognizes the long-term operations of military installations must involve a partnership between the State, local agencies and the Federal Government. It provides the military, environmental organizations and local planning agencies the tools to work together to fight common enemies of military readiness like suburban sprawl. But this proposal is completely absent from the legislation coming before us.

The Conference Report also retains controversial House language that would reduce protections for marine mammals. New language, added in conference, would also apply the weakened standards to any research activities by the Federal Government (or contractors), creating a double standard as current law would continue to apply to citizens and the private sector.

In addition, key conservation terms of the Marine Mammal Protection Act are altered in order to overturn a recent Federal court of appeals decision regarding the impacts of Navy sonar technology. The bill allows the Department to exempt itself from what's left of the Marine Mammal Protection Act for anything necessary for national defense. It excludes any meaningful involvement of the wildlife agencies, the States, Congress and the public in review of these exemptions. This contradicts language passed unanimously this week by the Resources Committee--the House committee with exclusive jurisdiction over the MMPA--which does not contain any special standards or exemptions for DOD. This has raised the ire of both Democratic and Republican Resources Committee Members participating in the Conference.

Not only are these provisions harmful, they are also unnecessary. Under current law the Department can already waive environmental laws when it's necessary for national security. There has never been a case where a waiver has not been granted for military necessity.

The defense authorization bill is also wrong on a very fundamental level. It is missing an opportunity to use the Department of Defense to set the highest standards. Given adequate resources and the right orders, our Department of Defense can achieve any mission. We are missing that opportunity. As the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, we ought to be able to figure out how to better address this problem without compromising the environmental survival of what we are fighting to protect.

It is arrogant and hypocritical to let the Federal Government off the hook for environmental regulations. We will impose them on small business or local governments but not on us ourselves.

I oppose this conference report because we are spending too much on the wrong things and not enough on strategies that will make our Department of Defense more sustainable over time. The spending is too heavy on weapons research and too light on relieving the stress on our fighting forces. We can and must do a better job shaping our Nation's defense policy.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on his important motion to instruct.

My friends who are so concerned about the energy industry, I fear are giving us conflicting signals. On the one hand, we are told that we can open up areas to additional drilling and exploitation because it is so safe, because it can be done without environmental damage. They are willing to go into the pristine arctic wilderness area and subject it to drilling.

Yet, we are told here that, no, we actually have to extend further protections, further exemptions from full compliance with our Nation's environmental laws. I find it a little ironic.

It is sad that we are debating what may be in the energy bill because the irony is, of course, that the committee members who are on our side of the aisle have been excluded. They do not really know exactly what is in the conference committee report, let alone the public and the rest of America. But the fact is that we are very likely to be dealing with this exemption.

I have heard references again that I find ironic to the committee of jurisdiction. The gentleman will remember that when the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) attempted in the Committee on Energy and Commerce to provide an amendment to deal with this specific subject, he was ruled out of order because the committee of jurisdiction happens to be our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but we have not been dealing with this. This is dropped in in this hidden conference process from which the Democrats have been excluded.

When there was an effort to go to the Committee on Rules earlier to explicitly deal with this matter when the energy bill was coming forward, the Committee on Rules would not allow it.

The gentleman from Texas refers dismissively to ``dirt'' as though it is not a pollutant. Well, I ask the gentleman to come to the Pacific Northwest and talk to sportspeople who will tell you that inappropriate regulation of dirt, of silt is a serious pollution problem. And that is why responsible contractors deal with it and, in fact, that is why we have had it under Federal statute and why it is being employed right here within sight of the Capitol. Dirt, silt is a serious problem.

Now, this regulation has been under control since 1992. In fact, the EPA has been looking to extend it because this is serious business, not just the sites that are over five acres, but from one to five acres. Again we have been operating under this rule for 10 years.

Now, I am sorry my colleague from Houston got away because I have the provisions here of Section 402, and it appears that it would not permit the administrator to do what he was saying, to clean up pollution after the fact.

The point is we should not be cleaning up after the fact. There is no good reason to roll back this protection. There is no good reason for the Committee on Energy and Commerce to act outside their jurisdiction and deny the opportunity for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to deal with it.

Last, I find it ironic that this comes forward on a day when two more environmental rollbacks have been brought forward by this administration. There is a leak that they are going to cut back clean water jurisdiction over streams that do not have a ground water source, and today the administration announced that it would not be pursuing any of the pending new source review cases against utilities that went ahead with construction in violation of the new source review program.

This despite their repeated assurances when they were coming forward with the NSR rule change that they would not affect pending cases.

Mr. Speaker, this is a part of a pattern of environmental rollback that we have seen with this administration that will not correlate its campaign rhetoric with what it does in office and where this Congress is complacent in stepping back from our requirement to protect the environment.

I strongly, strongly urge that we approve the motion to instruct from the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following votes on October 30, 2003, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote 594; I would have voted ``yea'' on a motion to recommit H.R. 2691, the Interior Appropriations Conference Report.

Rollcall vote 595; I would have voted ``nay'' on final passage of H.R. 2691, the Interior Appropriations Conference Report. While I appreciate the hard work of the Committee and the funding in this bill that went to important projects in Oregon, I am disappointed that the bill contained significant cuts in the Conservation Trust Fund. I am also opposed to the anti-environmental riders in the bill, especially limits of judicial review in the Tongass and Chugach National Forests in Alaska.

Rollcall vote 596; I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 302, expressing the sense of Congress welcoming President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan to the United States on October 31, 2003.

Rollcall vote 597; I would have voted ``nay'' on the martial law rule allowing for the same day consideration of the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill. House rules require a one day layover requirement so members have a minimum amount of time to review the final report before voting on it. It is a travesty that the Republican leadership put this Congress in a position to vote on a bill that spends $87 billion without adequate review.

Rollcall vote 598; I would have voted ``yea'' on this motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 6, the Energy Bill. The motion to instruct would call on the conferees to abandon a provision allowing the EPA to extend smog standard deadlines for cities beyond the extension already provided for under the Clean Air Act. This provision is outside of the scope of the Conference Report and will result in dirtier air for communities around the country.

Rollcall vote 599; I would have voted ``yea'' on this motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Bill, to reject premium support.

Rollcall vote 600; I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to recommit H.R. 3289, the Conference Report for the Iraq and Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Rollcall vote 601; I would have voted ``nay'' on final passage of H.R. 3289, the Conference Report for the Iraq and Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations Act. I voted against this legislation when it first came before the House and this final conference report still does too little for our troops, too little for Afghanistan, and does not address the problems we are facing in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, recently, the National Commission on U.S.-Indonesian Relations released a report that focuses on how to create a long-term, strong relationship between the two nations, and why that is important for the United States.

The report, which was the work of a combined group of academics, former diplomats, and business people took a year to research and write. Indonesia is an important country for the United States due to its strategic location in Asia and because much of the world's sea borne commerce passes through or next to Indonesian territory. It is active in forums, such as Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, where other key nations such as China, Japan and Korea are active. Finally, it is the world's fourth most populous nation and the world's largest Muslim nation.

Indonesia is also important for the United States because it is a democracy striving to strengthen itself in the face of growing Islamic fundamentalism. If the United States cannot help Indonesia move further down the path toward democracy, we stand little chance of helping other Muslim nations do the same, a goal that is so crucial in our global fight against terrorism.

The key finding of the Commission is a simple one--the United States and Indonesia can best help each other by creating a new partnership, one that the Commission calls a ``Partnership for Human Resource Development.'' From the U.S. perspective, this means investing in Indonesian education, democracy building, economic growth and security.

I also believe the United States can play a critical role in helping Indonesia handle its massive urbanization trend and the infrastructure, health, and environmental challenges that result. There are now 50 cities in Indonesia with a population of at least 100,000, with eight of these cities in excess of a million residents.

Our relationship with Indonesia will continue to play a critical role in Southeast Asia and the world. The National Commission's report is worthy of our review and action. I commend the work of the Commission and I urge my colleagues to read the report. I ask that the Executive Summary of it be included with my remarks.

Executive Summary

Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous nation and

third largest democracy, is the pivotal state in Southeast

Asia. It has exercised major influence in the region and

plays an active and constructive international role. It has

vast natural resources and is strategically located astride

major lines of communication between the Pacific and Indian

Oceans. Half of the world's merchant fleet capacity passes

through straits with Indonesian territory on one or both

shores. Including its oil and mineral sectors, Indonesia is

home to about $25 billion in U.S. investment, with more than

300 major U.S. firms represented there.

Two additional factors are of particular importance today:

Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population--more

than all the Middle Eastern Arab states combined. The vast

majority of Indonesia's Muslims have historically been noted

for their moderation. Theirs is one of the few Muslim

majority nations in which Islam is not the state religion.

Given its size and importance, Indonesia is critical to

stability in Southeast Asia. It has been the anchor of the

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and a key

player in the ASEAN Regional Forum, the only organization in

the Asia-Pacific region that brings the United States

together with Japan, China, ASEAN and others to discuss

security issues.

Today Indonesia faces major problems: a difficult

transition from authoritarian rule to democracy; slow

economic growth combined with inadequate job creation;

capital

outflow; endemic corruption; ethnic and sectarian violence; a

weak judiciary; and a serious threat from domestic and

international terrorists. The October 12, 2002 bombings in

Bali were the most grievous instance of terrorism since the

September 2001 attacks on the United States. The carnage in

Bali was a wake-up call for Indonesians and their government,

and Indonesia joined the fight against terrorism. Local

police arrested more than 90 suspected terrorists, but more

are still at large as shown by the August 5, 2003 attack on

the J. W. Marriott Hotel in the heart of the capital city

Jakarta. Fourteen people (all but one were Indonesians) died

as a result of that attack and 150 were injured.

There are continuing problems, but the news from Indonesia

has not by any means been all bad. Since 1999 the country has

had a free and fair national election and two peaceful

presidential successions. Its media are among the most free

in Southeast Asia. Civil society is flourishing, and more

than 5,000 non-governmental organizations are active

across a broad range of sectors. Constitutional reform and

decentralization have made the government less top-down.

For the first time, beginning in 2004, the president and

vice president will be directly elected. In this process

of reform, the leaders of major Muslim organizations have

played a constructive role in defining relations between

religion and the state. The ceasefire agreement in Aceh

has failed, but those between hostile ethno-religious

groups in the eastern islands are holding. And the

Indonesian economy, despite its vulnerabilities, has

stabilized in important respects.

The country is now at a critical juncture in its democratic

transition and economic recovery. This is therefore an

opportune time for the United States to rethink its approach

to Indonesia. A failure of democracy there would hurt not

only Indonesians. It would reinforce the stereotype that a

Muslim-majority nation cannot manage a democratic system.

Given the size and importance of Indonesia, we believe that

success of that nation's democracy would not only provide a

better life for its people but also reduce vulnerabilities to

radicalism and have an impact beyond Indonesia's borders.

For these multiple reasons, the National Commission on

U.S.-Indonesian Relations recommends that the United States

and Indonesia enter into a ``Partnership for Human Resource

Development'' in which the two nations pledge to work

together on joint programs to promote in Indonesia an

effective democracy, sustainable development, and the rule of

law. The idea of a formal partnership is new to this

important bilateral relationship. We believe this concept is

essential to increase the prospects for success and to ensure

that both nations buy into these programs and are committed

to make them succeed. In other words, that both accept

ownership.

Events in the coming five years, including national

elections in 2004 and their consequences, will determine the

fate of Indonesia's democracy and the nature of the new

leadership generation expected to emerge before the following

elections in 2009. Accordingly, we recommend that the United

States pledge $200 million annually in additional assistance

funds to this partnership during this five-year period. The

Commission believes that Indonesia would be a good candidate

for funding under the Millennium Challenge Account. Whatever

the source, it is important that these be add-on funds that

do not disrupt important ongoing assistance programs.

These additional funds would be used to strengthen existing

programs and initiate new programs in four critical fields:

1. Education--work with Indonesian officials to strengthen

the nation's educational system at all levels, including

Islamic schools, and rebuild ties with U.S. educational

institutions. Before the fall of Suharto, Indonesia's

experience with democratic systems and practices was limited

to a few years in the 1950s, so that most Indonesians living

today have had no direct experience with democracy. As a

result, Indonesia's democracy must be built from the ground

up. A key prerequisite for success is an informed electorate.

Education is the key to success and is also essential to give

greater depth to the management level in virtually all

sectors. We therefore attach special importance to education

and urge prompt, large-scale U.S. support.

2. Democratization--improve governance, speed and deepen

legal reform, strengthen parliament and the electoral system,

and help ensure the effectiveness of decentralization.

3. Economic Growth--improve the investment climate,

strengthen Indonesia's private sector, expand trade,

facilitate the resumption of full debt servicing.

4. Security--strengthen the police and, when practicable,

resume carefully crafted military education programs that

will strengthen those elements willing to promote reform.

In addition to these funding priorities, ongoing U.S.

assistance for emergency relief and improved health should be

continued. Bolstering the ethical rationale for such support

is the contribution it can make to reducing hardship and thus

limiting the grievances that can be used to incite cycles of

violence and repression.

Indonesia today offers a unique but temporary window of

opportunity for the United States to help this nation of 230

million people build an effective democracy based on a civil

society and a market economy under the rule of law. The time

to rise to the occasion is now.