Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this resolution.

I am not in support of burning the flag. But I am even more opposed to weakening the First Amendment, one of the most important things for which the flag itself stands.

I agree with the Boulder Daily Camera that ``If Congress and the states embraced this amendment, it would shield a symbol of freedom while assailing the very freedom it signifies. That symbolic flag desecration would be far more egregious than the theatrics of any two- bit protester.''

As the Denver Post put it when the House considered a similar proposal two years ago. ``The American flag represents freedom. Many men and women fought and died for this country and its constitutional freedoms under the flag. They didn't give their lives for the flag; they died for this country and the freedom it guarantees under the Bill of Rights. Those who choose to desecrate the flag can't take away its meaning. In fact, it is our constitutional freedoms that allow them their reprehensible activity.''

I completely agree. So, like Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Senator John Glenn, and others who have testified against it, I will oppose this resolution.

For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching the editorials on this subject in the Daily Camera and the Denver Post:

[From the Boulder (CO) Daily Camera, May 7, 2003]

The Real Desecration

``Flag protection amendment'' assails American values

Colin Powell loves our country, its Constitution and the

flag. A general and a statesman, he has spent decades

defending all three. Unlike many members of Congress,

however, Powell can differentiate between our sweet liberty

and a cherished symbol of that liberty.

Congress should heed Powell's advice. Let's hope it does.

In the U.S. House of Representatives today, a committee is

scheduled to consider a proposed constitutional amendment on

``flag protection.''

If ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, the

amendment would allow Congress to do what the First Amendment

forbids: to criminalize the physical desecration of the U.S.

flag.

The House version of the flag-protection resolution has 135

co-sponsors, including Colorado Reps. Bob Beauprez, Joel

Hefley, Marilyn Musgrave and Tom Tancredo. Colorado Sens.

Wayne Allard and Ben Nighthorse Campbell are among the 55

Senate co-sponsors.

For years ago, Powell was asked about the flag-desecration

amendment, which members of Congress were then, like now,

pursuing. First, Powell noted, very few Americans burn the

flag. Second, he said, these desecrators are irrelevant:

``They may be destroying a piece of cloth, but they do no

damage to our system of freedom, which tolerates such

desecration.''

Powell said he would not alter the Constitution on their

account. ``I would not amend that great shield of democracy

to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying

proudly long after they have slunk away.''

It's just that simple. If Congress and the states embraced

this amendment, it would shield a symbol of freedom while

assailing the very freedom it signifies. That symbolic flag

desecration would be far more egregious than the theatrics of

any two-bit protester. It is nothing short of stupefying that

many of our leaders continue to ignore this self-evident

truth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.

I cannot believe the Majority will not even let us debate who should be allowed to receive an extension of unemployment insurance.

The extension that we will be allowed to vote on, provided this rule stands, will provide twenty six weeks of assistance to those few states that have exceeded an unemployment threshold of six percent. The unemployed workers in those six states receive the needed benefits, while those in other states receive only half of the extension. This bill ignores that specific areas have suffered high unemployment, but whose overall state unemployment rate has not exceeded the threshold.

In Boulder, which has a number of high-tech companies that have either closed up shop or laid off workers, I have seen a job loss rate exceeding sixteen percent between January of 2001 to January of 2003, this according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This has resulted in a substantial increase in unemployment, and considering the state of our economy, this trend doesn't seem like it will change soon. In fact, the average monthly claims for unemployment averaged a little over sixtyfive hundred claims per month in 2001, by the end of 2002 that number had jumped to over eleven thousand three hundred. But since Colorado's unemployment level has been just below six percent these workers will be in trouble if they can't find a job within the allotted thirteen weeks, if this bill passes.

This isn't just a problem in Colorado. This is a national problem and we need to treat it as such.

But the Majority has created a rule that will not allow us to even consider amendments that would help those Americans who are struggling and cannot find employment.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of our great champions of education in Colorado, Mr. Don Middleton. Mr. Middleton is retiring as Superintendent of Clear Creek School District after 37 years of service in public education.

During his tenure at Clear Creek, he has played a valuable role in raising the District's test scores across the board. The effect of his integrity, honesty and passion for education has been far reaching. In fact, he has been credited with restoring the pride of the educational community in his schools through his tireless efforts and compassionate leadership.

Don has been recognized on numerous occasions for his exceptional work in education. He has been given awards such as the Administrator of the Year Award of Excellence; the Award of Distinguished Service; a Certificate of Recognition for Outstanding Service Adams County #1; and the Hall of Fame Award from the Mapleton Education Association. Interestingly enough, if you ask Don to talk about his long and distinguished career of service, you would most likely find that he would rather talk about the kids he has met along the way. His dedication is evident by his enthusiastic presence at so many school functions and classroom visits.

Don Middleton has been a dedicated leader and an unwavering advocate for excellence in education. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. Middleton for his hard work on behalf of Colorado's children and families. I wish him success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to acknowledge Ms. Carolyn ``CJ'' Jones for her many years of public service and for the depth and diversity of contributions she has made to my staff and to so many people in Colorado.

Upon my election to the 2nd Congressional District in 1998, CJ was the first person I invited to join my staff. She was instrumental in organizing my campaign effort in Adams County, and in the early days after my election, she organized our fledgling congressional office from the basement of her house and took constituent inquiries on her cell phone. CJ Jones assisted in training many of my novice staff members and has subsequently set the standard of excellence for my office in the 2nd Congressional District.

Prior to becoming my staff assistant, CJ served in the offices of Senator Tim Wirth and Congressman David Skaggs. She is also the only member of my staff with her own election certificate--this to the Adams County School District 12 Board. Throughout her distinguished career, she has served successfully in numerous capacities. Her knowledge of Adams County politics is encyclopedic, and her insistence on application of House Ethics Rules has become legendary with members of my staff. We will deeply miss the staff parties at her home, her annual Christmas carols--which started with the earliest snowfall in September--and her tendency to break into song at any moment. Coworkers will also recall those rare moments in CJ's career when her blue eyes turned steely gray, signaling a red alert to everyone in the vicinity.

One of the things I share with CJ is a deep interest in young people. She has been the driving force behind my annual Youth Washington Seminar and she has mentored young people, chaperoning high school students in Washington with care and joy. She has shown young Coloradans that politics is not just about policy debates and electioneering, but also about having fun. High School students visiting Washington with her could always count on a visit to the monuments, but also a visit to the Hard Rock Cafe. To serve so broadly, so successfully, and with such grace, heart, and spirit is deserving of recognition.

CJ plans to spend some well-deserved time relaxing and traveling with her husband Bill, and spoiling her grandchildren. As a dedicated wife, mother and grandmother, CJ will continue to be the center of her family and the light of their lives. I know that they look forward to having her undivided attention and time. She will no doubt continue to be a force to be reckoned with in the arena of her garden and home.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in expressing our gratitude to CJ Jones for her exemplary public service to the people of Colorado and their elected officials. Her many accomplishments go beyond reckoning, and I wish her good health and happiness in the future.

Mr. Speaker, today I am today again introducing the Environmental Justice Act. I am proud that my colleague Congresswoman Hilda Solis is once again joining me as an original cosponsor of this bill.

Representative Solis and I first introduced this bill last year, too late for consideration in the 107th Congress. Its reintroduction today reflects our continued concern about the way federal actions have had disproportionately adverse effects on the health, environment and quality of life of Americans in minority and lower-income communities.

Too often these communities--because of their low income or lack of political visibility--are exposed to greater risks from toxins and dangerous substances because it has been possible to locate waste dumps, industrial facilities, and chemical storage warehouses in these communities with less care than would be taken in other locations.

The sad fact is that in some eyes these communities have appeared as expendable--without full appreciation that human beings, who deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, are living, working, and raising families there.

This needs to give way to policies focused on providing clean, healthy and quality environments within and around these communities. When that happens, we provide hope for the future and enhance the opportunities that these citizens have to improve their condition.

Our bill would help do just that. The bill essentially codifies an Executive Order that was issued by President Clinton in 1994. That order required all federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice considerations in their missions, develop strategies to address disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income people from their activities, and coordinate the development of data and research on these topics.

Although federal agencies have been working to implement this order and have developed strategies, there is clearly much more to do. We simply cannot solve these issues overnight or even over a couple of years. We need to ``institutionalize'' the consideration of these issues in a more long-term fashion--which this bill would do.

In addition, just as the current policy was established by an administrative order, it could be swept away with a stroke of an administrative pen. To avoid that, we need to make it more permanent-- which is also what this bill would do.

It would do this by statutorily requiring all federal agencies to-- make addressing environmental justice concerns part of their missions; develop environmental justice strategies; evaluate the effects of proposed actions on the health and environment of minority, low-income, and Native American communities; avoid creating disproportionate adverse impacts on the health or environment of minority, low-income, or Native American communities; and collect data and carry out research on the effects of facilities on health and environment of minority, low-income, and Native American communities.

It would also statutorily establish two committees: the Interagency Environmental Justice Working Group, set up by the Executive Order to develop strategies, provide guidance, coordinate research, convene public meetings, and conduct inquiries regarding environmental justice issues; and a Federal Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, appointed by the President, including members of community-based groups, business, academic, state agencies and environmental organizations. It will provide input and advice to the Interagency Working Group.

In a nutshell, what this bill would do is require federal agencies that control the siting and disposing of hazardous materials, store toxins or release pollutants at federal facilities, or issue permits for these kinds of activities to make sure they give fair treatment to low-income and minority populations--including Native Americans. The bill tells federal agencies, ``In the past these communities have endured a disproportionate impact to their health and environment. Now we must find ways to make sure that won't be the case in the future.''

For the information of our colleagues, here is a short analysis of the bill:

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was inadvertently delayed in reaching the floor and as a result was not recorded on two votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On rollcall No. 207, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 247, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 208, on adoption of H. Res. 247, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, this bill is one of the most important measures that the House will consider this year. It is intended to set out our vision for the defense of our country in the years ahead--both in terms of policy direction and spending priorities. Unfortunately, the vision this bill puts forth is not one I can endorse, and so I cannot vote for it.

We are over a year into our war on terrorism and fresh from military action in Iraq. There is no doubt that we must continue to focus on defending our homeland against terrorism, we must support our military personnel, and we must give our military the training, equipment, and weapons it needs to beat terrorism around the world.

That's why I'm in favor of provisions in the bill that support those men and women who made our victory possible in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bill provides an average 4.1 percent pay raise for service members, boosts military special pay and extends bonuses, and fund programs to improve living and working facilities on military installations. Those are all good provisions that I support.

I'm also in favor of ensuring our defense capabilities are up to the task of defending against 21st century threats. Secretary Rumsfeld continues to try to refocus and reprioritize our defense programs along 21st century lines, but I'm not sure his vision has the support of some of our colleagues here in the House, who seem content to address new threats with Cold War-era technologies. Indeed, with the exception of the Crusader artillery system, the Administration and Congress have continued every major weapons system inherited from previous administrations.

So my first objection to this bill is that although it brings overall defense spending to

levels 13 percent higher than average Cold War levels, it doesn't present a coherent vision of how to realign our defense priorities. We need to make clear decisions about our defense spending, and this bill doesn't begin to consider the choices that must be made.

I have other strong objections to the bill. It includes provisions similar to those in H.R. 1935, a bill we considered in the Resources Committee, to exempt the Department of Defense from compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). There is a broad-based support for existing environmental laws--as there should be--and these laws already allow case-by-case flexibility to protect national security. The Pentagon has never sought to take advantage of this flexibility, so it strains belief that these laws are undermining our national security. Indeed, the General Accounting Office has found that training readiness remains high at military installations notwithstanding our environmental laws.

Lacking any compelling data to conclusively demonstrate that military readiness and training have suffered as a result of compliance with the ESA and MMPA, I am not persuaded that the changes to these acts proposed by the military are justified. If anything, the recently completed Iraqi Freedom campaign verifies once again that our armed forces remain the best trained, best equipped force on the planet. The Administration has opportunistically selected the present circumstances as a thin veneer behind which to move legislation to weaken key aspects of the ESA and MMPA that it could not achieve otherwise. Such over- reaching should not be rewarded, and the House should not have included these provisions in the bill we are considering today.

I am also concerned about the bill's provisions to overhaul DOD's personnel system. Last year, Congress authorized the largest government reorganization over thirty years with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, affecting 170,000 Federal employees. Following extensive debate, the new DHS Secretary was given authority to establish a flexible personnel system that at least attempted to protect workers' rights. The provisions in this bill would create even wider ranging exemptions for the Department of Defense, stripping almost 700,000 civilian employees of fundamental rights relating to due process, appeals, and collective bargaining.

The Administration only knows that it wants to gut the current system, but it hasn't provided an alternative. This bill provides a blank check for the Administration to undo many of our civil service laws in an unprecedented unilateral approach to civil service reform. What's worse, the Rules Committee wouldn't allow the House to consider a sensible amendment that would restore a system of checks and balances for our Federal workers. I cannot support the way this bill treats so many dedicated civilian employees of the Department of Defense.

Finally, I am concerned about the bill's provisions on nuclear weapons. This year's bill provides funding to study the feasibility of developing nuclear earth-penetrating weapons and low-yield nuclear weapons. Low-yield nuclear weapons have an explosive yield of five kilotons or less--``only'' a third of the explosive yield of the bomb dropped on Hiroshina.

Mr. Chairman, our obligations under the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) require the United States to work towards nuclear disarmament, rather than further increase the size and diversity of our arsenal. Indeed, we're working even now to prevent North Korea, Iran, Syria, and other countries from gaining access to nuclear weapons. By continuing the development of new U.S. nuclear weapons at the same time that we are trying to convince other nations to forego obtaining such weapons, we undermine our credibility in the fight to stop nuclear proliferation.

I believe we must be extremely cautious before we consider expanding applications of nuclear use. We all agree on the need to maintain the deterrent capability of our nuclear forces, but I don't believe we need more or new weapons to maintain our deterrent. This bill takes our nuclear posture a step backwards, putting the U.S. in a position of leading the world in the direction of developing more nuclear weapons.

Mr. Chairman, if the House had been permitted to consider more needed amendments to the bill, it might have been improved enough so that I could support it. But the Rules Committee rebuffed sensible amendments at every turn, denying us a voice on civil services protections and the environment, among other issues. So in view of my strong objections outlined above, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to review the provisions of this conference report, so far as that has been possible in the very brief time available. I did so in the hope that I would find it enough of an improvement over the bill the House passed by the House earlier this month that I would be able to support it.

Regrettably, however, I have decided that it does not meet that test.

I do think the conference report is better than the House-passed bill in several respects. I am especially glad to note that, unlike the House bill, it provides for giving Colorado and the other States some much-needed assistance with meeting Medicaid costs and paying for other services. And it also includes some other things I support, including the refundable increase in the child credit and the elimination of the ``marriage penalty'' aspects of the income tax.

However, these good features of the conference report are outweighed by its major shortcomings.

For one thing, the aid to the states comes with a price--a number of States will lose some State revenue as a result of the depreciation and small business expensing provisions, due to linkages between federal and state tax codes. In fact, according to one estimate I have seen, if those provisions are extended and remain in effect through 2013, States will lose an estimated $15 billion over the decade as a result of the provisions.

Further, even the child-credit provisions could be better. The conference report evidently drops a Senate provision that was targeted on working families with children with incomes in the $10,000 to $30,000 range. This jettisoned Senate provision would have benefited 11.9 million low-income children and their families--one of every six children in the Nation. As it is, data compiled by the Urban Institute- Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center show that while under the Senate bill 18 percent of married and head-of-household filers with children would have received no tax cut in 2003, under the conference report that will rise to 29 percent. To put it another way, married filers with two children and incomes between $10,500 and $21,325 will receive no tax cut under the conference agreement--although all such households would have received a tax cut under the Senate bill.

And, like the House-passed bill, the conference report will do little to increase jobs in the near future.

The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center estimates that 36 percent of all U.S. households would receive no tax cut whatsoever in 2003 under the conference agreement, and 53 percent of households would receive a tax cut of $100 or less. They also say the average tax cut in 2003 for households in the middle of the income spectrum, i.e., the middle fifth of Households, would be $217. Based on this, it seems clear that the conference report, being so focused on high-income filers, is likely to be limited effectiveness in boosting the economy in the near term. That's because high-income households are likely to spend a smaller share of their tax cuts than households of more modest means--and only if tax cuts are spent will they boost the economy in the near term.

On the other hand, it seems beyond dispute that the conference report will lead to a very large increase in the federal deficit and thus to a very large, long-term increase in the national debt.

So, like the House-passed bill, it does too little to address the real needs of the economy and the country, and it does too much to make our budgetary problems worse.

Just as they did when the House debated its bill, its supporters are reciting from the White House's cue cards that say it will create jobs. They know that is what the American people want to hear--because we need to begin to make up for the millions of jobs that have disappeared over the last two years.

But I am not persuaded, because no analysis I have seen--whether by the Congressional Budget Office, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, or any other expert--supports the claim that enacting this conference report will help put very many people back to work anytime soon.

On the other hand, there is no doubt about how the bill will affect the Federal budget--it will throw it further out of balance and lead to much deeper deficits.

Like the House-passed bill, the conference report includes many gimmicks that cloak its true cost. Every provision in the bill but one is designed to expire between the end of 2004 and the end of 2008. More provisions expire at earlier points in time than under either the House or Senate bills. If the provisions scheduled to terminate in a few years are extended--and I am confident that the bill's supporters will be pushing for that--its total cost will be much greater that the amounts its supporters have claimed.

In fact, according to one estimate I have seen, if the bill's provisions (except the one providing relief through the Alternative Minimum Tax) ultimately are extended, the cost

through 2013 will be $810 billion to $1.06 trillion, depending on how one measures the cost of extending the bill's business depreciation tax cut.

But even if I were to suspend my disbelief and take it at face value, I would think the cost of the conference report--in terms of the deficit and the debt--exceeded its benefits.

As I said when the House first considered this tax bill, I think we need to take deficits seriously--as Chairman Greenspan reminded us again earlier this week, and as was earlier spelled out by Peter G. Peterson, President of the Concord Coalition, to the Committee on Financial Services.

As Mr. Peterson put it, ``A future of mounting deficits is a cause for grave concern. Mounting deficits can slow and even halt the steady growth in material living standards that has always nourished the American Dream. When such deficits are incurred in order to fund a rising transfer from young to old, they also constitute an injustice against future generations . . . This policy, after all, constitutes an explicit decision by today's adults to collectively shift the current cost of government from themselves to their children and grandchildren.''

In other words, by leading to deeper deficits and bigger debts, this bill would do just what President Bush, in his State of the Union address, said we should not do--instead of meeting today's challenges, it would simply create new problems for our children.

I don't think that is sound policy--especially when a better alternative is available. That is why I objected to the Republican leadership's refusal to allow the House to consider the alternative developed by Representative Rangel.

That alternative included very meaningful tax cuts. It included an increase in the child tax credit to $800 per child, an immediate expansion of the 10-percent tax-rate bracket to levels that under the 2001 tax will would be reached in 2008, and immediate elimination of the ``marriage penalty'' aspect of the income tax. It also included investment tax credits for small businesses, such as business expensing up to $75,000 and bonus depreciation. Those cuts would immediately put money into the pockets of middle-income Americans, who are the people most likely to spend it promptly, boosting consumer demand and thus helping set the stage for an increase business investment needed to meet that demand.

The alternative also had other important provisions to respond to the immediate needs of our country and the American people, including a provision to create a permanent, revenue-neutral corporate tax deduction to encourage American manufacturing companies to expand their operations, as well as a new tax incentive to provide a tax credit of up to $2,400 to businesses that hire people who now are unemployed.

And, just as important as everything else, the alternative was fiscally responsible--fully paid for over 10 years. So, it would have added as many as a million new jobs without adding anything to the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I still don't know why the Republican leadership refused to let the House even consider that alternative. Instead, they insisted on pushing through a bill that I could not support. And, unfortunately, this conference report, while better, is not enough better to deserve enactment. So, I must vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation titled the ``National War Permanent Tribute Historical Database Act,'' that will help the Department of Interior and the Department of Veterans' Affairs keep track of the many important war memorials on public lands throughout our country. It would also provide a report to Congress to determine if there should be a permanent fund within the Treasury for the upkeep of these memorials.

The freedom we enjoy in the United States has not just been given to us. Men and women have made great sacrifices, some with their lives, to protect our way of life. We have erected memorials to honor these soldiers, sailors, and aviators and their valiant deeds. Unfortunately many of these memorials don't receive the care they deserve and have fallen into disrepair. These memorials may not be as large as those on the National Mall or Arlington National Cemetery but they are just as important and should be taken care of.

In 2000, Congress agreed to a resolution expressing the need for cataloging and maintaining public memorials. The National War Permanent Tribute Historical Database Act would follow through with this sense of Congress and take a first step by cataloging our public war memorials.

Mr. Speaker, as we honor America's men and women in uniform this Memorial Day, many of us will be thinking these soldiers who have recently been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the other conflicts America's service men and women have fought in should not be forgotten. These memorials remind people what their local men and women did to protect our country. By cataloging and reporting to Congress on the condition of all of our war memorials on public lands and by considering how to maintain them we make sure that our veterans are not forgotten. Passage of this bill would be a step toward renewing our commitment to honor our nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation calling for a worldwide program of activities to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the most successful global scientific endeavor in human history--the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. I am pleased that my colleague Representative Ehlers--the Chairman of the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee of the Science Committee--is joining me as an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Indeed, it is hard to imagine not commemorating the historic global undertaking that was the International Geophysical Year, popularly known and remembered as the IGY. Yet such may occur unless steps proposed in this resolution for an ``IGY-2'' in 2007-2008 are not taken soon.

The 60 nations and 60,000 scientists who participated in the IGY left an ongoing legacy that is beyond measure. Satellite communications, modern weather forecasting, modern natural disaster prediction and management, from volcanic eruptions to El Nino--they are all legacies of IGY scientific activities that girdled the globe and breached the space frontier.

The space age itself is a child of the IGY. The program of events included the launching of the first artificial satellites, Sputnik and Vanguard. The IGY also produced the pathbreaking decision to set aside an entire continent--Antarctica--for cooperative study. This IGY program alone--which was permanently institutionalized by the Antarctica Treaty--made the year a scientific triumph. Six of my colleagues on the Science Committee recently returned from Antarctica and have testified to the ongoing organizational effectiveness and scientific payoff of this remarkable IGY legacy.

In a still broader context, the IGY marked the coming of age of international science. Globally coordinated activities that save millions of lives today--such as the campaigns to contain and find cures for SARS and AIDS--owe their inspiration and working model to the unprecedented number of scientists from throughout the world who banded together to implement the IGY. Scientific findings from thousands of locations, ranging from world research centers to remote field stations, were collected and organized by this global team. The result was an unprecedented range of discoveries for human benefit. The great British geophysicist Sydney Chapman, who helped conceive the IGY, called it ``the greatest example of world-wide scientific cooperation in the history of our race.''

My resolution calls for an ``IGY-2'' that would be even more extensive in its global reach and more comprehensive in its research and applications. After all, science never stands still. Its frontiers are continually expanding. The biological sciences, genetics, computer sciences, and the neurosciences, among others, have made tremendous advances worldwide during the half century since the IGY. At the same time, new integrative linkages are being established among mathematics, physics, the geosciences, the life sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities as well.

As a consequence, there is a coming together in the study of our planet and its diverse inhabitants whose potential scope and significance is only beginning to be perceived even among those directly involved. In addition to promoting research, IGY-2 would provide a stage for showcasing these new developments and a forum for presentation and discussion of their continually unfolding cultural as well as scientific significance.

Indeed, one of IGY-2's most important contributions would be to enhance public awareness of global activities that provide hope and example in an era when conflict and strife occupy the foreground of public policy and public attention. George Kistiakowsky, science adviser to President Dwight Eisenhower under whose presidency the IGY occurred, said at the time: ``Science is today one of the few common languages of mankind; it can provide a basis for understanding and communication of ideas between people that is independent of political boundaries and ideologies [and] that can contribute in a major way to the reduction of tension between nations.''

Those words spoken more than 40 years ago resonate with special significance today when the web of global ties among scientists is so much more extensive yet still largely unrecognized. We are catching a glimpse of its saving potential in the inspiring worldwide response of scientists and public health professionals to the SARS outbreak--a response inconceivable without the collaborative lines of communication established during the past half century. At a minimum, the work of these unsung heroes deserves greater recognition than it has received-- and IGY-2 would do that.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is entirely fitting that the United States take the lead in launching an IGY-2 and that Congress provide the impetus. The IGY of 1957-58 was conceived in 1950 only a few miles from here, in Silver Spring, MD, at a dinner hosted by Professor James Van Allen and attended by scientist-friends from Europe, including Sydney Chapman. They discussed the International Polar Years that had been held at 50 year intervals--first in 1882, then in 1932. The next one was scheduled for 1982. Over a barbecue in Van Allen's backyard, these visionary scientists came up with the idea of accelerating the schedule to a 25-year interval, which would occur in 1957, and expanding its coverage to the entire globe, so as to take full advantage of rapid advances in research and instrumentation. They took their idea to governments and scientific organizations and they made it happen. Fittingly, James Van Allen won the Nobel Prize for discovery during the IGY of the radiation belts that bear his name.

Subsequently, in 1985, Congress passed a resolution calling for a year of globally coordinated space activity in 1992, to mark the simultaneously occurring 35th anniversary of the IGY and 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage of discovery. The bipartisan resolution for this International Space Year, or ISY, was introduced by Senator Spark Matsunaga and endorsed by President Reagan. At the President's direction, the United States led a worldwide planning effort that culminated with the implementation of an ISY in 1992 that made major contributions to international scientific cooperation, notably in the field of global environmental monitoring.

So we have both scientific and Congressional precedent for the United States to take the lead internationally in calling for an IGY-2. I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting this initiative in support of modern science and the inspiration to our troubled planet that its global outlook can provide. I have no doubt that the contributions to humanity of an IGY-2 will be remembered with gratitude both in the near future and for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing the Environmental Justice Act of 2002. I am proud that my colleague Congresswoman Hilda Solis is once again joining me as an original cosponsor of this bill.

Representative Solis and I first introduced this bill last year, too late for consideration in the 107th Congress. Its reintroduction today reflects our continued concern about the way federal actions have had disproportionately adverse effects on the health, environment and quality of life of Americans in minority and lower-income communities.

Too often these communities--because of their low income or lack of political visibility--are exposed to greater risks from toxins and dangerous substances because it has been possible to locate waste dumps, industrial facilities, and chemical storage warehouses in these communities with less care than would be taken in other locations.

The sad fact is that in some eyes these communities have appeared as expendable--without full appreciation that human beings, who deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, are living, working, and raising families there.

This needs to give way to policies focused on providing clean, healthy and quality environments within and around these communities. When that happens, we provide hope for the future and enhance the opportunities that these citizens have to improve their condition.

Our bill would help do just that. The bill essentially codifies an Executive Order that was issued by President Clinton in 1994. That order required all federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice considerations in their missions, develop strategies to address disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income people from their activities, and coordinate the development of data and research on these topics.

Although federal agencies have been working to implement this order and have developed strategies, there is clearly much more to do. We simply cannot solve these issues overnight or even over a couple of years. We need to ``institutionalize'' the consideration of these issues in a more long-term fashion--which this bill would do.

In addition, just as the current policy was established by an administrative order, it could be swept away with a stroke of an administrative pen. To avoid that, we need to make it more permanent-- which is also what this bill would do.

It would do this by statutorily requiring all federal agencies to: Make addressing environmental justice concerns part of their missions; develop environmental justice strategies; evaluate the effects of proposed actions on the health and environment of minority, low income, and Native American communities; avoid creating disproportionate adverse impacts on the health or environment of minority, low-income, or Native American communities; and collect data and carry out research on the effects of facilities on health and environment of minority, low-income, and Native American communities.

It would also statutorily establish two committees: The Interagency Environmental Justice Working Group, set up by the Executive Order to develop strategies, provide guidance, coordinate research, convene public meetings, and conduct inquiries regarding environmental justice issues; and a Federal Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, appointed by the President, including members of community-based groups, business, academic, state agencies and environmental organizations. It will provide input and advice to the Interagency Working Group.

In a nutshell, what this bill would do is require federal agencies that control the siting and disposing of hazardous materials, store toxins or release pollutants at federal facilities, or issue permits for these kinds of activities to make sure they give fair treatment to low-income and minority populations--including Native Americans. The bill tells federal agencies, ``In the past these communities have endured a disproportionate impact to their health and environment. Now we must find ways to make sure that won't be the case in the future.''

For the information of our colleagues, here is a short analysis of the bill:

Environmental Justice Act

Summary: This bill would essentially codify a Clinton

Administration Executive Order which directed a number of

federal agencies and offices to consider the environmental

impact of decisions on minority and low-income populations.

Background: On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued

Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations.'' The President also issued a corresponding

Memorandum to all federal departments and agencies further

explaining the order and how the agencies should implement it

to address environmental justice issues. The Order and

Memorandum called for the creation of an interagency working

group to provide guidance on identifying disproportionate

impacts on the health and environment of minority and low-

income populations, develop strategies to address such

disproportionate impacts, and provide a report on that

strategy. Since the order was promulgated, the affected

agencies have developed reports and strategies.

Need for the Bill: Although federal agencies and offices

have been complying with the Executive Order,

disproportionate impacts related to human health and the

environment still exist for many minority and low-income

communities. These impacts must be addressed over the long

term. In addition, due to the lack of resources and political

clout of many of these impacted communities, vigilance is

required to make sure that disproportionate impacts are

reduced and do not continue. As the effort to date has been

primarily administrative based on the presidential order and

memorandum, these strategies need to be incorporated into the

routine functioning of federal agencies and offices through

federal law.

The bill--

Requires federal agencies and offices to: include

addressing environmental justice concerns into their

respective missions; conduct programs so as not to create

disproportionate impact on minority and low-income

populations; include an examination of the effects of such

action on the health and environment of minority and low-

income populations for actions that require environmental

analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act; create

an environmental justice strategy to address disproportionate

impacts of its policies and actions, and conduct and collect

research on the disproportionate impacts from federal

facilities.

Creates an Interagency Environmental Justice Working Group

to develop strategies, provide guidance, coordinate research,

convene public meetings, and conduct inquiries regarding

environmental justice issues.

Creates a Federal Environmental Justice Advisory Committee

composed of members of community-based groups, business,

academic, state agencies and environmental organizations

which will provide input and advice to the Interagency

Working Group.

Mr. Speaker, because of a family emergency I was unable to be present on Monday for three recorded votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 192, H. Con. Res. 166--Expressing the sense of Congress in support of Buckle Up America Week, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 193, H.R. 1018--To designate the building located at 1 Federal Plaza in New York, New York, as the ``James L. Watson United States Court of International Trade Building,'' I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 194, H. Con. Res. 147--Commemorating the 20th Anniversary of the Orphan Drug Act and the National Organization for Rare Disorders, I would have voted ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. I heard my colleagues, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), speak with great passion about the need to pass legislation that would remove this threat of catastrophic wildfire; and I want to associate myself with their remarks and their concerns.

I heard my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), talk about the broad-based nature of the bill before us today; but I would beg to differ with my colleague. There are more of us that would join the gentleman if the rule were more broadly structured and if the bill broadened the coalition.

In the end we are trying to raise trust with this legislation. We are trying to create a sense in all of our communities that are threatened by catastrophic wildfire that we will focus our efforts on the so- called red zones and in our watersheds where our water supplies are at risk. In Colorado, the red

zone is 6 million acres alone. That is where people and property come into contact with forests that are in unhealthy conditions.

I offered a number of amendments in the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Agriculture, and I distilled those down to two amendments that I took to the Committee on Rules. One would have focused 70 percent of the dollars that we would spend in the red zones where the risk is the greatest. That amendment was rejected by the Committee on Rules.

I offered a second amendment, also sponsored by my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), which would streamline the NEPA process but not entirely toss it out. If we eliminate all public input, we are going to reduce the levels of trust, the levels of involvement; and in the end, we are going to see additional litigation and stalemate.

This legislation needs to be passed, but it has to come out of the House in a form that the Senate would support. I worry. I am concerned. I believe that this bill as it is constructed would not be acceptable to the Senate.

What are we going to find ourselves in again? We are going to be in a gridlock situation and see more litigation, more stall, more lack of attention to our forests; and in the end, our efforts are going to be counterproductive.

So I urge the Members to defeat this rule, to broaden the rule to allow debate, as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), so eloquently pointed out to us earlier. Let us go back to the days of more open rules, where we take the time in the House to really work together to create a broad-based bill that the Senate and the President could support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this substitute amendment, not because I think it is perfect, but because I think it is a better choice than the underlying bill. The substitute is partly better because what it includes and partly because of what is not in it.

Most importantly, the substitute includes some of the best parts of the McInnis-Walden bill the Committee on Resources approved last year. Like last year's bill, the substitute earmarks most of the fuel- reduction money for projects to protect our communities and their water supplies.

In both the Resources and Agriculture Committees, I tried to amend the bill to restore the requirement that at least 70 percent of the money for forest thinning projects go to protect communities and their water supplies. That 70 percent requirement was in the McInnis-Walden bill last year, but it is not in this year's bill. So on this very important opportunity, the substitute is more in line with the bill I voted for last year.

Also, the substitute has a sunset clause. I think it should be included because that title is strong medicine to respond to an emergency situation. It is only sound policy to allow it to work for several years and then look at how well it has worked. A sunset clause will make sure that happens. The substitute also includes essentially the same provisions on administrative appeals as those in last year's bill. The purpose is to cut red tape and to speed up the resolution of appeals to avoid unnecessary delays.

I think those provisions are appropriate and have included similar ones in my own bill on this policy area. However, the new bill does not include any of those provisions. It simply allows the Secretary to establish any kind of appeals process the administration prefers. This is essentially a blank check. I do not think that is a good idea because it does not ensure that the result will strike the right balance between the need to avoid unnecessary delays while still affording local governments and other interested parties a meaningful opportunity to appeal things they find objectionable.

At the same time, the substitute does not include some of the most troubling parts of the new bill. Unlike the bill, the substitute does not go beyond the scope of last year's McInnis-Walden bill approved by the Committee on Resources. Many parts of the bill are absolutely new. There are things on which we have had no hearings and which threaten to bog us down in new controversies. They may have some merits, but I think it would be better to consider them separately, not as a part of this bill.

Finally, as I said, the substitute is not perfect, with all due respect to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). If it was just up to me, it would be different in several respects. In fact, it would read just like the bill H.R. 1042, the bill I introduced with my cousin and colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). I would have a broader definition of the wildland urban interface. If we are to truly address the risks to communities and their water supplies, we must include lands that are sometimes outside an arbitrary mileage limit from the edge of a particular community.

That is why my bill uses a definition based on the one developed by our Colorado State forester. On this one point, H.R. 1904, as well as my bill, is closer to the Committee on Resources bill from last year. But, unfortunately, my bill is not one of the choices before the House. We have to choose between H.R. 1904 and the substitute.

The substitute builds on the bill the Committee on Resources passed last year, while H.R. 1904 throws away some of the best parts of that bill and adds many new and troublesome provisions. I think the substitute is the better choice, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to my colleague from Colorado, for whom I have great respect and just make this set of remarks.

I have never seen a piece of legislation that cannot be improved. In fact, it is our responsibility as Members of this body to work to improve legislation as it comes forward. I did vote for the McGinnis- Walden bill last fall, proudly, and would have supported it this year if it came to the floor in that same structure.

But my approach has been to try and create consensus and trust and involve all of us. We could have had the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and myself on this bill, brought it to the Senate with a true broad-based bipartisan coalition, and moved ahead.

I am worried we are going to have more stalemate, more litigation, more problems, and we are going to get the very result that we are all worried about here, which is no treatment of our fuels, no reduction of these hazardous materials, and an even bigger fire season; and we are all going to bear the responsibility for that outcome.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based on my Passenger Van Safety Act Bill, H.R. 1641. It deals with the dangers of 15-passenger vans. These vans have been associated with more than 500 traffic fatalities since 1990.

In 2001, the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration found that when these vans are fully loaded, they have a rollover risk that is six times higher than when there are only five people in the van. I became alarmingly aware of the danger of these vans when a church group from my district rolled over two and a half times while driving to a religious retreat. Four passengers died in this tragic accident. Only later did I find out that these vans were infamous for getting out of control of the driver and rolling over.

This happened again last year when a van carrying firefighters who were on their way to fight a wildfire raging in Colorado lost control and rolled over more than four times, killing four of the firefighters.

These vans were initially designed to carry freight, not people; but now they are widely used by airports, hotels, and other organizations to transport customers and school children.

I offer my amendment to help ensure these needless tragedies end and that our most precious cargo, our children, get home safe and sound. This amendment would require, first, 15-passenger vans to undergo much of the same National Traffic Highway Safety Administration testing other passenger cars currently undergo, and require the Department of Transportation to finalize rules to make sure that hired drivers of these vans have the proper training.

In addition, the amendment would require NTHSA to work with van manufacturers to evaluate and test the potential of new technologies to help drivers maintain control of their vans.

Second, it would end the near 30 years that we have had this van loophole that has allowed schools to purchase used 15-passenger vans. In 1974, it became illegal for schools to purchase these vans new because of safety concerns. Why then should we continue to allow schools to purchase them used?

The 1974 law also included a $1,000 penalty for purchasing these vans. My amendment would increase the penalty to $25,000 and would be retained by the Transportation Department to be used to prevent these vans from being used illegally.

I think the amendment is a good one. I think it is a necessary one. I think it is a needed one. But I understand there may be a technical objection to including it in this bill.

Accordingly, I will withdraw the amendment. But first I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

My amendments are based on a bill of mine that is now pending in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is cosponsored by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). The bill and the amendments were prompted by several tragedies that have happened in Colorado and other States. These tragedies have made me acutely aware of the danger of 15-passenger vans. In fact, these vans have been associated with more than 500 traffic fatalities since 1990, and this is particularly alarming because so many of them are used as school buses.

The vehicles are highly susceptible to rollover, particularly when they are fully loaded. In fact, they are six times more likely to roll over when they are fully loaded than when there are only five people on board. Unfortunately, I found out how true this is when a van belonging to a church in my district and carrying young people crashed on the way to a retreat. That van rolled over two and a half times, and four people died. Then during last year's forest fires, four firefighters were killed in Colorado when their van rolled over more than four times.

I have seen repeated pictures of these kinds of tragedies, like the one I have here on the floor, and believe me, one is more than enough. There is nothing new about this danger. In fact, since 1974 schools have been not allowed to purchase new 15-passenger vans; but there is nothing to prevent them from purchasing the same vans once they have been used. This loophole needs to be closed.

The intent of the 1974 law was to not have our kids transported in these dangerous vans whether they were new or used, and I would hope that the gentleman agrees with me about that particular concern.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

I think we both agree that more safety testing needs to be done. There are a couple of tests that these vans do not undergo that other passenger vehicles do. One is the dynamic rollover testing program. Another is the new car assessment program.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the 2 additional minutes.

Another is the new car assessment program, which currently does not include vehicles that carry 10 to 15 passengers. These tests provide crash data, including information about rollovers that consumers ought to have. I hope the gentleman agrees with me about that as well.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim the time, I thank the ranking member for his comments and I look forward to working with him, and I think we both agree that this important legislation should be brought forward to the proper committees and to the full House when the time arrives.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.