Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, It would be healthy for the conference committee to debate this in the context of the overall program that will serve the senior citizens most in need. Having the possibility of the wealthiest senior citizens paying a little more does not seem unreasonable.

Unfortunately, Congress is slowly but surely painting itself into a corner. As people rule out tax or fee increases, benefit reductions, copayment adjustment or eligibility modifications, there appears to be no way the current program can be maintained, much less add a new, important, but expensive prescription drug benefit without a massive infusion from the general fund (borrowed dollars).

With increasing budget deficits, more tax cuts, and escalating demands on Social Security and Medicare (both in terms of service and demographics), we are headed for a train wreck. We must start making some adjustments because time is growing short and a problem that is already difficult is becoming more serious as time goes on.

By extension.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that these energy reserves are not going away, whether or not we involve ourselves with this inventory now, and as the gentlewoman from California points out, acting now does, in fact, carry some potential risks.

But the bottom line is that some people, rather than dealing with a meaningful energy bill that would deal with global warming, vehicle efficiency, serious energy conservation and alternative energy development, they want to continue driving, looking through the rearview mirror.

The conference committee report would limit States' ability to participate in coastal planning decisions, undermining a bipartisan agreement on the Coastal Zone Management Act. The energy bill in conference now contains this provision that we have been talking about that undermines the long-standing, bipartisan agreement against the new oil and gas drilling in the

Outer Shelf, and we have referenced the fact that this refers to the States, including my own, that are adamantly opposed to it.

The House, as has been pointed out, passed an amendment to the energy bill specifically to remove the provision requiring this unnecessary inventory. The only reason to put it in now is that people want to move ahead with drilling.

Not only are we avoiding real solutions, we are now taking actions that can threaten the health of our oceans when they are dramatically imperiled right now.

We have just had the Pew Oceans Report documenting the problems that we are phasing in terms of the degradation of the environment of our oceans. Already 27 percent of the world's reefs have been destroyed over the course of the last 50 years. Another 30 percent are at risk of dying over the course of the next 50 years. These are the rain forests of the ocean, having dramatic diversity that is important to us.

People care about coastal areas, in part because they are moving there in droves. By 2025, approximately 75 percent of our population will be in close proximity to these coastal areas, and they care about those coastlines, because coastal marshes trap flood waters, filter out pollutants, serve as nurseries for wildlife, and they are disappearing at a dramatic rate of 20,000 acres per year. Louisiana alone has lost half a million acres of wetlands since the 1950s.

The only reason to reverse course at this point is people want more oil drilling. I would strongly suggest that we instead should be a leader in protecting our oceans. This sends the wrong message, goes against the will of the public and this House.

If you are against coastal drilling and for protecting coastlines and oceans, vote for the motion to instruct.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. Speaker, one of my fundamental principles is that government not interfere with the basic freedoms for individuals and their families. A basic freedom is the health of women, which necessarily includes reproductive health choices.

This legislation threatens that freedom by inappropriately intervening in the decision making of patients and their doctors. It goes beyond restricting the procedure. It ignores real needs of women and their families. This procedure has long been accepted and is at times the only practice available to protect a woman's life and her ability to safely have a healthy baby in the future.

Years ago when we first started debating this legislation, I was struck by real cases of real families that would be devastated by this amendment. Sadly, nothing has changed. Real families would still be devastated.

The broad language is likely to be used as a wedge in further eroding reproductive choices. No one can predict what this Supreme Court will do, let alone a future one. This language would fly in the face of a previous ruling against Nebraska's legislation and could be a vehicle for judicial reinterpretation which would further restrict reproductive freedom. This legislation is part of an insidious ongoing assault to erode reproductive freedoms and would perpetuate a trend, as shocking as it is unfortunate, of Congress imposing its theology on our citizens regardless of people's own strongly held beliefs and individual needs.

Earlier this Congress, because of the Republican leadership's theological clash with science, voted to make it illegal to use potentially life saving therapies to help with Alzheimer's- and Parkinson's-like degenerative and traumatic diseases leaving people crippled and dying. The vote was not just to deny scientific research here, but deny the benefits if developed anywhere else. They would make all our loved ones suffer in their zeal to make a point.

People who oppose abortion should not have one. Nothing would make me happier than for every woman to have the knowledge, well-being, medical care and luck so that there would never be a need for an abortion. Until such a day comes, it is wrong to prevent a woman's doctor from offering professional skills so that she and her family can determine the safest and most appropriate medical care.

Mr. Speaker, I support Representative Inslee's Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 6, the Energy Bill. This motion instructs the conference committee to not add a provision that would allow the Department of Energy to reclassify high-level waste. I oppose the provision because it jeopardizes the health of citizens in Oregon, Washington, South Carolina, and Idaho. Of particular concern to me is radioactive waste stored in Hanford, WA, that has already contaminated ground water near the Columbia River. I believe this is one of the greatest environmental threats we face in the Pacific Northwest.

I also oppose the provision because it circumvents a legal decision made last July by a Federal district judge in Idaho. We should not allow defendants unhappy with a court decision to run to Congress for a quick fix solution. Furthermore, Congress needs to resolve controversial issues through careful consideration and debate. The proposed provision was in neither the House nor Senate bills, and was not subject to debate or vote. Most importantly, Congress did not hold hearings to hear from experts on both sides of this contentious issue.

This issue is too important to play political games. The Department of Energy should focus efforts on being a better partner with States to devise an efficient and effective solution that is agreeable to the people who live and work near the contaminated sites. All four States oppose the provision indicating that the department has not yet found a common ground solution.

Mr. Speaker, to make our communities livable, to make our families safe, healthy and economically secure, we must deal with the issues of food safety. 76 million Americans are ill every year from unsafe food, 325,000 are hospitalized, 5,000 die.

A century ago, Upton Sinclair's epic novel ``The Jungle'' exposed the scandal in America's meatpacking industry; and yet a century later, we still do not have it right.

Despite telling journalism and concerns from experts in food safety and animal welfare, the cattle industry and some of their key Congressional allies fight to continue allowing almost 200,000 unhealthy animals a year into our food supply. These animals are called ``downers'' because they are so sick they are unable to stand or walk. They are dragged to slaughter facilities around the country, and most of these sick animals end up in our food supply.

What difference does it make? Downed animals are often afflicted with many, sometimes fatal, illnesses. Sending these sick animals to slaughter facilities where they will mix with healthy animals is exceedingly dangerous.

Many afflicted animals that should have been euthanized at the farm were sent to auction markets and slaughter facilities where they could contaminate healthy animals.

A study of USDA slaughterhouse facilities in almost 1,000 packing plants in the northeast United States found that 73 percent of downed animals ended up passing inspection and entering the food chain. These animals had afflictions such as gangrene, lymphoma, hepatitis, and pneumonia.

A study by the Livestock Conservation Institute revealed that 14 percent of the downed cows were salmonella positive. One cow even tested positive for a variant of salmonella that kills almost 1,000 Americans each year. This animal passed inspection and entered the food supply.

Another area of concern is mad cow disease, not just because of the dangers to humans, but because of the devastating effect that it can have on the cattle industry itself. Recently, a single infected animal in Canada shut down their entire industry. Perhaps the reason we have not found mad cow disease in the United States is because the American consumer is eating the evidence.

The Federal Government has started to react. The USDA recently added regulations, which Congress would not, to protect the ground beef that goes into school lunches from containing meat from downed animals.

Earlier this year, the USDA began circulating a proposed rule that specifically notes the health hazard for downed animals for consumers. Some fast-food leaders like Jack in the Box, and Burger King and Wendy's have responded to past tragic incidents by raising their standards.

But Congress has not just been ``missing in action'' to protect the American consumer from tainted beef; some have actually been leading the charge to keep those animals on your table. Some people put the convenience and profit of the cattle industry ahead of public safety.

Last year's agricultural bill passed both bodies of Congress with language to keep the downed animals out, yet in conference the conferees stripped away the language. They led a battle in this year's agriculture appropriations bill against an amendment that would have kept downed animals out of the food supply.

This is serious business. All independent experts know that downed animals are dangerous. Responsible producers understand the problem. Some State regulators have stepped up to deal with protecting their facilities. They are sending the right message, but they only deal with a small part of the overall food chain.

Congress and the Federal Government must act. The downed animals end up as hamburger in America's grocery stores because they are processed in just a few huge centers where the animals are ground up, they disappear into the food chain. The same child that is now safer in school goes home to the family dinner table, where the entire family is at risk.

It is time for Congress to withstand the pressures of the huge packers and their apologists and allies in Congress. Until the agriculture appropriations bill has finally passed both Chambers, it is possible for the conferees to include provisions protecting the food supply, provisions, as I said, that have passed both Chambers last Congress.

Every single Member of Congress should sign on the critical bipartisan legislation led by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) that would prohibit downed animals from entering the food supply. This legislation already has the support of 119 Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

It is supported by people who care about animal welfare, food safety, to join with the State health officials and responsible members of the cattle industry. All these people know that our Nation needs to produce meat in a humane and safe manner. Continuing to process downed animals for human consumption is not part of the recipe.

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

While I too regret that we are not going to have a longer bill, it is better to allow more time and allow the bipartisan leadership of our committee to craft adequate funding, funding that the people want and Congress will support, if we are able to bring it to the floor, far better than to have an inadequate funding level that we are saddled with over the next 6 years.

One point I want to make this afternoon, however, is that there is a broad coalition of support for the policy structure of TEA 21. It is not broken and it does not need to be fixed. Recently the House sent a strong message when it soundly rejected the weakening of guaranteed funding for transportation enhancement activities as outlined in TEA 21. It would send the wrong message about our commitment if we would allow dollars to be redirected from investments critical in areas like highway safety, transportation enhancement activities, metropolitan congestion, and clean air. These are part of the coalition that are going to permit our leadership to bring a strong package to the floor and get overwhelming support.

So I was concerned about the provision that had State departments of transportation having wider latitude to shift dollars. I am pleased that we are going to be clear that this provision will not extend the transferability clause. I am pleased that there is a commitment to make sure that it does not ultimately result in shortchanging the programs. I appreciate anything we can do to clarify this, because this is the single most important economic development issue, the single most important environmental issue; and, yes, as we have heard, it has critical national security components.

I appreciate the work that is being done within our committee, with our

leadership, and I appreciate the ability on the floor today to clarify exactly what the intent is, so we build the coalition, not weaken it, and give the American public legislation that they deserve.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), as well as our chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). It has truly been one of the pleasures for me this Congress, watching the work that has been done in the subcommittee developing a broad range of inputs, looking with fresh eyes at some of the most important environmental and infrastructure issues that the country faces.

I am pleased that we now have a bill that is done right, which can enhance our country's ports, navigation and flood control, as well as the environment, and, ultimately, I am convinced will save the taxpayers money.

We are finally dealing with a number of Corps reform issues that heretofore had bogged down previous bills, including last year's bill. We now have, as has been referenced, independent review of costly and controversial projects, one of the key issues for me over the course of my tenure on this committee. And we are beginning a conversation about updating the Corps' principles and guidelines. These operating principles have not been updated in 20 years. The facts are that we have learned a great deal about our water resources projects, what works and what does not, in that time, and I look forward to working with our committee leadership, especially since the National Academy of Science is set to finish a report on updating the principles and guidelines this fall.

I am pleased that there was an amendment that I offered adopted to

give the Corps more flexibility in its planning process to take into account economic benefits of environmental restoration and environmental benefits of economic restoration. It asks the Corps to calculate the residual flood risk of a project, such as downstream impacts of a structural project like a levee. Our intent is to encourage the Corps to be able to do more nonstructural flood control projects which are clearly beneficial for the environment and the taxpayers, even though these benefits are sometimes more difficult to calculate.

This bill does take important steps that I think will help enhance the credibility of the Corps of Engineers. I must caution, however, that we have got to be continuing our work on the independent review process. It is not exactly as I personally would design it. It gives a bit more discretion, frankly, to the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army than I think is helpful in terms of providing that clear picture that is important for the integrity of the Corps, but I think this is an important start.

I have some concerns about environmental streamlining provisions. I am all for dealing with ways that can shorten the planning and construction process, but not at the expense of the benefits that are required. Reports from the National Academy of Science show that delays in Corps projects are often caused by their complexity and inconsistent funding; and, occasionally, frankly, we run into problems because people try and jam through things and not follow the process, which creates problems in the long run.

Last but not least, I am very concerned about protections for destruction of our Nation's wetlands. I plan on coming back and speaking on an amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). But on balance, I think this bill moves us in the right direction. It starts a conversation about refining some important areas, and it is testimony to the hard work of our committee leadership in allowing us to come together and do the legislation the people deserve, which I appreciate.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time.

I think one of the things that is important for us to consider when we are dealing with issues of our infrastructure with ports, we have a requirement here I think of the Federal Government to be a full partner. The Federal Government is a full partner with our ports around the country, and I think we need to be careful with the authority to levy charges coming in and out of our ports. This could have a very significant differential effect up and down, for example, the west coast.

I am supportive of the notion of our committee investing more money in infrastructure from water resources to roads to transit, but I would hope that it is not done in a scatter-shot fashion where we take Federal authority and turn it over to interfere with the orderly flow of commerce and trade; but rather that we, as has been recommended by our ranking member and our chairman, have a consideration before the committee about what those resources' needs are.

Frankly, we have higher priorities, in my judgment, that we are not meeting now. We have had difficulty providing adequate resources now to deal with critical maintenance dredging, to deal with port infrastructure, to deal with other areas that are connected; and I think the last thing we need to do is to take a step back to balkanize this, to move away from the system. This is authority that I think we as a committee ought to be looking at to be able to have an integrated system dealing with multimodal requirements and promoting an integrated, smooth flow of trade.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time, and given the lateness of the hour, I will be brief. But I think what we are doing here this afternoon is a metaphor for why we have the problem that we have and why we need to consider something like the gentleman's amendment.

There is never a good time to deal with mitigation, yet there are people in this Chamber who represent tens of thousands of Americans who are worse off today because of the hurricane flooding, because over the last 200 years we have filled over one-half of our country's wetlands. This is nature's sponge. This buffers storm surges. This slows the release of flood water. And despite the good intentions, we never quite get there.

The gentleman has pointed out that 70 percent of the corps' projects have exactly zero mitigation, and very little follow-up occurs to make sure that the mitigation that is established actually happens. I appreciate what our subcommittee Chair has said, the ranking member, and the spirit with which this has been offered; but I hope that Members of this Chamber who have constituents that are flooded out tonight or that are going to have constituents that will be flooded in 6 months or a year, who are going to be dealing with massive supplemental budgets to deal with the problems of how we have not properly dealt with water resources, will remember this time, and we will come forward where we are dealing realistically with mitigation and give the American public the type of protection they need and the environment the consideration that it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of H.R. 1409, which would provide for an exchange of land with the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nations. There had been some concerns raised by environmental interests, but evidence about the environmental merits of the exchange are mixed, and opinions are not unanimous.

Furthermore, the basic issue for me must be equitable treatment for Native Americans. This is an area where the relationship between the Federal Government and the Cherokee Nation is shameful. The history of this land includes the infamous Trail of Tears, and more recently, when the land was involved in a land exchange for building the Blue Ridge Parkway, a promise that was never fulfilled.

In cases like this where items are controversial, I give heavy weight to treating Native Americans fairly and whenever possible, to correct past injustices. This appears to meet that fundamental criterion and therefore I support it.

Mr. Speaker, this evening I wanted to take the opportunity to deal with the critical issue of our Environmental Protection Agency, the key Federal agency dealing with the environment and of great import to citizens all across this country.

Recently, we have seen the resignation of Christine Todd Whitman as the administrator. Ms. Whitman was a former moderate Governor of New Jersey and was hailed by some as an important signal, when she was appointed by the Bush administration, of perhaps some environmental moderation and balance, that there would be an opportunity for the administration to use the appointment of someone like Ms. Whitman to send a signal that it was going to try and operationalize some of the rhetoric that was used by then-Governor Bush in his Presidential campaign where at times, in some of the debates with Vice President Gore, he was actually making even stronger statements in support of the environment. My colleagues will remember he was going to deal with all four of the air pollutants dealing with, in the debate, in terms of the regulation.

What we have seen in the course of the past 32\1/2\ months, sadly, has been a rather extreme disappointment on the part of those who follow the environmental developments and, in fact, has been rather unnerving for many Americans.

Administrator Whitman has left, some would say, under a cloud, literally and figuratively, being repeatedly undercut or backtracking in terms of her environmental pronouncements, most notably internationally dealing with global climate change, staking out a position of reasonableness and international cooperation, only to be pulled back by the administration and

to repudiate that position by the President himself.

New attention is being directed to the EPA and its administrator, as we have a nomination by the President of Utah Governor Mike Leavitt to replace Ms. Whitman; and indeed, today our colleagues in the other body began hearings on the confirmation. In his opening statement, Governor Leavitt talked about balance, ``Balance between this generation and next, balance between sustainable environments and sustainable economies and balance among regions.''

I was struck by how, in this language, he was closely following the advice of the Republican political consultant Frank Luntz who sent a memo to the Republicans in Congress earlier this year entitled Straight Talk, which has become rather notorious here on Capitol Hill, because its advice to the Republican Party in Congress is not to deal with strengthening its record, not to deal with new initiatives to protect the environment, not pushing back on the President's efforts to erode environmental protection; but instead, it is a blueprint of how to talk about the environment.

The memo starts with: ``Tell them a personal story from your life,'' and it is interesting that Governor Leavitt started out his testimony with a story about being 8 and going to the Grand Canyon.

Luntz urged Republicans to talk about a ``fair balance between the environment and the economy,'' and indeed, Leavitt has even made up a word called ``enlibra,'' which he wants to mean this environmental balance.

The Luntz memo tells Republicans that they need to be even more active in recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view and more active in making them part of your message. Governor Leavitt has been accused by those working on the environment in Utah of reassigning or demoting dozens of wildlife scientists after they recommended needed protections for endangered species in Utah.

The issue is not making up words. It is about telling the truth about the environment and the public health consequences.

I would like to make clear from the outset that there are some aspects of Governor Leavitt's record that I personally find very interesting. I have done a lot of work over the years in the State of Utah, and I have worked with the people who are involved with a program called Envision Utah, which is planning for the future that people in Utah want to promote livability, to promote sound land use and integrating the built environment with the natural environment; and I will say that Governor Leavitt by all accounts has been involved with smart growth issues.

He was the honorary co-chair of Envision Utah, a public-private partnership to implement this quality-growth strategy, to help protect Utah's environment, economic strength and quality of life from urban sprawl; and I personally think that this is a positive development. There are 130 key stakeholders in Utah, State and local government officials, business leaders, developers, conservationists, landowners, members of the LDS Church and others in the religious community and citizen groups.

They had 150 public workshops where citizens discussed how they wanted to shape future land use, transportation and open space preservation; and in these public workshops, when citizens were given the chance to, they demonstrated that they wanted more investment in public transit, more initiatives with affordable housing, more reliance on alternative transportation like cycling and walking. They were concerned about the preservation of open space and more town-like development along the transit lines.

I have been pleased to note that Governor Leavitt has been part of an implementation of this vision for the future. He supported the creation of a special fund for open space protection, secured funding for 175 miles of railway right-of-way for commuter rail and has been involved with leadership in the National Governors Association as chair, raising the profile of growth issues and promoted tools that States can use to contain sprawl and build healthy cities and towns. He even lobbied the National Governors Association to produce its first-ever land use principle.

This is an encouraging development because this is truly an area of environmental protection that cries out for bipartisan support, for leadership from the administration and Congress, for doing things where Congress leads by example, with the administration, to model the sort of behavior we want from the rest of America, to lead by example.

Another area that I thought was intriguing in the Governor's record, as I have examined it, deals with the accomplishments attendant to the Olympic games. He was Governor during this period. There was a net zero air emissions. There was a voluntary effort where local companies donated emissions reduction to offset pollution from the games, an interesting and innovative approach. There was zero waste from recycling and composting, and there was complete compliance with all environmental standards, unlike what some in Congress would do, exempting parts of the Federal Government.

Most recently, we had an effort here in Congress to eliminate environmental requirements of the Department of Defense to play by the same environmental rules as the rest of America, except of course when there was a need for an exemption for national security; but there are some here who were saying that is too hard for the Department of Defense, we want to exempt them across the board. Governor Leavitt did not use the Olympics and the significant task that that faced for his community and for our country to shortcut environmental standards. Instead, as near as I can tell, his administration was in complete compliance, an interesting and important precedent that I would like to see modeled here in the Federal Government. They were involved with things like planting over 100,000 trees.

So I want to be clear that I am not reflexively opposed to the Governor; and I do think there are elements of his record that are worthy of praise, and I hope that we would find willing people here in the Federal Government to implement some of them; but there must be a full look at the Governor's record, and as a long-tenured Governor, he has achieved a number of other areas.

I have already referenced deep concerns from some of the people who have been following environmental developments in the State of Utah, the notion of not having hands off when it came to allowing the scientific experts to state their opinion. He fired a division of wildlife resource enforcement official who had fined the Leavitt family fish farm for violations that had brought devastating whirling disease to Utah's wild fish stocks. He downplayed toxic releases reported by the mining industry, including releases of neurotoxin mercury by saying, ``In reality, it is not pollution.''

He supported the infamous Legacy Highway, an extremely controversial project that threatens wetlands along the Great Salt Lake. This was a project that was challenged by community activists and local government officials; and taken to court, the Legacy Highway project was rejected by the 10th Court of Appeals for the failure of the people planning this project to consider less environmentally harmful alternatives and for ignoring the impacts on Utah's wildlife and environment, a sad note on his watch.

It is no secret that there was a series of closed-door negotiations with Secretary Norton, after which Governor Leavitt signed a memorandum of understanding that opened up 10 million acres of Federal lands in Utah for possible development under the arcane RS 2477 road provision. He also brokered a back-room agreement with the Interior Department to prevent a new wilderness study area designation. This agreement opens 2.6 million acres of former wilderness study areas to oil and gas drilling, off-road vehicle use, and other development.

It is no accident, I suppose, that Utah has the least amount of designated wilderness out of 11 Western States, in part because of this Governor's dedication to preventing new wildlife proposals from being passed by Congress during his tenure. Utah is one of only a handful of States without any, without any wildlife and scenic river designations, again because the Leavitt administration worked to oppose Federal wild and scenic river reviews in southern Utah.

In objective, objective appraisal of Utah's environmental performance under the Governor's administration, looking at the EPA itself, this administration's recent EPA report on Clean Water Act enforcement from major sources, Utah tied for last place with two other States for performance in six key environmental indicators.

This from the EPA that he seeks to lead, published in February of 2003.

According to the 2001 EPA toxic release inventory, Utah has the second highest volume of toxic chemical releases in the Nation. And between 1995 and 2002, during the Leavitt administration, Utah power plants actually increased their emissions of nitrogen oxide, a pollutant linked to respiratory disease, while the rest of the country decreased such emissions substantially, on average over 21 percent during the same period.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in addition to defending and explaining his environmental record, positive and negative, there are other issues that the nominee should address as he appears before Congress and the American public. These are some of the issues that have caused Senators to place a hold on his nomination, people who are concerned about EPA statements about the pollution in New York City after 9/11; the New Source rules; the Clean Skies administration strategy. Indeed, what may be the major issue in these discussions will not be Governor Levitt's record at all but that of this administration, its environmental record and the fundamental question about the independence of the EPA.

It is interesting to note that Russell Train, who was the EPA Administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, and I would state parenthetically that the EPA has a long and proud bipartisan history, being created under the administration of President Nixon, Russell Train, a Republican appointee, has said recently that the White House has constantly injected itself into the way the EPA approaches and decides the critical issues before it. The agency today has little or no independence. I think it is a very great mistake and one for which the American people could pay over the long run in compromised health and reduced quality of life.

The administrator designate, Governor Leavitt, and this administration need to be held accountable in terms of the initiatives on Superfund. Will the administrator and the administration push to reinstate the Superfund tax and help clean up sites? The GAO reported that the Superfund would run out of money next month. There are currently 1,200 sites in the annual $3 billion Superfund program. It has cleaned up only 42 toxic waste sites last year, down more than 50 percent from the late 1990s.

The EPA announced this summer they would have to cut funding for 10 Superfund sites, including one close to home for me, but I have heard from Republican colleagues who have been concerned about loss of projects in their districts, citing lack of funding as a reason. Yet the administration refuses to come to Congress to have the Superfund tax, which is the very principle of ``polluter pays'' that was supported by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton. Silence from the administration.

Mr. Speaker, where will the new EPA Administrator be when it comes to deal with the Clean Air Act? One of the holds that has been placed on the Leavitt nomination deals with the relaxation of the New Source Review rules, which inhibit the intent of the Clean Air Act. As you know, 30 years ago, when the Clean Air Act was enacted, there was a reprieve given to the dirtiest coal-fired plants, giving them a reasonable time to come into compliance. They did not all have to do it immediately, that would have been disruptive and expensive. The notion was that the new technology, under the New Source rule, was designed so that plants would modernize and then the new technology would be put into place when it was the most economical. Instead, what we have seen is an industry that has kept these aging powered dinosaurs in place because they make a lot of money. They are cash cows.

But rather than enforcing the Clean Air Act, as previous administrations have done to put pressure on the industry to deal with the modernization and upgrade of these plants, President Bush has now proposed that the old plants, in effect, be grandfathered permanently, being able to spew forth pollution indefinitely. The changes that he announced to the New Source Review rules would allow plants to make a 20 percent investment without triggering the rule. There is no reason for the vast majority of them to ever come into full compliance.

Now, there are approximately 17,000 of these plants, and the estimates from the scientific experts that we are supposed to listen to are that they caused conservatively 20,000 premature deaths each year. Because of the patterns of prevailing winds that blow the smoke from these plants, the pollution is not just in the vicinity of the plant. If they were just polluting their neighborhood, maybe it would be a sort of rough justice for the cities and States that permitted them. But the effects move away often because of the pattern of prevailing winds.

They are concentrated particularly in the New England States. It is interesting that Attorney Generals in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin are lining up to challenge these rules in court. The changes were also opposed by the States of Massachusetts, Illinois, and California.

Earlier this month, the President was in Michigan for a photo-op for the power plant in Monroe to promote the Clear Skies Initiative, which it is estimated may be responsible for up to 300 premature deaths itself. Now, the President attempted to paint this as a job creation issue, but local labor leaders were quick to point out that when the owner of the Monroe plant, Detroit Edison, found out that the New Source rules were going to be relaxed, they stopped their efforts to install pollution controls required by law. And I understand there are some 800 union workers who are out of work.

The administration and the new administrator should be straight with the American public about the economic, environmental, and national security consequences of continuing to rely on these aging, polluting plants. When we deal with issues like the Clean Skies Initiative, it is an important question for the administrator designate and for the administration: Who are they going to be taking advice from? For instance, there have been calls for the resignation of the Assistant EPA Administrator of Air and Radiation, Holmstead, the leader behind the Clean Air Act overhaul. The Clear Skies Initiative, which actually is going to move us back beyond what would happen if we just enforced the Clean Air Act now, and leave any progress well, well into the future.

The EPA has withheld scientific data from two different EPA studies that undercut the administration's claims about the benefit of the proposed legislation. It has drug its feet in completing the analysis of competing Clean Air Acts before Congress so that we do not have the information before us as a legislative body, and the American public does not have the benefit of this analysis. It took months of delay before the EPA finally agreed to study Senator Carper's Clean Air bill, but will not include carbon dioxide reductions in the analysis. Carbon dioxide, a critical element in the Senator's bill, one of the key elements of global warming, is not going to be included.

The EPA overstated State and local support for the Clear Skies Initiative. In fact, many of the Governors and mayors cited as allies in an August press release have decided not to support it at all. The Southern Governors Association did not have a policy for or against the plan if they are included. The National Association of Counties has adopted a position that generally supported the reduction of emissions. No reference to this specific bill.

Assistant Secretary Holmstead, is an attorney for the former industry that he is now seeking to--supposed to--regulate. He represented several clients in fighting title I, III, and V of the Clean Air Act. Those clients include the Ad Hoc Industry Group on Regulatory Reinvention, Alliance for Constructive Air Policy, Hughes Communication, Montrose Chemical, and he is an adjunct scholar at a think tank, the Citizens for the Environment, that actually believes that many of these environmental problems are myths and lobbies for deregulation of corporations as

a solution to the environmental problems, something that has not had great effect as we have looked at the securities industry, at the deregulation of energy, and has in the State of Texas, the voluntary program of then Governor Bush, has yielded really pitiful results in terms of cleaning up the air.

There is a deep and troubling question that is circulating now about the representations of the EPA about the World Trade Center pollution. Will the EPA, under the new administrator, be an independent agency that can give the American public the truth? One week after September 11, Christie Whitman assured the citizens of New York that the air was safe to breathe, the waters safe to drink. Her statements focused on asbestos levels and did not mention any other pollutants. Well, an investigation by the EPA Office of Inspector General has revealed that the White House, through its Council on Environmental Quality, told the EPA to downplay these concerns. The facts are that the EPA did not have sufficient data to evaluate short-term or long-term health impacts, and they had only data on four of 14 pollutants. It will be one of, I think, the black marks of former Governor Whitman's administration to make statements like this to the citizens of New York.

A team of independent scientists, led by the University of California, Davis, found that in fact the air was the most polluted the world has experienced. The area had high levels of sulfur, sulfuric acid, titanium, nickel and silicon. The EPA had not tested for these small particles, even though EPA scientists acknowledge that they are the most hazardous. Tragically, tragically, the rescue workers, the people who on this floor were commemorated and celebrated, with whom this administration has been involved with photo-ops and issued flowery words, these rescue workers were the most likely to suffer from this pollution. Yet the EPA was involved in, to be charitable, shading the truth. And we do not know what the long-term consequences will be with a failure to level with the American public.

There is a question about whether the EPA in the remaining term of President Bush, under a new administrator, will be able to change the pattern of manipulating and ignoring science to serve political and their own policy ends. For instance, in June of this year, the EPA released a report that was commissioned by former EPA Administrator Whitman to examine the state of the environment.

It noted improvements which were actually due to landmark legislation passed decades ago. If the EPA does a follow-up report in a decade, what will be the likely increases in air and water pollution, global warming and ozone depletion as a result of this administration's policies because it is claiming credit for what happened 10, 20, and 30 years ago and under its watch is undermining and delaying?

The report ignored global warming, the single most important long- term threat to our environment. The White House forced the EPA to eliminate references to many studies concluding that warming is at least partially caused by human activity. There is a denial despite the 2001 National Academy of Science report that was requested by President Bush that confirmed that greenhouse gases are accumulating in our atmosphere as a result of human activities, and this is causing air and ocean temperatures to rise.

The edits made by the White House and acquiesced to by the former EPA Administrator were so severe that an internal EPA memo stated that the section on climate ``no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change, global warming.''

Another example, last September the annual EPA report on air pollution that for 6 years had contained a section on climate change, this time when the scientific community has reached an even stronger consensus that global warming is a reality, when we have permafrost thawing in Alaska, roads buckling, villages washing away, parts of the Alaskan pipeline sagging and temperatures increasing 4, 6 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit, this report for the first time in 6 years had no section on global warming, climate change.

Mr. Speaker, Russell Trane, the Nixon-Ford EPA Administrator that I quoted earlier, stated that we have moved radically ``away from regulation based on independent findings and professional analysis of scientific health and economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White House and driven primarily by political considerations.''

It has been one of the great frustrations and concerns during my tenure in Congress to watch the Environmental Protection Agency, an agency that I have worked with throughout my public service career, where I have worked with many fine, dedicated public servants, professionals, who are in that so-called faceless bureaucracy, but are really doing their best to deal with their mission of protecting the environment, and when I have worked with Republican and Democratic administrations going back over 20 years, it saddens me to see the politicalization of the EPA, the reversal, the abrogation of responsibility to give the American public the truth about the environment, to say nothing of hard work to move forward with policies and programs to give our communities the type of environment that our families deserve.

I can only hope that the Senate in the course of its deliberations will be able to focus on this and that the new Administrator, should Governor Leavitt be confirmed, will be the Governor Leavitt that was so creative in dealing with livable communities, sprawl, planned growth, transportation, and allowing the community to work to gain control over its destiny, and not be the Governor Leavitt of questionable environmental achievements dealing with air and water, open space, and certainly not an EPA that has been characterized by the reversals and the politicization of these last 2\1/2\ years.

Mr. Speaker, time will tell, but the American public deserves an answer sooner rather than later, and I will continue to do all I can to put appropriate focus on these critical issues.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 50 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 24, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, this administration is well known for spinning the truth, a very polite term for a lamentable practice. For example, over two-thirds of the American public think that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis have some linkage to the attack of September 11, when, 2 years after the fact, there remains no evidence, despite the efforts of the administration to rhetorically connect these events.

The administration's habit of using misleading language is at its worst with the environment. Their Clear Skies Initiative will actually permit dirtier air. Relaxation of the New Source Review rules will inhibit the intent of the Clean Air Act, which 30 years ago gave a reprieve to the dirtiest coal fired plants, a reasonable time to come into compliance. The New Source Review rules were designed so that when plants modernize, new anti pollution technology must be put in place. Instead, the agencies have kept these aging dinosaurs in use because, simply, they make more money.

Rather than enforcing the Clean Air Act as previous administrations have done to encourage the industry, President Bush now proposes that these old plants continue to be grandfathered permanently. Changes to the New Source Rules announced last month will allow plants to make a 20 percent investment each year without triggering the New Source Rule. There is no reason for them to ever come into full compliance.

Because of the prevailing winds, the pollution is not just in the vicinity of the plant or in that State that allows it to operate. The effects are concentrated, particularly in the New England States. And attorneys general in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, as well as some midwest States like Wisconsin and Illinois are lining up to challenge this rule in court.

Yesterday, the President was in Michigan to promote his Clear Skies Initiative; but he had the audacity to appear at one of the Nation's dirtiest power plants in Monroe, which is responsible, we are told, for approximately 300 premature deaths each year.

The Detroit Free Press points out that the mercury emissions at that plant have gone up over the course of the last 2 years, and this Clear Skies Initiative will allow more mercury emissions than simply enforcing the current law.

The President attempted to paint to this as a jobs-creation issue; but local labor leaders pointed out that when the Monroe plant owner, Detroit Edison, found out that the New Source Review rules were going to be relaxed, they promptly stop their efforts to install pollution controls required by law and fired 800 union workers who had been installing them. Lost jobs, dirtier air, health problems for thousands.

The pending energy bill should be an opportunity to rectify these problems with cleaner air, reducing the dependence on foreign oil and maybe even protecting the power grid recently proven vulnerable. Instead, we currently have a grab bag of incentives for special interests that shortchanges efficiency, continues reliance on expensive imported foreign oil, and delays the day of reckoning for electrical power to clean the air and a more fuel-efficient auto industry.

It is not too late for the administration and the Congress to deal meaningfully with two or three of these items that would actually help the American public. It is not just protecting the environment and the health of our citizens; it is a matter of long-term economic stability and security at a time when we have almost 140,000 American troops in and around Iraq in no small measure to secure Middle East oil.

The Bush administration should be straight with the American public about the economic, environmental, and security consequences. Rather than a misleading photo-op, we should work for the meaningful environmental progress that America deserves.

Mr. Chairman, quick, effective, and accurate exchange of information is critical to our current financial system. Technology has improved this information exchange, which benefits both businesses and consumers.

However, technological reliance has also led to credit report inaccuracies and instances of identity theft that have hurt consumers in Oregon and across the nation. According to a recent Federal Trade Commission report, 10 million Americans were victims of identity theft last year at a cost of $5 billion to them and $48 billion to businesses.

Oregon is one of most states that do not have laws that protect consumers from identity theft and this bill will greatly benefit my constituents. It is essential that we protect consumers from identity theft and other abuses and ensure credit reports are accurate and accessible. I support the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act which will do just that.

However, I am concerned about the ability and commitment to strengthening consumer protections as time goes on. This bill pre-empts state laws, which in some instances may be stronger than this legislation, and will prevent states from passing stronger consumer protections in the areas of privacy and identity theft. I worry that by passing good legislation that raises the bar for privacy standards, we may actually be creating a ceiling for future improvements. I supported an amendment to sunset this legislation so that Congress will be forced to revisit its effectiveness and fairness for consumers.

Mr. Chairman, taking money away from under-funded public schools and diverting it into selective private schools is fundamentally flawed.

This proposed voucher program is part of a larger initiative of the Bush administration to privatize essential services whereever they can. A basic problem is that the experience of privatization shows little evidence of enhanced accountability or performance. In fact, the 10- year Government Accounting Office study of public and privately funded voucher programs found no evidence of test gains for children who participated in voucher programs. Furthermore, the public when given their choice, have repeatedly voted against vouchers and recent national polls suggest no change in that opinion.

Our resources could be much better utilized to fulfill the President's promises. He and the Congressional Republican Leadership has walked away from funding No Child Left Behind leaving nearly $9 billion unfunded mandates throughout the Nation. In the District of Columbia, No Child Left Behind has left almost $50 million in unfunded mandates. It would be a tragedy to further short change public education by encouraging families to leave a system that can work and, unlike the private schools who would be favored with vouchers, our public schools take all our children no matter how needy or troubled.

I support innovation in public schools. Reform and improvement will happen sooner if we focus our attention and resources on our public schools. Rather than vouchers, we should start funding the Federal mandate of No Child Left Behind, the unmet 40 percent special education target, and school modernization. Congress needs to stop making the jobs of public schools harder.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this debate.

Mr. Chairman, I find a certain amount of irony as we return to unnecessary controversy on one of the most important bills that this Congress will consider this year. The chairman of the subcommittee is concerned about congestion around the Nation, and well he should be. Yet the bill would cut back on people's alternatives to reduce congestion by further squeezing Amtrak and gutting the popular important bipartisan support for the enhancements program.

People need choices. I am going to speak later in the debate on the enhancements program in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), a bipartisan amendment to try to fix it. Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to talk about the problems with Amtrak which are going to be ruled out of order when offered.

I find it sad. There are some who dispute the notion that we should be the only industrialized Nation in the world without a backbone of a national rail transportation system. We have lavish subsidies for the airline industry, which in its history of passenger transport has produced a net profit of zero, zero; yet somehow, providing a little support for Amtrak is deemed theologically unacceptable.

Well, Mr. Chairman, much of the blame for the problems of Amtrak is that this Congress has refused to appropriate the money that Congress itself has authorized. Yet Congress has interfered with the management decisions of Amtrak, and, much like the mythical educational performance in Houston, where they sort of in schools ``will'' children to stay in school so they are not dropped out, that they somehow are all going on to college, people have tried to will Amtrak to a different type of performance than they are willing to pay for.

Luckily, there is broad bipartisan support in this country and in this Congress to overrule this ill-conceived cutback in Amtrak. I am convinced that ultimately through the process we will succeed. I hope we can fix what we can on the floor to preserve the critical enhancements program, and fight for a bill that the country deserves to preserve the potential for a comprehensive rail transportation system.

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

Mr. Chairman, I find no small amount of irony. Yesterday, we were celebrating the accomplishments of that great American Lance Armstrong for his prodigious bicycle accomplishments, and today we are moving to gut the enhancements program that extends the benefits of cycling to millions of Americans.

I heard the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee speak to a couple of points. One, he talked about choice in transportation. Well, the fact is today, under the enhancement programs, there is choice that is available. States have the opportunity of flexing money in and out of the enhancements program if that is their priority.

The fact is that this is a priority for people if they have the focus of an enhancement program. The gentleman talked about safety. There is less than 1 percent of the money spent on 7 percent of the trips that are cycling and pedestrian, and they account for 13 percent of the fatalities.

If the gentleman was concerned about safety, I would suggest that maybe we would increase the funding in these enhancement programs. These are programs where people have indicated they want choices.

There are national surveys that indicate, in fact, over half the American public would put more money into bike and pedestrian activities even if it meant less money for roads. The fact is, under the bill that has been offered up, we do not have this either/or situation. All we have to do in striking section 114 is maintain the status quo and the integrity of the enhancements program. This is the single most popular Federal aid highway program for the Federal Government.

As chair of the Bikes Caucus, I can tell my colleagues that the bicycle interests are a vital part of each and every one of your communities. There are over 50 million American bicycle customers that have 100 million bikes. These have 80 million people employed in this industry in every one of our districts. They epitomize small town, small business ownership.

But it speaks also to pedestrians, to handicapped. I am not at all dismissive of issues of parks and museums and historic preservation. Each Member has received an outstanding memorandum from the National Trust for Historic Preservation that points out that this is the single largest area for funding historic preservation-related activities. It has been invaluable in mitigating the damage that transportation projects can do to historic places.

Since I have been in Congress, I have been privileged to visit over 100 communities dealing with issues of things that make those communities more livable. Every place we go, people focus in on the programs that deal with the enhancements program.

It would be a tragedy at a time when the media is filled with reports of the obesity epidemic among our children, when we have an energy crisis, when we found just last week medical studies that talked about communities that have the facilities that the enhancement program gives are six pounds on average lighter and have lower blood pressure, that this Congress in its first full day back after Labor Day would vote to cut it.

This last few days there has been a marvelous coalition quietly moving on Capitol Hill. Sadly, I think they have been almost too quiet because they represent millions of Americans who care about historic preservation, who care about fitness, who care about the revitalization of central cities, retrofitting sprawling suburbs, helping our children get to school safely, fighting the obesity epidemic.

They have visited every office, provided critical information about how the enhancements funding has made a difference in every State of the Union.

This enhancements program was born under a Republican administration and a Democratic caucus. It has enjoyed broad bipartisan support ever since.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Petri-Olver amendment to retain the integrity of the enhancements program and make sure that our communities are more livable and make our families safe, healthy, and more economically secure.