Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Tanner, for bringing this forward. It's important not just for what you're doing, but for what this represents, to be able to get the debate going here on the floor and to expand it.

This resolution represents the lowest common denominator, I think, but it's important for us to expand it, to deal with budget accountability. I personally don't want to have one more dime for waging war but, rather, move it forward in terms of securing the peace.

I want to stop the open-ended commitment, hopefully revisiting the terms of the authority, move legislation to deal with the poor souls who are trapped in Iraq, refugees who relied on the United States and we've turned our back on them. Let's have some added accountability for the outsourcing of the war through private contractors, and certainly stop the drumbeat of war for Iran. I hope this will be the first of many debates on specifics every week, hopefully every day.

I appreciate, Mr. Skelton, what you have done. There is no one who cares more deeply about our troops. There is nobody who has tried to sound the alarm about these disastrous policies. I hope we can work with you to expand this debate, to increase the accountability so that ultimately we achieve peace in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to join with my colleague, Representative Phil English, to introduce the American Family Farm and Ranch Protection Act,'' which will help conserve and protect our nation's vital lands, farms, and ranches.

The voluntary placement of a conservation easement on private land is a very effective and successful tool for protecting and conserving our Nation's open spaces and sensitive lands.

In 1997, in order to encourage the conservation of sensitive lands and farms, Congress enacted an estate tax exclusion for land placed under a conservation easement. Unfortunately, the original bill capped the exclusion at $500,000. Our bill would update and increase this estate tax exclusion to $5 million.

Given the significant rise in land values over the past decade, the increased exclusion provides a meaningful and in many cases necessary increase in the estate tax incentive as a way to encourage and allow individuals to place conservation easements on their land.

Our Nation's family farmers, whose most significant asset is often their land, provide a glaring example of why this legislation is needed. When the owner of the farm dies, surviving family members are often forced to sell all or a significant portion of the farm just to pay the estate tax bill. This legislation would help ensure that families are not forced to sell the farm and that their land resources are available for agricultural use by future generations.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and permitting me to speak, and for the hard work he and his committee have invested in this.

Mr. Chairman, the area of flood insurance is one that I have been focusing on over the last half dozen years. I was pleased to work with our former colleague, Doug Bereuter, with Chairman Frank and with then- Chairman Oxley on some serious flood insurance reform that predated the most recent disaster with Katrina. During that time, I had a chance to learn a lot about opportunities that the Federal Government has to alter its programs and policies to reduce this long-term exposure, and to think about the redesign of the partnership between the private sector, the State and local governments.

While I appreciate my friend from Mississippi's tenacity in zeroing in on an area of very serious problem dealing with wind damage, and he has documented in great detail the almost impossible situation that many of his constituents and others in the Hurricane Katrina area have faced, I am trying to keep an open mind in terms of how far we go along the lines in terms of expanding it to add wind damage.

I don't think that we have seen the end of this process. I am looking forward to working with my colleague on the legislative process as it moves along. I am deeply concerned that we haven't come to grips with the financing of our flood insurance program. We are looking at upwards of $20 billion, and we are slowly having some actuarial balance added to these programs; but, it still lags. Not only is there a problem of not having actuarial balance to be able to provide the sums that are necessary to maintain this as a self-supporting program, because as it stands now, that is going to be a stretch. It is going to take a long time without serious incident for us to get there.

I am also concerned that we need to do a better job of making sure that the Federal Government and State and local governments aren't putting more people in harm's way. In too many areas we have seen that there has been,

shall we say, reluctance on the part of local authorities and State authorities to be rigorous in making sure that we are not pouring large sums of public investment in areas where it is encouraging people to locate in places where we know there is going to be damage over time.

Last but not least, later in this debate we will be talking about working with FEMA to make some adjustments to take into account global warming, climate change and rising sea levels, because this is an area that is going to compound lax local land use controls and unsteady development processes that is going to end up creating a disaster out of our disaster relief.

I can't say enough about how much I appreciate the committee's willingness to be involved in an area that some think is esoteric, that is sort of mundane, that is sort of too detailed and unexciting. But it is precisely that sort of attention that is going to make us have a stronger program that is going to meet the needs of people and is going to do so in a way that actually helps keep people out of harm's way, which ought to be our ultimate objective.

We ought to make sure that all of these forces save money, save lives and protects the environment. I think this legislation moves in that direction. I look forward to working with the committee as this legislation works its way through the legislative process to better achieve that goal.

Mr. Chairman, I am actually encouraged by some of the common expression that is here. I share some of my friend from Georgia's reservations about where we are getting into with wind coverage. The chairman is right when he noted the focus on restrictions for flood insurance to reduce the problems you are talking about is in the underlying bill. What my good friend from Florida is offering is if you are going to be in this area dealing with wind peril that there is a requirement to discourage elements in the land uses that will not make it worse.

So you are both on the same side. You may want to go further with the wind peril. I am open to that. We are not done with this legislation yet. There are unanswered questions. I agree with you. But in the meantime, acknowledging what the committee has done to narrow the scope with flood insurance peril, which is, I think, extraordinarily positive, and the gentlewoman is speaking out for solid land use, having the natural barriers protected, that will save all of us money.

I am optimistic. If we can talk this through, there are enough elements here that will be good for the environment, good for the taxpayer, and under the leadership of Chairman Frank, I am convinced we can get there before we're done.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am, in fact, encouraged with some of the discussion that is here today. If we sort of cut through some of the areas where people are cranky, as I understand it, I think we are looking at some broad areas of agreement that, at the end of the day, we are going to have a stronger flood insurance program that will be able to answer some

of these questions. I have an amendment that I think will further strengthen this because, as we learned during Katrina, there is more work to be done to make sure that the flood insurance program is able to fulfill its mission of providing flood insurance and helping communities reduce that flood risk.

Now, I am pleased that the underlying legislation makes some very important reforms to the program that I have been involved with for the last 6 years.

What I propose in this amendment is an adjustment to the legislation to help ensure that FEMA is better prepared for current and future risks and that people have the information that they need to reduce their own risk. The amendment simply requires FEMA to take into consideration the impacts of global warming, current and future, when updating and maintaining flood insurance program rate maps.

The flood insurance maps are significantly outdated; over 75 percent of them are at least 10 years old. Not only are they outdated, but they estimate risk by extrapolating solely from historic loss, as my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) pointed out earlier.

Unfortunately, it looks like the future will bring new weather patterns. A recent report from the Intergovernmental Commission on Climate Change, the leading group of climate scientists from around the world, indicated that, with climate change, future hurricanes will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and heavier precipitation. Changes in snow pack and sea level rise will also have a significant impact on flood risk. These impacts are not currently considered in the floodplain map modernization effort.

My amendment will improve upon this mapping program by ensuring that FEMA is prepared to improve the mapping accuracy. It will require the Director to take into consideration the impacts of global warming on flood, storm and drought risk; and take into consideration the potential future impacts of local climate change, weather-related events; and use the best available climate science in assessing flood risks and updating FEMA maps.

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

Excellent question. Around the world, scientists are a part of this consensus, and we are refining tools. One of the problems with this administration is they've been trying to stifle, as you know, scientists within the administration speaking out on this, and we have undercut investment in these resources.

The fact is that there is better information now for climate change. I have no problem whatsoever of our being able to invest to increase it further, but there is a global scientific consensus, there is investment in NASA, there are already resources within the Federal Government. They are not currently used now by FEMA, the stuff that we've got now, let alone what we're going to have in the future.

As my friend, Mr. Baker, pointed out when he was arguing a few moments ago, they use a different pattern, a different model right now. What we're doing with this legislation is we are requiring them to change the model, use the information that's available right now by the Federal Government, hopefully the Bush administration won't try and stifle it, and use that for forecasting current and prospective. Right now they don't do it in their modeling, and there's no reason why they can't. This legislation would require it.

What we're saying now is that we are in a world that everybody else acknowledges is rapidly changing. It looks like climate change, global warming is a reality, and just using straight-line extrapolation for FEMA to determine 100-year flood plains or 500-year floodplains doesn't work because it is changing much more rapidly than past patterns would expect.

So we ought to use the best available science here and around the world to look at what's likely to happen in the future. FEMA doesn't currently do that. They look at flat-line projections of past activity, not looking at using the best available science for what's going to happen in the future.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Let me just take 30 seconds here.

This is something that isn't unknown. GAO found that 11 out of 11 insurance companies that they surveyed already incorporate this into their risk models. FEMA can do this using the private sector, and it can use government data that the Bush administration has been suppressing now in other areas, open it up, let these climate scientists that work in other parts of the government advise FEMA, or contract with the private sector. It's not hard to find the information.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I understand the reticence that my good friend from Georgia would have giving the current administration of FEMA more tools. I'm sorry he's beating up on the administration, but I understand it. They haven't shown that they're very adept. But think of this as longer-term legislation. There will be a new administration; there will be professionals who are there. The point is that, whoever is there, they need to use the most up-to-date, modern information to think about what's going on in the future.

The science is already available in parts of the Federal Government right now that could be used. The information is available that the private sector is already using. All this amendment says, notwithstanding that I share your concern about who's running it now, but that will change, I guarantee you, that when it changes, and even until it changes, we can give them a mandate to look at the bigger picture and factor climate change in. And I am open to working with the gentleman in terms of whether it's contracted, or it's Federal information, or it's from other international sources. The point is they currently do not do it; we haven't instructed them to do it. This is one thing we can't blame on the inept FEMA administration; it's something that Congress needs to change. And with your help, we can approve this amendment, we'll change their marching orders, we will have the big picture, and it's one of these things we can agree on, work on together, and we will all be better off.

I urge approval of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, As a result of Republican obstructionism and the President's threats to veto our Democratic Congress' new investments in health, the environment and infrastructure, Congress is being forced to pass a resolution to keep the government operating beyond next week's end of the fiscal year. Unfortunately, this bill included money to continue funding the war in Iraq. I have pledged: ``not another dime for the war,'' and voted ``no.'' I will continue to vote against any appropriations bill that continues military operations in Iraq.

At the same time, the motion to condemn Moveon.org was both irrelevant and hypocritical. It was irrelevant in that it had nothing to do with the underlying bill and hypocritical because the Republicans have tolerated, and in some cases encouraged, some of the most savage Swift-boating of candidates and individuals without ever raising a voice in protest.

People have deep concerns about this administration and they have the right to question the testimony General Petraeus gave before Congress. The twisted factual basis for some of his statements, which charitably can only be deemed convoluted, has been made clear in numerous independent press accounts. I voted ``no,'' choosing not to be a part of the irrelevance and hypocrisy.

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleagues' concern about the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran, so it is with regret that I must vote against this bill. Similarly to other bills that purported to sanction Iran and which I voted against, this legislation doesn't provide additional tools for diplomacy. Rather it limits the President's flexibility to use sanctions as a tool to deal with the Iranian challenge. However, by focusing the sanctions within it on third-parties such as Russia and Australia, this bill would make it more difficult to maintain the united international diplomatic front that is critical to resolving the Iranian situation peacefully.

We need to craft a new framework for relations with Iran; one that advances our interests and values through engagement and support for the Iranian people. I believe it is more important than ever for forceful U.S. diplomatic re-engagement to support peace, democracy, and a more secure regional dynamic. We must also undertake the difficult, yet critical, task of engaging directly and honestly with Iran, despite its often destructive and destabilizing role. The lack of a serious diplomatic relationship strengthens those who seek chaos and isolation, while leaving the U.S. with fewer levers of influence and more blind spots than we can afford.

Faced with the prospect of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, President John F. Kennedy said, ``Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.'' For the United States and our friends in the Middle East, the prospect of continued terror, violence, and instability is too dire to do otherwise.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

I urge my colleagues to invest in our children's health by approving this bipartisan legislation.

It amazes me that the President of the United States can support testing our children in school repeatedly under No Child Left Behind, but doesn't think we should test them for hepatitis, let alone vaccinate them against the disease.

The President claims that everybody already has access to health care through the emergency room. This is not only callous; it's a terrible way to get health care and it is factually wrong. Every family does not have access.

Now, there are no surprises here in this legislation. No matter how often the President or some of his apologists here on the Republican side of the aisle say it, this is not a giveaway to the middle class; it's not socialized medicine. That's why 86 percent of our Governors, including 16 Republican Governors, support this legislation and are looking, actually, to use it to increase the number of vulnerable families who receive health care.

How can some claim that ours is the best health care system in the world when it is inaccessible to 10 million of our most vulnerable citizens, our children of working class families, none of whom can afford their own health care?

I urge my colleagues to take a stand, join this bipartisan consensus, vote to extend the program, and resist the President's veto.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce, along with my colleague Representative Vern Ehlers, the ``Higher Education Sustainability Act of 2007.'' This legislation authorizes funding for sustainability programs in American colleges and universities to develop, implement, and evaluate economic, environmental, and social sustainability programs. The legislation also directs the Secretary of Education to convene a summit of higher education experts to showcase best practices in the field of sustainability.

Hundreds of U.S. cities and companies as well as international agencies, including the United Nations and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, are advancing sustainable practices in all arenas. As population growth, urban development and extreme weather incidents place greater stress on ecosystems around the globe; the need for developing innovative approaches to sustainable development becomes critical to our economic competitiveness, environmental health, and the strength of our communities.

The ``Higher Education Sustainability Act'' would facilitate the development of programs that keep American students on the cutting edge of technology and global competition while benefiting our communities. The legislation also provides funds to establish rigorous benchmarks for evaluating programs, ensuring that sustainability graduates meet industry standards for best practices. With the threat of global warming looming larger every day, we must invest now in the research and human capital needed to address its impacts and sustain our economy and our communities.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce, along with my colleague Frank Pallone, the ``Superfund Reinvestment Act,'' which would reauthorize the corporate taxes that fund the Superfund trust fund. This bill will reestablish the polluter pays principle and our commitment to cleaning up the Nation's most hazardous sites.

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund program was created in 1980 to provide money to clean up the Nation's worst hazardous waste sites where the party responsible for polluting was out of business or could not be identified. Before they expired in 1995, the money for the Superfund trust fund came mainly from taxes on the polluters themselves. The program has contributed to the cleanup of over 1,000 sites around the country. Because Congress has not reauthorized the taxes, the burden of funding cleanups of toxic waste sites now falls on the shoulders of taxpaying Americans. Reauthorizing the Superfund tax would ensure that polluters--not the American public--pay to restore public health.

Superfund sites contain toxic contaminants that have been detected in drinking water wells, creeks and rivers, backyards, playgrounds, and streets. Communities impacted by these sites can face restrictions on water use, gardening and recreational activities as well as economic losses as property values decline due to contaminated land. In the worst cases, families are at risk of health problems such as cardiac impacts, infertility, low birth weight, birth defects, leukemia, and respiratory difficulties.

Until they expired in 1995, the Superfund taxes generated around $1.7 billion a year to clean up these hazardous areas. The ``Superfund Reinvestment Act'' would simply reinstate the taxes as they were before they expired. This will provide a stable source of funding to continue cleaning up sites around the country as well as give the EPA the tools it needs to clean up sites and then recover the costs from liable parties who do not undertake the work themselves.

I urge my colleagues to join me in working to strengthen the Superfund program and ensure that it continues to help keep our communities and our families safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, as we have been greeted with a torrent of depressing news about Iraq, more violence, there is debate here about whether or not it is progress that the President plans to have the same troop level next summer that we had before the surge.

There is no good way out. Keep the troops there and have bloodshed; have them leave and have bloodshed. But there is one thing that every Member of Congress ought to be able to agree upon, no matter what their position on the war in Iraq: That we have a moral and practical responsibility to step up and help those Iraqis who have put their life at risk because they help Americans as guides, as translators. As Ambassador Ryan Crocker pointed out this last week, it is time for us to step up and help these people.

The Department of Homeland Security needs to have more people processing applications for those that are trying to escape the worst humanitarian crisis in the world other than Darfur. Don't make them leave Iraq for Syria or Jordan to apply when we have the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad. Support our comprehensive bipartisan legislation, H.R. 2265, to help meet that responsibility.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill and appreciate her leadership, and particularly emphasizing the fact that the minority has the opportunity for a substitute to be offered up. So the House will have an opportunity to weigh the different approaches to determine what is truly in the best interests of American homeowners.

I welcome this legislation today. I support the rule, and I support the underlying legislation. But I hope that this will be just the start of on-going progress for dealing with what is truly a housing crisis that is enveloping this country.

While it's pleasant to read now that Alan Greenspan, as he's attempting to protect his role in history, now agrees that there were probably some mistakes that were made, not yet acknowledging the failure on the part of the Fed to step forward and deal meaningfully, using the powers that they had in the housing market. Today we see the consequences of that failure, of this Congress, a failure of being able to meaningfully deal with the protection of American homeowners.

Foreclosures are mounting by the day, but we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg, because literally tens of thousands of people every week are going to be facing a situation where adjustable rate mortgages in the months ahead are going to be exploding in much higher rates, where people are going to be paying $200, $300, $400, $500 a month, or more, higher and be trapped into these unfair subprime loans. Where there is a clear pattern of abuse of lower income, less sophisticated buyers, it's time for us to put on the table more comprehensive approaches.

Isn't it time to reconsider the draconian bankruptcy legislation that this House passed a few years ago? Maybe it is time to treat the homeowner, dealing with the most valuable asset most families have, their home, the same way that a business person who speculated in purchasing homes for investment purposes would be treated in bankruptcy. The speculative business person can readjust mortgage terms; they can negotiate interest rates in the amount of the loan. That is denied to homeowners.

Maybe it's time to consider some consumer protections. If you buy a $40 toaster that explodes, there is a Federal agency that will protect you. But if you buy a financial instrument that has a one-in-four chance of exploding in the face of the buyer, putting at risk their number one asset, there isn't any similar protections.

While I appreciate the legislation that's coming forward, I am hopeful that it is just the beginning of dealing with this ongoing problem.

Mr. Speaker, today I join every American in remembering September 11 and the victims who so tragically lost their lives in an unspeakable act of violence. We all grieve with the families they left behind and are deeply grateful for the rescue workers and ordinary citizens that displayed extraordinary humanity and bravery.

We owe it to them to make our Nation and the world safer.

The new Democratic majority in Congress is bringing about effective change in the way our Nation confronts the threat of terror. The recent passage into law of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations was an important, though overdue, step to making our homeland more secure.

But those who lost their lives or put themselves in harm's way on 9/ 11 deserve more. The administration's ill-advised war in Iraq undermines a significant opportunity to bring Osama bin Laden and the real perpetrators to justice. It is my hope that we as a Congress will work together to reverse this course and refocus our efforts. We still have much work to do to recover from this tragedy, to protect our liberty, and to regain our credibility and stature in the eyes of the world.

Mr. Speaker, today I voted in support of the Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007, which mandates a minimum period of rest and recuperation for units and members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces between deployments to Iraq.

At a time when our generals warn that the Army is at a breaking point, this is an important stand in support of troop readiness and keeping faith with our military families. It is also another step forward in forcing the responsible drawdown of our troops from Iraq and ending the war. I believe we must bring our troops home as quickly as possible and work to stabilize Iraq through political and diplomatic efforts. I will continue to support any legislation that moves us closer to the end of this national nightmare.

Mr. Speaker, for years I've been fighting to eliminate a perverse provision in the tax code that actually provided an incentive, a tax break for purchasing the largest, most expensive gas guzzlers, luxury cars weighing over 6,000 pounds. This perverse incentive, hence, the nickname, the ``Hummer Loophole,'' has resisted action for change and has retained its position.

This year, we have, in fact, taken action, not just to close the Hummer Loophole, but to extend benefits to lighter, more fuel-efficient cars and vans for business, while we use some of the savings to create a tax benefit for plug-in hybrids.

Trading Hummers for hybrids. Another important reason to vote for the renewable energy and conservation tax package coming forward today to help us meet the most serious environmental, economic and national security challenges, help us fight global warming, and promote energy efficiency.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us today is a relatively simple and very direct effort. It is an attempt to provide incentives for the gas industry to be able to conserve natural gas. Unfortunately, the way that it is regulated in 40 States around the country, actually there is a perverse incentive that they make more money the more gas they sell and they are penalized if they conserve.

There are 10 States that have different initiatives to try to decouple the volume from profit. There are efforts here, which I am pleased to say were pioneered in my State of Oregon with our local utility Northwest Natural, to have a conservation-based tariff or mechanism for utility regulation.

This legislation, which is supported by the American Gas Association and by the environmental community, is to encourage development of utility regulation that doesn't penalize conservation but encourages it. It is not a mandate and it does not carry any costs but has the potential of saving American consumers billions of dollars and a great deal of energy, and I strongly urge its acceptance.

I would be honored to yield to my friend from Virginia.

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

I will just conclude. I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania's observation. The point that I would make is that the companies that are distributing gas have tremendous fixed costs that they have to support regardless of the volume. This simply encourages them to be able to explore other alternatives for rate regulation. The cheapest gas supply is the Therm that's not used. I just don't want the regulatory system to penalize them for conservation. I appreciate his comments, I appreciate his acceptance, and I look forward to more conversation about ways that we can help move this along.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

I'm happy to yield to my friend and I'm happy to clarify that the intent of this amendment is not to increase or decrease; it's to avoid the disincentive to conserve. It's simple, and that's why I appreciate your accepting it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment. I could not disagree more with my good friend from Oklahoma. This is not a one-size-fits-all. Indeed, this has been recalibrated to be able to make it more flexible, reduce the standard, and give more flexibility in ways to achieve it. There is no State that does not have opportunities for renewable energy.

The ranking member suggests that it doesn't go far enough. Well, I would suggest that part of the reason that some of the exemptions have been made for co-ops and whatnot is to recognize the differences and to make it actually easier politically.

I will guarantee you that within the next 3 or 4 years after we adopt this we will be coming back, because the public will be demanding that more happen. That is why States are already ahead of the Federal Government and are adopting portfolio standards that are higher than we have.

People recognize that that is a source of new jobs in Oklahoma and in Florida. It is a new source of jobs in my State of Oregon. There is a new plant in Arkansas. There are tremendous opportunities. That is why, when people from coast to coast have an opportunity to vote on establishing them, these have been overwhelmingly approved, as I hope we overwhelmingly approve this today.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from Oregon and colleague's concerns, and as we have talked, I think his point is well taken in terms of the definition of biomass. I have indicated to the gentleman that I would be willing to work with him to make sure that this modest adjustment is made. I don't think there is any intent, and I look forward to working with him to make sure that that is solved.