Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Members depart the Chamber today to go back to their districts, meeting with people to get in touch with what is on their minds. I hope that our colleagues will take the opportunity to discuss with their constituents an assault on the transportation enhancements program.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a program since 1991 that has funneled billions of dollars into opportunities for people to convert abandoned rail corridors to trails, to have programs to revitalize historic highways, and for bike and pedestrian paths. All of these have been critical elements of being able to improve the livability of our communities. Inexplicably, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation stripped these elements out, and condemned them as ineffective. Hopefully the full committee is starting to right this wrong, but people at home need to be careful. If we are not diligent, we are going to lose an important part of the broad base of support for a balanced transportation system.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate the leadership that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) have provided.

I rarely take exception to what I hear from my good friend from New York and the good work that he does with his colleague from West Virginia. But the fact is that we are not keeping up with our Superfund responsibilities. We have backed away from having the Superfund polluter paid concept to having a stream of money. We are cutting back on sites. There are places around the country, including some that I have seen in Upstate New York, that would benefit from this dramatically.

I would feel different if I felt that we were somehow taking some finely balanced program. We have been trying to get information about Prometheus and find out why it would be crippled if it had only a 30 percent increase, which is what the gentleman's amendment would provide. I think this is nebulous. It is a decade-long project that is going to involve billions of dollars. Right now if we are going to promote livable communities in our cities, in our districts, we ought to approve this amendment, be able to provide at least another 10 sites, including one in my district. I think the American people would be well-served. I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this today. I have enjoyed working with our colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), in promoting a discussion of the benefits of this agreement with Chile. I think it is an important step in getting our balance on trade correct. And I appreciate the dialogue between my friend from New Jersey and the Chair of the Committee on Rules because I think it is important for us to get our facts straight, and I think an honest and open discussion will promote that.

The facts, from my perspective, are that the United States gives up very little in exchange for this agreement. My colleagues have heard, if they have been following the debate on the floor, the fact that the average tariff for U.S. goods is over 5.5 percent for what we send to Chile, but that the vast majority of the product that comes from Chile to the United States is duty free and the average about one-half of 1 percent.

In my community, the facts are, we have seen the impact of losing the market share that the United States used to have with Chile, lost to the other countries that Chile has in the Western Hemisphere, like Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Canada, and the European Union where we are losing market share.

I represent Freight Liner. Perhaps the largest, most efficient truck manufacturing operation in the world is in my community. They are family wage, union jobs, paying upwards of $20 an hour or more. In the last 10 years, because we have lost market share, because we could not compete with manufacturing in Brazil and in Mexico, we have lost the truck market.

There is a potential with this agreement that we would be able to have a more advantageous situation, and actually it would make more family wage jobs in my community.

We heard talk about labor and environmental practices, and I yield to no one in my concern to make sure that we are protecting quality of life and the environment at home or around the world; but the facts are, if we look at Chile, it has strong labor and environmental standards. They are amongst the best in Latin America. It is important for us to reinforce that, and I would suggest that Chile is a good model in terms of what happens on the ground. Indeed, overall, Chile is a good model. It is an island of stability in very troubled waters in Latin America. We ought to reinforce that model by providing this trade agreement to them.

I have been troubled since I have come to this Chamber listening to some of the debate that has been more emotional than factual, where people on both sides have engaged in the debate between what some say is fair trade and some say is free trade. Well, I would like us to begin an era of honest trade debate.

We have all got our blind spots. The United States has its protections. One of the reasons why I voted against the trade promotion authority that was before us last Congress is that people wanted to draw bright partisan lines and then make a hash out of our trade policy with side agreements on citrus and textiles, and we had this egregious farm bill that really was antitrade.

I think this agreement before us is a step for us to get our balance back. It is a vote for an opportunity to deal with the merits of the agreement, not what is down the line. That is the precedent I want to establish, that we look at the agreements before us, look at the facts and vote on them, that we vote on the merits and that we start rebuilding the trust, the understanding and the dialogue in this Chamber so that we can have an honest trade debate, which is so important for the future of my community, my State and, I think, our country.

Mr. Speaker, initially, I had significant reservations about the trade agreement with Singapore. The Integrated Sourcing Initiative was too open-ended and Singaporean enforcement of environmental laws regarding commerce in endangered species was not as rigorous as it could be.

However, a willingness to compromise and address these concerns makes me optimistic about future trade between the United States and Singapore. The progress I have seen regarding the tightening of the Integrated Sourcing Initiative encourages me. The implementing language that we are voting on today makes it clear that ISI expansion can only occur by express approval of Congress and can only apply to products that are already approved to enter the U.S. tariff-free.

Regarding the transshipment of endangered species and illegal timber, I was buoyed by the Memorandum of Intent in Environmental Matters signed between the U.S. and Singapore last month. The statement directly addresses endangered species conservation and the intent to work regionally in Asia on best practices and capacity building. I am confident that by continuing in this spirit of cooperation, we can work to address transshipment of this contraband that is devastating to critical ecosystems.

The legislative process has, in fact, worked, and appropriate actions are being taken to answer critics. I hope that we are able to bring this atmosphere of discussion and debate to upcoming free trade agreements, thus ensuring that each is tailored to the specific needs and opportunities that we may encounter with future partners.

Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense to gamble with Head Start. We have a program that serves almost a million people. Since Head Start's inception in 1965, the program has reached over 21 million children. In our community it has served over 214,000 children and their families. It works.

Head Start children score higher on standardized assessments of cognitive development than children who haven't been able to participate.

Head Start is an investment. There are estimates for each dollar invested in the long term savings to society are seven times as much, but that does not really tell the whole story. It's not just money, it is more stable families, a sense of worth and accomplishment and it is a demonstration that we care enough to invest in children who don't have all the advantages.

Children learn by example. Parents of Head Start children are more likely to be engaged with their children, and more likely to read with their children. Head Start is more than just an education program. Health screenings provided by Head Start are an essential component of many children's health at a time when too many of our working families do not qualify for health coverage.

In my 8 years serving in Congress I have not heard one complaint about Head Start. In fact, Oregonians support Head Start and are opposed to the changes. This bill is a sign that we don't care enough to provide services for another two-thirds of a million children and their families that are eligible but for whom funding is not available, this of course would be small fraction of the money we are giving in tax cuts to people who have all the financial advantages and do not want for education and support. It will be extremely difficult to explain to the vast majority of Americans how we have money for the most well off and not to extend this basic proven service to those not in need and who would benefit not just themselves but the society for years to come.

The problem is compounded by the insistence administration and Republican leadership to take chances with Head Start. Because of economic upheaval, more restrictive financial operating requirements and frankly because the Federal Government has not kept its promises, state governments are a source of significant turmoil.

Across the country, states are dealing with the economic calamity and the lack of federal support by cutting back on services and some cases abandoning long held principles of their own. College tuition is skyrocketing, social service networks are unraveling and money that was to be directed to long-term social problems are being robbed to avoid complete financial breakdown. State after state is raiding tobacco settlement money which was given to correct health problems from use of tobacco. This money is being diverted, to provide short-term financial relief.

Why would we take a proven successful program and throw it into the financial black hole that is represented by so many states? Why would we abandon the guarantees that these Head Start money will go to the children who need it? Why after the travesty of Leave No Child Left Behind which has degenerated into a series of unfunded mandates would we now impose another unfunded mandate for Head Start teacher qualification and provide no addition resources? In my good conscious I cannot support a bill that gambles with our children.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the House has finally decided to confront what can only be described as a national embarrassment. Today we must take steps to prevent our low-income seniors from paying the highest prescription drug prices in the world.

Reimportation is a valid approach. While it may slice drug profits, it costs taxpayers nothing.

If we do not act to protect seniors from skyrocketing drug prices, I worry that it is because we are choosing to protect drug companies from competition on the world market. This competition with willing sellers of FDA approved drugs from abroad will ensure that our seniors get the lower prices that citizens in other countries enjoy.

Opponents of this common sense solution warn of grave risks, which the evidence suggests are wildly exaggerated. There are certainly fewer risks than continuing the mass underground reimportation that takes place today.

Tonight's vote is an important step in this struggle to stop the exploitation of seniors. It is, however, just a beginning. I look forward to building on this momentum for the hard task ahead.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to honor Mr. Joseph Zabaldo, World War II hero and Oregon resident. While in service, Mr. Zabaldo was a radioman in a B-29 bomber over the Pacific Ocean, near Japan. On or about July 1, 1945, Mr. Zabaldo's plane went down, crash-landing in the ocean. As the crew assembled in a life raft near the sinking B-29, Mr. Zabaldo noticed a fellow soldier tangled in ripped cable and wiring inside the wrecked bomber. As the soldier, who could not swim, frantically tried to untangle himself, Mr. Zabaldo went to his rescue, at great risk to his own life. Freeing the frantic soldier from the sinking plane, Mr. Zabaldo swam him to safety.

For his efforts, he was awarded the Coast Guard's prestigious Gold Lifesaving Medal. However, in the mix of World War II, Mr. Zabaldo never actually received the medal. His grandson, Jared, contacted my office and informed us of this situation. Now, 58 years later, it is my pleasure to be able to secure the actual medal for Oregon's hero. On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, Joseph F. Zabaldo will be awarded the Gold Lifesaving Medal for his heroic act in World War II.

Mr. Chairman, while overall funding has increased from fiscal year 2003, I hope that we can address some key issues before this bill comes back from conference for approval. One program that was particularly hard hit this year is the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP). The funding level this year is $32.5 million--less than half of last year's appropriation of $73.3 million. As the founding Chair of the Congressional Public Broadcasting Caucus, I have seen first hand how vital the PTFP program is to communities across the country. Every public television station in America has been issued a mandate to be on the air with a digital signal. The enormous costs of the conversion from analog transmission to digital transmission, estimated at $1.7 billion, are simply too much for the system to bear alone. If we are to ensure that our local communities continue to receive the rich educational, cultural and informational programs and services offered by local public television stations, we must provide them some financial assistance. Local stations are working with state and private funders, and a federal commitment of matching funds would greatly enhance their success. In fact, much of the state funding is contingent upon a federal match, and many state budget constraints limit public broadcasting funding to well below the need.

The language in the bill regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) licensing of firearms dealers is clearly destructive. This bill specifies that BATF could request transaction records from gun retailers only if the request was part of a criminal investigation to determine the disposition of a firearm that is the subject of the investigation, or to identify an individual offender who is the subject or target of the investigation. The measure prohibits the use of funds in the bill to implement or promulgate any rule requiring a physical inventory of any firearms business licensed under federal law, or to deny licenses to dealers because of low sales volume. This language was added in subcommittee with the adoption of an amendment backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA has opposed any meaningful additions to gun safety legislation because they believe we aren't enforcing the laws that already exist. Now they are making it impossible to enforce these laws by cutting back on the scope of the funding, placing restrictions on what can be done, and taking the already weak and porous gun safety legislation and rendering it almost meaningless. Every individual has the right to freedom from the threat of gun violence. Yet, gun violence continues to be an epidemic of enormous proportions year after year. In 2000, there were 28,663 gun deaths in the United States, 10,801 of which were homicides. These numbers are drastically larger than those of any other developed nation. Clearly we are not doing enough to protect our citizens from gun violence.

This bill seriously weakens the reporting and licensing laws for gun dealers. Under current law it is already too easy for a convicted felon to purchase a weapon with the aid of a companion. Registration and licensing requirements are strong tools to keep our cities safe. In Massachusetts, a state which requires both registration and licensing, 69 percent of guns used to commit crimes were purchased out of state. In states which have neither licensing nor registration requirements, 89 percent of guns used in crimes are purchased in-state. Gun registration and licensing is a patchwork, state by state system of gun-control which allows criminals access to legitimately purchased guns. This bill will weaken already insufficient gun safety laws, putting the citizens of our nation in harm's way.

While I am concerned with the funding level of the PTFP and the language included regarding BATF licensing of firearms dealers, I vote in support of this bill to move the appropriations process forward. I call on the conference committee to work to address these shortfalls before reporting the bill back for final approval.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in bringing this amendment before us this evening. I also respect the commitment of the Speaker of this House to Colombia. Recently he talked of this initiative as saving the lives of American children. But, frankly, I get different information.

I identify with what the gentleman from North Carolina talked about a little while ago, where there are 4.7 million drug abusers in this country, where cocaine production is steady in the region. It may be shifted around a little bit, but in terms of the region itself the cocaine production has been steady for years. And, in fact, cocaine access in the year 2002, the most recent I have available, those statistics suggest that as far as our young people are concerned, cocaine access and use is up.

I am concerned that the program in Colombia is not the most humane program, that not enough money is being invested in alternative development, manual eradication on the ground with aid to farmers. I am concerned that this package, over time, has not been balanced; that when you take all of the money into account, you are looking at approximately 80 percent that is going to be in police and military aid.

My choice, if we were dealing with this in an ideal world, would in fact be to transfer the money, as proposed under the amendment. That would result in tens of thousands of people being saved from infectious diseases. Not that we abandon Colombia, but that we are more focused in terms of what we do invest; investing in sadly underfunded programs for domestic treatment of drugs, increasing funding for the alternative development to help these small farmers switch crops, insisting, as my friend from Massachusetts has talked about, on the respect for human rights and the rule of law, and providing greater political and financial support for civilian democratic institutions.

But most of all, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to spend this money, for heaven sakes spend less of it on K Street. Do not spend so much on consultants, on contractors. I suspect that we can document that far more of this money ultimately is being spent in this country than is being spent on the ground in Colombia.

I think this amendment is a good first step. I welcome this debate this evening on the floor of the House, and I hope it takes us in a more productive direction.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned as we face this legislation with the continued decline in USAID urban programming. Now, most in the assembly probably do not give it a great deal of attention, but it is a nagging part of the international turmoil that shows up daily in the headlines to be found in some of these mega-urban areas around the world with populations of 10 million or more. This is a dangerous trend that has not been unnoticed by our security activities.

In its Outlook 2015, the CIA ranked rapid urbanization as one of the top seven security concerns of this country. It stated that ``cities will be the sources of crime and instability as ethnic and religious differences exacerbate the competition for ever scarcer jobs and resources.''

The sheer scale of growth in these cities around the world is striking. In 1950 there was one city in the world with more than 10 million people, the City of New York. By 2015, it is expected there will be 23 mega-cities with populations exceeding 10 million.

Over half the world's population already lives in cities. In the next 25 years, we anticipate that there will be another 2.5 billion people added to this population, more in the next 25 years in these cities than we expect in the entire world's population in the next 50 years. They are going to settle in areas like Bombay, Sao Paulo, Jakarta and Karachi.

The problems that come along with this concentrated population growth, air pollution, water and sanitation problems, transportation gridlock, disastrous housing conditions, produce political, social, economic instability and unrest.

We have a tool in the U.S. Agency for International Development's Urban Programs Office. It works to help stabilize these massive urban areas as they attempt to fight these environmental, economic, social and political problems.

Unfortunately, the United States programs in this area have faced a decade of rapid decline and staff cutbacks. In 1993, we had $8 million. This year's presidential request is for $2.5 million.

I have appreciated the effort of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and their focusing of attention. There have been requests for more money. The Senate language last year strongly recommended additional funding, yet only $3 million was funded for 2003, and the prospects are for continued decline this year. It is the cost of approximately two cruise missiles.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask if there is some possibility on behalf of this program, to the Chair or ranking member, if there might be some way to give some attention as this bill works its way through the legislative process to perhaps focus some additional attention on being able to make some additional investment to deal with these severely stressed areas?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I deeply appreciate the expressions of concern and the hard work. There is probably no committee in Congress that has a more difficult assignment and stretched in more areas that really are a matter of life and death. But I think here even a few million dollars could greatly expand our efforts. I would look forward to working with Members, and I appreciate their concern.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to move past the free versus fair trade debate that has dominated the considerations in this Chamber for most of the last five Congresses, where each side uses code words to ignore the inconvenient arguments of each other, or perhaps to not address them at all. It is time to deal with honest trade policy.

We can start later this week with action on the Chile free trade agreement, a spirited open debate which should lead to a strong bipartisan vote for approval. I would urge my colleagues not to reflexively reject agreement because of either concerns about the previous trade promotion authority debate which, frankly, I had reservations about myself; or somehow get bogged down in debating what is not before us.

The best way to help future debates is if we all deal meaningfully with what is before us in the context of this agreement. And the Chile free trade agreement offers much for the United States, make no mistake about it. We gain far more than we give up in terms of tariff protections.

Right now the average United States export to Chile is taxed at approximately 5.6 percent versus an average tariff for the imports to the United States from Chile at approximately 0.5 percent. Indeed, two- thirds of the Chilean imports to the United States are duty free. We gain far more than we give up.

We are also currently at a severe disadvantage relative to other major trading partners with Chile. The large economies of the Western Hemisphere, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, already have preferential access to the Chilean market, as does the European Union. As a result, we are losing access as it relates to the percentage from our other competitors in those areas.

I urge my colleagues to look at their own region as I have done, for instance, in my home State of Oregon. I have seen if we were able to enact this agreement, there would be more opportunities for export.

For instance, Freight Liner is headquartered in my community. It is one of the most efficient truck manufacturing operations in the entire world, but we have lost access because of the aforementioned disadvantage that we face from trucks exported from Mexico, Brazil or the European Union. Enactment of this agreement will make it possible for us to be more competitive in my community.

There is also opportunity to remedy trade policy as they occur. Recently there was a controversy with Chile regarding a potential dumping of frozen raspberries on our market, to the detriment of people in my State. We were able to use the protections under the trade agreements that we have to put a stop to it. This is an opportunity for us to deal meaningfully with labor and environmental protections. The ones in Chile are the strongest in Latin America, and it is important that we act accordingly to support them. Indeed, we must act to deal with the broader values that are shared with Chile.

Mr. Speaker, what kind of government behavior do we want to encourage with our trade agreements? Chile represents an island of stability in

troubled Latin American waters. It deserves our support as a model for other countries.

As the world grows more prosperous and stable, America will be better off in terms of the enormous security burden that we have voluntarily undertaken in Iraq, Afghanistan, in about 100 other countries around the world in numerous treaties and alliances. Whether we are more economically secure depends on whether we exercise our leadership in honest trade policy at home and abroad.

Honest debate and ratification of the Chilean free trade agreement can be an important step in this new era.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it has been over a year since we last considered this amendment. In that period of time we have come right back to an era of water shortage. Actually, we had a little rain, but the controversy continues.

Last year, after the amendment was voted on, we saw an unprecedented 33,000 fish killed by what many claim was a direct result of a lack of water. Whether my colleagues think that was entirely the case or not, virtually any common-sense appraisal would understand that the water shortage did, in fact, contribute to the problem.

We are in a situation, Mr. Chairman, where we have an elaborate system of plumbing in the Klamath Basin that basically we have a problem where there is not enough water. I have had people from the Basin calling our office expressing appreciation for raising these issues.

Because the fundamental problem is not fish. It is not problems with the native Americans, the sportsmen or waterfowl, and it is certainly not the problem with the farmer. It is that the Federal Government has promised more than this elaborately plumed basin in the middle of a desert can deliver. We have overcommitted tens of billions of gallons, and we will continue to have all these problems. We will continue to see fish dying, wildlife habitat destroyed, the demise of recreational commercial fishing activities, and we are going to continue to see farmers in the Basin pinched.

The Federal Government right now, today, can make a small but significant improvement by reducing millions of gallons of peak summer demand.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

I am happy to accommodate the recommendation of the chairman of the subcommittee. My point, Mr. Chairman, was that the Federal Government right now, today, can make a small but significant improvement by reducing millions of gallons of peak summer demand.

Teddy Roosevelt helped designate one of these wildlife refuges as the first waterfowl refuge in 1908. We continue to lease water within these refuges for intensive agricultural uses. The amendment today would be an important step to stop making the problem worse. If the amendment were approved, we would be limiting the leases that expired this year, which are approximately 2,000 out of 20,000 acres.

Number one, the basin limitation is what we do virtually everywhere else on wildlife refuges where there are few refuges where farming is allowed but there are controls. If there is truly an agricultural or economic imperative for some of the water-intensive crops, there is private land that is available in the region where people can pay market rate leases rather than having the ground cut out from underneath these private property owners by the Federal Government. It will be market rate, profits go to the local economy, and the Federal Government will not be wasting water on its land.

Mr. Chairman, it is important that we send a signal today to lead by example. By pretending that water does not matter, that the interests of the Federal Government are supreme, that we can undercut the private market even if it is not good for wildlife, not good for endangered species, not good for other agricultural commitments or those to our native Americans--this is an easy, simple, direct environmental vote, and it is also a reaffirmation of our responsibilities as stewards of the land to start making the Federal Government part of the solution rather than continuing to be part of the problem.

One of my major goals as a Member of Congress is that the Federal Government be a better partner in promoting livable communities, and the simplest way to do that does not require new rules, regulations, laws, or taxes but simply for the Federal Government to behave the same way we want the rest of the country to behave.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that here in the Klamath Basin, where we are encouraging farmers to cut back because of their continuing water crisis, the Federal Government is prepared to extend leases on land that we owned for water-intensive agriculture. That is not just foolish and hypocritical. It is why we continue to have a problem in the Klamath Basin. It is always someone else's fault.

By adopting the amendment that I am introducing with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), we will stop being hypocritical. We will lead by example, stop competing with private farmers who have land to lease, and we will stop pretending that steps that would save hundreds of millions of gallons and ultimately billions of gallons during the worst time of the year are inconsequential or worth nothing.

It would be a tragedy if Congress did not accept this common-sense approach that would be better for farmers, better for wildlife, better for the environmental community and, most important, will start us down the road of recovery rather than wallowing in denial, acrimony, and recrimination.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Chairman, first two factual observations:

One, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture suggested that we were going to be flinging these farmers off the 2,000 acres that are leased and denying them a way to earn a living. There are people in the Basin who are trying to lease their own private land right now. I have heard from them. In fact, they were in the gentleman from California's (Mr. Herger) office yesterday. They have land to lease, but they are undercut in their efforts to lease their land because the Federal Government is leasing land at below-market rates.

Now if there is a dramatic demand to grow water-intensive crops, there are private lands that are available to be leased. Nobody has made the argument that there is not. I have heard from farmers down there who have land ready to lease and wonder why we are competing with them.

Second, several of my colleagues have said you are not saving any water because some of the things that you would permit to grow, if this amendment were enacted, actually consume more water. But what my friends did not tell you and, in fact, again, I had a farmer from the Basin yesterday in my office explaining why it is a savings of water, because they can take the water in the winter, charge the ground, do winter irrigation and the water is available for these serial crops in the summer. They do not have to irrigate during the summer when we do not have the water available.

So it is a net gain because it takes the water when it is plentiful, put into the ground, store it up for the summer. It helps recharge the groundwater, and it uses less water when the fish need it, when the Native Americans need it, when it is needed for recreation activities that are far more valuable than just the agricultural interests alone.

I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) that the Federal Government is the culprit. Absolutely. We have promised more water to the Native Americans, to the farmers, to the needs of endangered species

and wildlife, and it is time to stop pretending that we can blame it on somebody else.

I have watched people play politics in the basin. I have watched the sad spectacle when law enforcement officials said they could not enforce the law. And people play to inflame the attitudes and emotions. I think that is wrong. I think that is sad.

The problem in the basin is that the Federal Government has committed more than nature can produce, and for us to stop the nonsense of assuming that we can just be business as usual is the first step.

I commend my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who has been working on this for years. I commend many of the issues that he wants to move forward in terms of dam removal and fish screens. I will support him. I will support major Federal investment to buy out willing sellers to reduce the water demand. Because unless and until we come face to face with the fact that we have promised more than we can deliver, we will be in this mess year after year after year.

This amendment will not throw any farmers off the land. In fact, the farmers in the district of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) in the wildlife refuge do not irrigate. It will not affect the farmers in his district in the wildlife refuge. I wanted to make the point that it is not going to affect the farmers in the wildlife refuge in his district. The farmers that are in the Tule Lake area can go ahead. They can lease land if they want. But for the land that the Federal Government provides, it is time for us to face reality, limit the use away from water-intensive agriculture.

This is not trying to play the blame game. It is for the Federal Government to lead by example and stop leasing lands for water- intensive agriculture, allow the water to be used at a time when it is most plentiful. They can continue like they have in the other part of the refuge.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote on a path towards a more sustainable future in the basin, cooperate where we can, but do not make it any worse by continuing to lease land in the refuge for water- intensive agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding me this time. I have great sympathy for the hard work that the subcommittee has done, both the chairman and ranking member; but I appreciate also what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) said about this being a work in progress, and I sincerely hope that it will be.

I heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) talk about his concern that there was not great enthusiasm for an amendment that would restore approximately $90 million for Conservation Trust Fund activities. Mr. Chairman, I can understand the reticence on behalf of a number of Members of this Chamber to embrace that, but we had an agreement.

A bill passed overwhelmingly under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) that passed by a veto-proof margin through the House and had tremendous momentum in the Senate. There was an agreement. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), I was pleased to see here, was part of this artful effort to put together an agreement that solved the problem in the short term. Now we have seen this agreement shattered.

Because of the continuing resolution and what is in the bill that is before us today, we would shortchange what that agreement was overwhelmingly supported by this Chamber by almost $1 billion. I do not think that there are very many people here who are going to embrace with great enthusiasm a 10 percent solution when we have massive unfunded commitments to the state-side portion of that.

In my community, where the committee has visited the Columbia River Gorge, there is priceless land in a conservation area where there are willing sellers that want to complete the deal, but there is not money available. There is underfunding in the arts. And I am convinced that there will be action in this work in progress that will bring people together and the will of this body will be heard, I think in a bipartisan majority, that hopefully will restore that funding for the arts.

Mr. Chairman, it is not any lack of interest in true bipartisanship. I think the agreement that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) were a part of was a classic example of that bipartisanship. It is time to reach back, restore it in this work in progress.

Now, one specific that I would make reference to. I will be offering in the course of the debate on this bill an amendment that would reduce water-intensive agriculture in the one wildlife refuge in the United States where there is unregulated agriculture practicing on leased land dealing with the Klamath basin. I hope we will be able as a Chamber to come forward to solve that problem. But in the meantime, I commend the subcommittee for its hard work and look forward to this work in progress solving the CARA problem.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 14: Add at the end, before the short title,

the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time to speak on this rule.

One of the pleasures of serving on the Committee on International Relations is the spirit of bipartisanship that is exhibited by our committee chair, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and the give and take on the committee to deal with issues that truly should be bipartisan in nature that deal with international affairs of our country.

I heard the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules speak to the need for international leadership and some concerns he had in the United Nations. Well, I am sad that the rule that is before us today does not permit us to debate one of the most significant issues of international leadership that the United States should be involved with, and that deals with global warming.

It is sad that the Committee on Rules would not permit the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) to reinstate his amendment that passed with a bipartisan vote on our committee on perhaps the single most important environmental issue of our day, global warming.

I know that some of the consultants from the Republican establishment are talking about talking differently about the environment. We are not supposed to talk about global warming. It is climate change. We are supposed to have questions about whether or not it is occurring. The fact is that the consensus of the scientific community is that global warming is happening, it is impacted by human activity, and the United States is missing in action.

One can disagree with the approach of the administration turning its back on Kyoto and not providing an alternative. I am less concerned about what they are doing with Kyoto than the fact that we are not engaging the international community. I hope the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) will speak on this rule. It is critical.

The American public understands that the climate is changing. Global warming is impacting all of us. I do not think it is any accident that there were 562 tornadoes in the month of May, more than any month in record; that in India's pre-monsoon season, we are seeing a spike in temperature, leading to hundreds and hundreds of deaths; that the hottest 10 years in recorded history have occurred since 1990. We as Congress need to embrace this debate. We should not be afraid of it.

I am sad that the Committee on Energy and Commerce stripped this language from the bill. That is the right of their committee leadership, but we ought to have the right on the floor of this Chamber to deal with the single most important environmental issue of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that this rule be rejected, but I strongly hope that this is the last time that Congress is going to be missing in action on the issue on global climate change, that we will have free and open and forthright debate. The American public deserves it, not just on this bill but on each environmental issue that follows to deal with this matter.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy for permitting me to speak in support of the State Department authorization. I am pleased to be a member of the committee. I salute the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), our chairman, and the work that he has done with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, to be able to deal in a bipartisan and cooperative spirit with some of the major issues of our time. Certainly nothing could be more important for us to have an opportunity for Congress to be involved in a cooperative and thoughtful measure on things that should not be rife with partisan divisions or unnecessary ideological debate.

It seems to me that there are three important things for us to focus on in the course of the discussion this afternoon. I am pleased with the benchmark that has been established for the Millennium Challenge Account, the opportunity; and I commend the administration for injecting responsibility as a criterion for giving forth aid.

I look forward to the debate on the international family planning, being able to retain, hopefully, the resources

for the United Nations population fund but to have a spirited and thoughtful exchange for what that means. Last, but by no means least, we are not going to give proper attention in the course of the detail of the debate but there has been careful work done by the committee, its staff and working with the State Department to be able to support the leadership from our Secretary of State who is dealing with the needs of the outstanding men and women who are on the front line practicing diplomacy around the world, providing defense in areas of threats to our security, promotion of commerce and, most important, international understanding. I would hope that we will be able to continue forward using this as a foundation to be able to have the type of discussion that these issues merit.