Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 259, 110th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 259, 110th Congress, the House adjourned until Tuesday, December 4, 2007, at 2 p.m.

This morning, the Washington Times has a story about the Governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue, praying for rain. The Governor said, and I quote, ``It's time to appeal to Him who can and will make a difference.''

I find that ironic, coming from the Governor of the State of Georgia, a State that has no realistic plan about how it's going to use its water resources, has no understanding of what the demands are for the work that they have in place right now.

The good Lord might say, Sonny, why did you have a huge artificial snow mountain so people can ski in Georgia in the middle of the summer in the middle of a drought?

``I believe in miracles,'' one minister said. Perhaps that would be one solution.

But maybe it's time for people to respect and carefully use what God has given them. The good Lord does help those who help themselves.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I deeply appreciate the work that the subcommittee has done. This is not just about spending money; it's about spending money right.

It is important that resources are being focused to being able to ``fix it first,'' to be able to deal with the fraying of our Nation's infrastructure. As the gentleman pointed out, there are 100 million trips on tens of thousands of substandard bridges across the country.

There is an important step in this legislation to have more robust funding for Amtrak. We have avoided the problems of past sessions where we have come through here to have an ideological battle fought about how somehow the United States should be the only country in the world without government-supported rail passenger service. Given skyrocketing oil prices and congestion in our highways, people understand that that is a prescription for disaster. I appreciate the hard work of the committee coming forward with a proposal to help put a floor underneath the rail passenger infrastructure, not making a difference just for Arizona but throughout the country.

I appreciate looking at the big picture. The committee's willingness to look at how land use, housing, and transportation fit together to coax maximum advantage out of those investments is very, very important.

I hope that we can continue to work with the subcommittee, with the whole Appropriations Committee, with the authorizing committees to be able to get more out of these investments.

Last but not least, it should be pointed out that this will be the last budget that we'll be able to have with the transportation funding at this level. The refusal of the administration to work with us to increase transportation investment in the last Congress resulted in a reauthorization level that is higher than the trust fund can support. We're going to be running out of money here in a couple of months. That means that the task of the subcommittee will be extraordinarily difficult, given the slow payout rate of transportation funding. It means you're going to have to cut probably four times the amount of the deficit this next year, and it's going to be even greater in subsequent years. So I'm hopeful that, working with the subcommittee dealing with appropriations and with Ways and Means, with the authorizers, we can come forward to make sure that we don't lose the opportunity to make the right investments in transportation and housing, because these are going to help us with greenhouse gases. These are going to help us with economic development, with energy efficiency. It's a tall order ahead of us, but I appreciate the foundation that the subcommittee has laid, and look forward to working with them.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I couldn't agree with him more. For 12 years, our Republican friends in Congress looked the other way at this looming tax tsunami that was going to engulf every middle-income family in America with two incomes and raising their kids. They watched as the alternative minimum tax enacted in 1969 to deal with less than 200 people who didn't pay any Federal tax at all morphed into a tax which, next year, if we don't pass legislation like this, is going to subject every middle-income family with two earners with children to the alternative minimum tax, penalizing them, not for tax dodges, but for paying their taxes, for investing in retirement and charitable contributions.

We are dealing with this responsibly. Instead of borrowing the money, we are paying for this tax relief. We are doing it, in part, with a tax reform so that people who drive hedge fund managers to work or answer their phones will no longer be paying tax rates twice what the people who are making, not millions, not tens of millions but, in some cases, hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

This is a choice about priorities. My Republican friends for years have chosen to avoid the alternative minimum tax with a wide array of tax breaks. There are a few that they are talking about that we are perfectly willing to work with and extend that deal with the tax needs of working American families. We will extend them without debate, but the more elaborate, the more expensive, the ones that are concentrated for a few are going to be looked at, like carried interest for hedge fund managers.

We are not going to be held hostage to President Bush who used the alternative minimum tax revenues as a way to disguise the true cost of his tax-cut schemes that have helped increase the deficit and are going to be exploding in the years in the future. They had a chance to adjust it, and they didn't. This is a deliberate decision on the part of the Republicans in Congress for the last 12 years to avoid dealing with the consequences of their tax cut proposals.

In fact, they are the ones who scheduled them so they would be expiring at different times over the next few years, in part because the bond markets would have gone crazy if those would have been made permanent at the time and all the revenue lost, so they disguised it. Now they are paying the consequences for their sleight of hand having them go out into the future.

We are going to be looking at each and every one of them: do we have to have tax breaks for Paris Hilton or Warren Buffett that even Warren Buffett doesn't want because he has made billions, in some cases, on money that wasn't taxed in the first place.

This is an opportunity for Congress to start acting responsibly, making some needed tax reform, and to be able to show the American public that we are going to deal with the problems for tens of millions of Americans, and we are not going to continue to do it on the backs of interest that will be paid by our children for decades to come and special preventions for people who frankly should be paying the same tax rates as the rest of us.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends are shocked, shocked that a tax that they have ignored for 7 years is suddenly going to come into effect. Mr. Neal, Mr. Rangel, and others on our side of the aisle have been claiming this for years. Instead of specious tax cuts for a few, let's deal with the real meaningful problem: they ignored it. The red line that my friend Mr. Ryan had on his chart is the red line that is assumed by the Republican administration to justify their budget.

This proposal is not a tax increase. Over the next 10 years there will be exactly the same amount of money collected by the Federal Government. What is different is that there are three provisions that most Americans would say are modest technical provisions, including adjustments to carried interest rates. In exchange for that we will protect 23 million middle-class families from paying the AMT; provide 30 million homeowners with property tax relief; help 12 million children, by expanding the child tax credit; benefit 11 million families through the State and local tax deduction. That is the difference and that is why you should vote for it.

Madam Speaker, I voted against H.R. 2255, which would create a Federally-backed national catastrophe risk consortium and provide below-market catastrophic loans to State reinsurance and insurance plans.

I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues from Florida to raise awareness about the increasing costs of natural disasters on their constituents and the insurance industry. This is made worse because the number of people who live in harm's way is expanding dramatically; some estimates say that 75 percent of Americans are at risk for some type of disaster. Climate change will only compound the problem with predictions of increased frequency of extreme weather events and rising sea levels.

However, at its core, this legislation continues the trend of disguising the risks associated with living in hazardous areas. The Federal Government is already facing a huge financial liability associated with the impacts of Hurricane Katrina on the National Flood Insurance Program. Yet we have refused to take steps to address the root causes of the problem: more development and more expensive development in harm's way. I am concerned that this bill will increase our liability, without requiring communities to take meaningful steps to reduce their own vulnerability to natural hazards. This bill could potentially dramatically expand Federal liability before we come to grips with the problems of the National Flood Insurance Program and our natural disaster policies. We can't afford to take this leap.

The Federal Government has a special opportunity and responsibility to help communities prepare for and prevent damages from natural disasters. Instead of making it easier to develop in these areas, we should be taking steps to reduce property damage and loss of life, save taxpayer dollars, and protect the environment. Mitigation works: recent studies have shown that 1 dollar spent by FEMA on hazard mitigation saves 4 dollars in future disaster spending.

Until we deal meaningfully with prevention and mitigation, I must oppose this legislation.

Madam Speaker, illegal logging is a scourge of poor countries and rich countries alike. It damages the environment, often very fragile ecosystems, it disrupts the lives of poor, indigenous people. It corrodes their governments through bribery and often violence. Illegal logging also hurts rich countries as our timber and lumber manufacturing industries lose to those who cheat and bribe, over a billion dollars a year in lost sales in the United States.

We can do something about it. Yesterday, the Natural Resources Committee passed out my illegal logging bill to give the tools for the first time, to our government, to do something about it. Later this morning, we can pass the Peru Free Trade Agreement, with not just the strongest environmental protections ever in a trade agreement, but with specific provisions to halt the illegal mahogany harvest in Peru's forests. This can be the most significant Congress ever in the global fight to end illegal logging by passing these bipartisan measures.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of Democratic leadership to fund vital programs like the Veterans Administration and health care for our serving military, I cannot support the FY08 Defense Appropriations bill. This final draft provides too much money for the wrong priorities and enables the administration to continue its tragically misguided Iraq policy.

I made a pledge to vote against any further funding for the Iraq war unless it is used for immediate troop redeployment. I will honor this pledge, and I will continue to fight against funding for major weapons systems that have little to do with current security threats.

Programs like the Future Combat System's fighting vehicles and the National Missile Defense system would be justifiable if the major threat to our security was a modern version of the Soviet Union. It is not. I applaud the Democratic cuts to the funding levels requested by the President, though we must do better.

Continuing to pour billions of dollars into these programs is a waste of money and a threat to our readiness. We must invest in personnel and systems that confront the real and looming threats of terrorists and rogue states.

This bill contains glimmers of hope that we are moving in the right direction on defense spending. But I will not vote for a bill that funds a Cold War-era military and approves any additional funding for the war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from Missouri in saluting the 40th anniversary of Public Broadcasting.

On the floor of the House we're surrounded by controversy on so many issues, but the unique achievement that is our system of public broadcasting really does bring us together.

In those 40 years we've evolved a powerful system with NPR and PBS, through the hundreds of stations around the country, 100 million viewers of public television a week. Many cities around the country especially my own Hometown, Portland, the number one radio station is its public radio station.

We have evolved a national voice that deals with issues of education, of music and public affairs. We've been able to prove empirically that the people who get their news from NPR actually have an identifiable, measurable, more accurate view of what's happening in the world.

Since public broadcasting was established in 1967, the Federal Government has spent trillions of dollars, but there is no investment during those last 40 years that has paid greater dividends for the American people.

Madam Chairman, today I vote in favor of H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) because all Americans deserve to be protected from discrimination in the workplace. As a new legislator, one of the first hearings I attended in Congress was on this very bill and while I am pleased to finally vote on it, I'm sad it took twelve years for this day to come.

I see today's vote as part of our nation's struggle to achieve civil rights--an effort to make our country more equitable, more just, and more fair, so that every child has the opportunity to pursue their dreams in a safe and accepting environment. As I look back on how we have achieved civil rights legislation, I am struck that each accomplishment was both monumental and yet disappointingly incomplete. I am saddened that the gender identity provision did not pass this time around, but remain committed to resolving this inequity in the future.

I appreciate the advocates in my district, and across the country, who have worked tirelessly to bring about today's successful passage of ENDA. I am confident we will continue these efforts to keep these issues at the forefront of our agenda. Together, we can put an end to the ugliness of intolerance and bigotry.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I have dedicated over 30 years to environmental efforts. As a Member of this Congress, I successfully fought to enhance environmental provisions in the Singapore Free Trade Agreement. I have carried these arguments and opportunities in China, Indonesia and Vietnam. I didn't support CAFTA because President Bush and the partisan Republican leadership abandoned efforts to work in a bipartisan fashion and rebuffed our efforts at environmental protection.

I can't express my appreciation to our chairman, Mr. Rangel, and to the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Levin, for empowering members to work with the environmental community to make sure that their voices were heard. And we have been able to enshrine in this agreement enforceable, multilateral environmental agreements in the FTA for the first time in history. Absolutely unprecedented.

We have already been able to use the force of these agreements to clarify the protections of threatened Peruvian forest wilderness using the leverage we have already got even before it was enacted. This is not remotely NAFTA. We have all learned from that experience. It is not CAFTA, which I didn't support. We have given the critics what they said they wanted within labor protection and within the environment.

I urge in the strongest possible terms that we vote a new beginning in trade. Adopting these stringent labor and environmental protections in the agreement will serve as a foundation for United States trade policy from this point forward, and I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in recognizing me and in working with us.

For over 60 years, Oregonians have provided a benefit to our returning veterans of home loans that were below market rate to be able to help them reestablish themselves in the community and as a small gesture of our appreciation for their sacrifice. Unfortunately, with the recent flood of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, we found that that program has been stretched to the limit and we were faced with denying them access.

Working with Mr. Neal, Chairman Rangel, the committee and subcommittee, we were able to make an important adjustment, a 400 percent increase in the loan cap, so that we will be able to fully meet the needs of returning Oregon veterans, and along the way it will help people in Alaska, Wisconsin, Texas, and California. In this time of uncertainty in the housing market, giving these important loans to our veterans is an important gesture. I appreciate the work that the committee has done to make this a reality.

My good friend from Texas, if he would have bothered to talk to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, who was seated on the floor next to him, would have known that there is a trade bill coming to the floor, passed unanimously, 39-0, that is a reflection of what we were sent here to do, which was to redefine, redirect these policies so that they were win-wins, so that they benefited the economy, not at the expense of working men and women, not at the expense of the environment. And the legislation we have before us here today is an extension of that strategy.

There is a clash of philosophies that you are going to hear in the next hour.

We have included a greater scope, including services, as you have talked about. The notion is to expand and enhance, to deal with people who are disadvantaged, in some cases harmed, because of global impacts beyond their control. Our Republican friends would propose to redirect and reduce.

We put more money for more employees with issues of health care. Their proposal, if you look at it carefully, is doing it on the cheap, perhaps with contract employees, capping training assistance at $8,000 over 2 years. Just because you call it a scholarship doesn't mean that it's not going to be a cut for over 25 percent of the workers on the current program in States like Pennsylvania. Even in Nebraska, 80 percent are going to see a 25 percent reduction because they already benefit from more expensive programs.

I hope that as a result of the debate today where people look behind the premises of our friends on the other side of the aisle, the program here, there will be an opportunity to make a judgment about what is the approach. Ultimately I hope we unite behind the approach in the bill before us, and I urge its adoption.

Our hearts go out to the almost million people forced to flee their homes from wildfires in Southern California. At the same time a drought has gripped North Carolina and Georgia which in the long run may be end up being as devastating.

These disasters are almost unimaginable, except we've been there before, like in Southern California in 2003. And two-thirds of the new development in the last 10 years in Southern California has been in areas we know are subject to wildfire. What are we going to do about it?

The administration's refusal to deal meaningfully with global warming is the most glaring example of behaviors that doom us to reruns for years to come. Georgia has no real plan to deal with its water and doesn't even know what supplies it can count upon. Here in Congress, we fail to prioritize the right infrastructure and give billions of dollars for relief after a disaster and won't spend millions to invest in programs to protect before it happens.

I hope and pray that the message sinks in and that we use this disaster as a wake-up call to get our act together to help people before these things happen to save both lives and money in the future.

Mr. Speaker, last week we observed the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, and it was an important observation here on the floor as we dealt with the impact that that new law had, the heightened awareness and the progress that resulted. Back in 1972 when the law was enacted, only one-third of our waterways met water quality standards. Two-thirds did not. In the course of that 35 years, we have reversed that: Now there are only one-third that don't meet the goal. But the fact is that there still is one-third that are not in compliance with our basic water quality standards.

When we look under the ground, the situation is even worse. There are over 72,000 miles of sewer pipe and water main that are over 80 years old. It is one of the reason large sink holes open up and swallow trucks in American streets, why the American Society of Civil Engineers has given our water infrastructure a D-minus grade.

All of this is compounded by the stress from global warming, as we see not just the ice caps shrink but the snow pack being reduced, we watch evaporation being accelerated as a result of the elevated temperatures, and we see that thirsty crops need more water because of the global warming. Agriculture of course is 90 percent of our water commitment.

Now, there is going to be more friction, more problems over time with Water and Agriculture. We have some of our programs that have been enacted that are just plain silly. We continue to grow heavily subsidized cotton with subsidized water in the desert, something that long since should have been phased out. The New York Times Magazine this weekend featured the Southwest United States water problems, especially centered on the Colorado River and the demands that are rising there. But this tremendous problem is not limited to the southwest. On the front page of this morning's paper we see the Georgia delegation in Congress is suggesting that they deal with their severe drought and water supply problems by ignoring the environmental regulations of the Endangered Species Act, upsetting not just environmentalists but their friends downstream. It is a problem we are familiar with in the Pacific Northwest, where we have a severely water stressed Klamath River Basin, where the Federal Government as in most all instances has been part of the problem as we promise more water to more diverse users than nature can deliver.

It is time for us to revisit, not just the celebration of the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, but revisit our commitment that is embodied in that Act and where we are going over the next 35 years.

It is important that we deal with very real problems of environmental quality requirements to save fish and wildlife and protect eco systems and, indeed, human life. We are watching the problems of diminishing supplies as we mine fossilized water in ancient underground aquifers. Global warming of course is going to make all of these problems more complex, more severe, and harder to solve.

Every Member of Congress needs to do more than just celebrate the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. I would hope that, in the months ahead, every one of us does an assessment at home to find out how bad the situation is with our local water supply, storm water, sewage, and drainage. Are we one of the over 1,000 communities with combined sewer overflow problems? How is it going to be paid for? What is the planning that needs to take place? Every one of us should be insisting that we shift to basinwide framework for analyzing and solving water problems, not just looking at isolated instances.

It is time for us to be serious about a funding solution. In 1978, the Federal Government provided 78 percent of the funding for our water quality problems. Today, that is just 3 percent. Even that 3 percent is as uncertain, as it is inadequate. It is time to establish a water trust fund, like the Highway Trust Fund, to help be a partner with State and local communities in meeting water quality needs. Finally, we need to begin addressing the ultimate question of who is going to get the water

and why, beyond just some historic accident and water rights policy no longer adequate for today's challenges.

I strongly urge my friends in Congress to reflect on the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act by getting serious today with our constituents at home about what we are going to do for the next 35 years of clean water.